Severino Giner Guerri

Saint Joseph Calasanz

Teacher and founder

New critical biography

www.edicionescalasancias.org

73

To my Piarist students,

the continuators of the work

of St. Joseph Calasanz,

and to the memory of

Fr. Bau and Fr. J. Poch,

teachers and friends.

Saint Joseph Calasanz. Teacher and founder. New critical biography

Author: Severino Giner Guerri

Publicaciones ICCE

(Instituto Calasanz de Ciencias de la Educación)

Conde de Vilches, 4 - 28028 Madrid

www.icce.es

Translated by F. Antonio Marco Moreno

Copyright is reserved.

Reproduction, publication and distribution, whether total or partial, of all the original material contained in this book is expressly forbidden unless written authorization has been given.

For further information contact: www.icce.es

Saint Joseph Calasanz

Teacher and founder

New critical biography

Prologue

The last half century has been very fruitful for Piarist publications. The impetus given to Calasanzian studies by the research carried out by Father Calasanz Bau, published in 1949, and the edition of the “Epistolario Calasanziano” by Father Leodegario Picanyol, contributed directly to the emergence of these studies.

Although these works referred to Calasanz and his work, the Pious Schools focused largely on the figure of the Founder, especially when the Second Vatican Council called for a return to their own charism and to the original sources of the various Orders and congregations. The figure of the Founder came under particular scrutiny in all religious congregations. This demand of the Council had already fallen on fertile ground in the Pious Schools, which had been working on it for about fifteen years. However, the Council’s renewed impetus encouraged interest in this type of study. Most of them focused on the figure of the Founder and his charism, as requested by the Council. And in all these studies, a distinct and rich personality was discovered in Calasanz, with some unsuspected facets that even the specialists in his biography became more and more enthusiastic about.

His personality became rich, profound and multifaceted at the same time. Characterological and even graphological studies confirmed the conclusions of historians. But most striking was the visionary component of this man born in the Renaissance, son of the Catholic reform, who turned to the new world, illuminated in its scientific aspect by Galileo and in its philosophical aspect by Campanella. He saw an unlimited horizon of gigantic proportions and almost infinite possibilities. His tendency to push the boundaries of what was not then considered orthodox gave him a sense of the avant-garde that contrasted with his devotion to service to others, his focus on the organizations already established and blessed by the Church, and his unshakable faith in the Church and its supreme shepherd.

His determination to bring culture to all people, especially the masses, was undoubtedly the additional cause of his ultimate unhappiness. Without this obvious resistance to the world of constituted power, all the other difficulties of the last decade of his life would have dissolved like sugar cubes. But when someone even remotely touches the fabric of society, with even remote signs of destabilization, they can begin to fortify their positions and replenish their war materials. The saints have plenty of fortifications and ammunition. That is why Calasanz went into battle with a clear vision of the future, with an unwavering love for the learner, especially the poor, and with a baggage of Christian virtues that were not at all common. He was defeated by those who possessed the power of the law -their law-, of votes and of all the levers of power and influence; but the saints smile benevolently even before the highest authorities: in the end, the one who wins the final battle will be God himself and his Church. And so it happened with Calasanz. The death of his work lasted a decade, and the ecclesiastical authority that had ruined his work was the one who restored it. And in the end, Calasanz succeeded in his vision of a more democratic and civilized society.

This exuberant personality did not quite fit in with the published works. There is still a lot to discover. I believe that Calasanz’ personality will only be fully understood after a long time and much study. Perhaps the Piarists of the next century will have something to say about it after the peak of the 2000s.

In any case, such diverse aspects of his biography as his family genealogy, his studies and his diocesan apostolate in Spain, his charitable apostolate and his school apostolate in Rome, his path of asceticism and mysticism, his government, his struggle for the right of every human being to education and his proven and recognized virtue provide ample material, considering also his long life and his total dedication to his ideals.

All these aspects of his personality are contained in this book.

Properly constructing the biography of St. Joseph Calasanz proves to be a historical undertaking. From the ‘Breve Notizia’ of 1648 to this one of 1991, no less than eighty biographies of St. Joseph Calasanz have been written. Some of them have survived as manuscripts; most have seen the light of day in various forms, in different languages, in prose and verse, popular and scholarly. With a few exceptions, Calasanz’ biography has maintained a certain commendable dignity over the centuries. It is also normal that biographies of a popular nature have prevailed. Without the pressure of Calasanzian charisma and in the face of Piarist historical professionalism, most biographies might have taken the path of research rather than vulgarization. But the almost exclusive attention to the Christian student has necessitated the choice of a level more appropriate to the raw material processed by the Piarist.

The path followed by the research biographies has fewer stages than that of divulging character. It begins in 1710 with the biography written by Father Alexis Armini, continues with that of Father Vincent Talenti in 1753 and ends with that of Father Calasanz Bau in 1949.

Severino Giner’s work is part of this line of research and surpasses all previous biographies for several reasons. Firstly, it is the most recent and the one that provides the most accurate documentation, even if this is no particular merit of the author. The same could be said of Armini, Talenti and Bau at their respective times. Second, because Giner has read every known archival document and every relevant publication and subjected them to serious criticism, applying a rigorous comparative method, which none of his predecessors did. Thirdly, because the new critical biography always quotes the sources, tries to resolve apparent contradictions and conveniently explains certain contradictory situations. This, too, was not always done in the past.

This work not only follows a line of research, but definitively confirms its author as one of the most important biographers of St. Joseph Calasanz. The entire literary production surrounding Calasanz, which was taken up in the critical biography of Fr. Calasanz Bau from 1949, has been examined and evaluated in this new critical biography. This was the most fruitful period of Calasanz studies, almost all of which have appeared in monographs, some of which are difficult to surpass. On the other hand, the greater amount of information results in a voluminous page count that surpasses all other biographies. The author does not avoid any of the difficult problems that Calasanz’ biography faces. It is not only the material scope of the work, but also the thematic expansion that makes him an important biographer. Finally, his critical and globalizing approach gives this work a solidity and a form of completion that cannot be found in any other type of work.

With this masterpiece, Giner also continues the saga of the Valencian Piarist historians. He continues on the path taken by Fernando Garrigós, Andrés Clemente, Calasanz Rabaza and Calasanz Bau, all of them important historians of the Pious Schools and their Founder.

But even the author himself is not entirely satisfied. Giner is convinced that this is a big step, but not the last one. That the investigation must be continued and that the matter does not end here. After almost three and a half centuries, we cannot yet conclude Calasanz’ biography. Of course, it is not a question of denying future interpretations, an open field and a free wind that blows where and when it wants. It is a matter of establishing fundamental data which, because they are elementary, cannot be overlooked. Giner’s work is a work of purification, of argumentative refinement, of enormous and protracted sacrifice and personal commitment, but it continues on the path of the enterprise to be accomplished. Despite the giant leap that Calasanzian studies has made since the advance of Bau and the illusion he created, it is becoming clearer every day that only this line of research has a secure future. Giner’s work demonstrates the ‘status quaestionis’, that is, it defines the boundaries between what is done and what should be done, between what is certain and what is doubtful, between what is valued and what is scrutinized, between what is acquired and what is desirable. Calasanz’ biography is not yet complete. But through this new critical biography we already know what has been done and consolidated and how much remains to be done.

La Llosa, August 25, 1991.

Vicente Faubell Zapata Sch. P.

Former Dean of the Faculty of Education

Pontifical University of Salamanca

Introduction

It was not my intention to offer this biographical work as a commemorative tribute to an important date, as Father Calasanz Bau rightly did with his great Critical Biography of St. Joseph Calasanz (1949) on the occasion of the centenary of the saint’s death and beatification (1648 and 1748). Nor could it have been, because when I began writing it in March 1987, I did not know what year it would be published.

Unexpectedly, the date of publication is 1992, a date already commonly commemorated as the fifth anniversary of the discovery and evangelization of America. But although the Piarists are present and active in 14 American nations with a total of 61 houses, their arrival in the New World dates back to the middle of the last century.

However, if five centuries ago Columbus’ Spanish caravels opened up a new continent for education and evangelization to the Old World and the Church, exactly a century later, in 1592, Joseph Calasanz left Spain in another anonymous caravel - this time with the bow facing east - for Rome and before the end of the century laid the foundations for the first free elementary school, with which he contributed - beyond the limited confines of his own institution of the Pious Schools - to a greater culture and evangelization of the Old Continent.

The year 1592 is therefore a decisive date in the life of Calasanz. It deserves, if not a solemn commemoration on the fourth anniversary, at least an emotional reminder at the beginning of these many pages intended to provide a critical overview of what has been written about him over four centuries. And that is no small thing.

In fact, I have not even attempted to read or review the numerous hagiographies, past or present, in which the authors essentially repeat the biographical outline of their predecessors, without significant contributions or critical concerns. Among all the numerous Calasanzian “biographies” published or unpublished for three centuries, the works of Armini (1710), Talenti (1753) and Bau (1949) deserve special attention, as they are based on explicitly quoted documents, which gives them a critical character adapted to their time.

It should be added that Talenti relied on Armini and surpassed him in scope and documentary solidity. Bau not only reused the sources used by Talenti, but also had at his disposal the General Archives of the Order and others, of which he made ample use with a modern critical sense. For this reason, his Critical Biography - despite certain shortcomings in the scholarly methodology of translating and citing documents - is still the best documented and most complete “life” of St. Joseph Calasanz.

This work by Bau awakened a new zeal among the Piarists in the middle of our century for the research and study of the figure of the Founder, both in terms of his historical biography and his pedagogical ideology and spirituality. This interest bore fruit in books and articles of full scientific solidity, especially thanks to Fathers Asiain, Ausenda, Bau, Cueva, García-Durán, Giner, López Navío, Martín, Picanyol, Poch, Sántha, Sapa, Tosti, Vilá..., some of whose works were doctoral theses in history, pedagogy, canon law and theology

In addition to these numerous research works, since the middle of the century there has been the systematic publication of important archival collections that are indispensable for any Calasanzian research work, such as the various collections of letters, codices or legal texts, original catalogs, memoirs and annals and other valuable documents, collected loosely or in anthologies, which - together with the main works of the authors mentioned in the previous paragraph - are listed in the source and bibliography following this introduction.

All this recent editorial production of sources and monographic studies made a new critical revision of the Calasanzian biography necessary and urgent, all the more complicated and laborious because of the overwhelming number of studies already published. The original idea was to write a joint work, but even before the various chapters were completed, I received an offer to write a biography of St. Joseph Calasanz for the BAC Maior collection, similar to the biographies published in that collection. This was the result of the publication of my work St. Joseph Calasanz (1985) in the BAC Popular collection. This marginalized the first project because it was incomplete and because the author of the new work was to be a single author in order to give it more cohesion and unity of composition and style.

Although I had the opportunity to read and use the works already prepared for the above collaborative work -and for this I can only be grateful for the generous condescension of their authors, Fathers John Florensa, John Landucci, John Ausenda, Adolf García-Durán and Claudio Vilá Palá-, I could hardly benefit from them, either because they lacked documentary notes, or because, like some of the studies themselves, they came to me late, or because I did not agree with the ideas put forward by the authors. So the direct research for the sources and supplementary authors had to be done almost exclusively in person, and much more slowly than expected at the beginning. But in reality, this was not wasted time, because haste is one of the worst enemies of critical research.

It would be naïve - and presumptuous - for me to believe that this is the “definitive” biography of St. Joseph Calasanz. And even if it were, this would not be to my credit, but above all to the credit of the researchers of the last fifty years, whose achievements give consistency to this work. Even if this work is not definitive, the reader can judge for himself to what extent this new critical biography is new and clarifies questions.

The author

Salamanca, August 25, 1991

Feast of St. Joseph Calasanz

Sources and Bibliography

Edited sources

Epistolaries

PICANYOL, LEODEGARIO, Epistolario di San Giuseppe Calasanzio (Roma 1950-1956), vols. 1-1X. El Vol. X edit. in 1988 por CLAUDIO VILÁ PALÁ.

MONCALLERO, G. L.-GIULIANA LIMITI, Il Codice Calasanziano Palermitano (Roma 1965).

SÁNTHA, GEORGIUS, Epistulae ad S. Iosephum Calasanctium ex Europa Centrali. 1625-1648 (Roma 1969).

— Epistulae ad S. Iosephum Calasanctium ex Hispania et Italia. 1616-1648 (Roma 1972), 2 vols.

SÁNTHA, G.-CLAUDIO VILÁ PALÁ, Epistolae Coaetaneorum S. Iosephi Calasanctii. 1600-1648 (Roma 1977), 5 vols. vol. VI (Supplementum), 1981, y vol. VII (Indices), 1982, edit. por C. VILÁ PALÁ.

VARIOUS, Cartas selectas de S. José de Calasanz (Salamanca 1977), 2 vols.

Legislation

ANONIMOUS, Bullarium Religionis Scholarum Piarum (Madrid 1899).

Constituciones de San José de Calasanz a. 1622 (bilingual text) (Salamanca 1980).

VILÁ PALÁ, CLAUDIO, Constituciones de la Congregación Paulina: original text of Narni, in Archivum 17 (1985) 1-62.

TOSTI, OSVALDO, Dichiarazioni circa le nostre Costituzioni, Regole e Riti Comuni, in Archivum 27 (1990) 1-80

LECEA, JESÚS M.a, Declaraciones de San José de Calasanz a las Constituciones primeras de las Escuelas Pías, in AnCal 50 (1983) 561-631. (Completo text translated into Spanish.)

PICANYOL, LEODEGARIO, Actas de los Capítulos Generales de 1637 y 1641, in Archivum XIII (1954) 35-79.

Catalogues of religious

VILÁ PALÁ, CLAUDIO, Liber Congregationis Paulinae Pauperum Matris Dei sch. P. (Reg. Cai. XI, n. 1), in Archivum 19-20 (1986) 1-50.

TOSTI, OSVALDO, Il «Catalogus Religiosorum ab anno 1617 ad annum 1637», in Archivum 28 (1990) 1-126.

Memoirs y annals

MORANDI, G. B.a, Narratione del principio delle Scuole Pie et suo progresso, in Archivum 15 (1984) 1-28.

TOSTI, OSVALDO, Annotazioni del P. Vincenzo Berro, Volume I, in Archivum 21-22 (1987) 49-250. Volume II, in Archivum 23 (1988) 1-232. Volume III, in Archivum 24 (1988) 1-242.

VILÁ PALÁ, CLAUDIO, Memorie Cronologiche della Fondazione e progressi della Provincia di Sicilia delle Scuole Pie, scritte dal P. Filippo Scoma, in Archivum 17 (1985) 99-154; 18 (1985) 307-372; 19-20 (1986) 51-170.

PICANYOL, L.-VILÁ PALÁ, C., Chronologia Historica seu Annales Religionis Scholarum Piarum, by P. BERNARDO BARTLIK, in EphCal (1932-1958) y Archivum (1977-1981).

Documental antologies

LESAGA, J. M.-ASIAIN, M. A.-LECEA, J. M., Documentos fundacionales de las Escuelas Pías (Salamanca 1979).

FAUBELL, VICENTE, Antología Pedagógica Calasancia (Salamanca 1988).

LÓPEZ, SALVADOR, Documentos de S. José de Calasanz (Bogotá 1988).

Other documents

TOSTI, OSVALDO, ll Regestum Cal. 68 del Arch. Gen. (Documenti Paolucci), in Archivum 26 (1989) 1-11.

SÁNTHA, GEORGIUS, Pussilli Gregis Idea, del P. PEDRO CASANI, in Archivum 3 (1978) 87-134.

— Certificates of the Ordinations of St. Joseph Calasanz (Tonsure, Minor Orders, Subdiaconate, Diaconate y Priesthood). Photografies and transcriptoón, in Archivum 14 (1983) Lam.

VILÁ PALÁ, CLAUDIO, Cuatro Sumarios de la Congregación Paulina, in Archivum 17 (1985) 63-70.

— Various Documents in EC, vol. VII (Supplementum) 3039-3104.

— Positio super virtutibus del P. Pedro Casani (Roma 1982).

Sources non edited

Documentation from the following Archives:

— General Archive of the Pious Schools (Roma). Microfilmed almost totally. One copy in the Archive of Colegio M. P. Scío.

— Provincial Archive of the Pious Schools (Zaragoza).

— Episcopal Archive (Seo de Urgel).

— Archive de Protocolos (Zaragoza).

— Archive of the Ministry of External Affairs (Madrid).

— Trinitarian Archive of San Carlo (Roma).

— Archive of the National Spanish Church of Montserrat (Roma).

— General Archive of the Order of the Mother of God (Roma).

Select calasanzian bibliography

ARMINI, ALESSIO, Vita del Ven. Servo di Cristo P. Giuseppe della Madre di Dio (Roma 1710).

ASIAIN, MIGUEL ANGEL, Calasanz y sus hijos. I: Cinco facetas del Fundador, in AnCa1 38 (1977) 489-549.

— Calasanz y sus hijos. II: Dos polos in la vida del Fundador, in AnCal 39 (1978) 213-274.

— Defensa de Calasanz y de las Escuelas Pías, in AnCal 61 (1989) 99-171.

— El carisma de Calasanz leído y vivido in las cartas del Fundador, in AnCal 37 (1977) 177-208.

— El carisma de José de Calasanz, in AnCal 50 (1983) 419-483.

— La destrucción de la Orden de las Escuelas Pías desde las cartas que recibe Calasanz, in AnCa1 57 (1987) 195-241.

— La espiritualidad de S. José de Calasanz, in AnCal 50 (1983) 485-544.

— Momentos importantes de la vida de Calasanz, vistos por sus hijos, in AnCal 45 (1981) 179-199.

— Relación de Calasanz con Centroeuropa in el momento de la fundación, Archivum 28 (1990) 127-170.

AUSENDA, GIOVANNI, Gli Scolopi e Galileo, in Ricerche 6 (1982) 181-189.

— La escuela calasancia (Salamanca 1980).

— L’umile presenza delle Scuole Pie nella vicenda umana di Tommaso Campanella, in Ricerche 6 1982) 147-169.

BAU, CALASANZ, Biografía crítica de San José de Calasanz (Madrid 1949).

— El ángulo político in la vida de S. José de Calasanz, in RevCal 12 (1957) 181-228.

— La data natalicia de San José de Calasanz, in RevCal 12 (1957) 25-37.

— Revisión de la genealogía de S. José de Calasanz, in RevCal 12 (1957) 39-71.

— Revisión de la Vida de San José de Calasanz, in RevCal (1963).

BUCCIANTINI, MASSIMO, Eredità Galileiana e politica culturale Medicea: il caso degli Scolopi, in Studi Storici 2 (1989) 379-399.

CABALLERO, VALENTÍN, Orientaciones pedagógicas de San José de Calasanz (Madrid 1945).

CAMPANELA, TOMÁS, Liber apologeticus contra impugnantes Institutum Sch. P. (Latin Text, with introduction and English translation), por K. JENSEN A. K. LIEBREICH), in Archivum 15 (1984) 29-76.

CAMPOS, JULIO, Actitud del Santo Fundador ante el humanismo clásico, in RevCa1 12 (1957) 613-626.

CUBELIS, FRANCISCO, Explorando las fuentes de las Constituciones de San José de Calasanz, in AnCal 44 (1980) 515-575.

CUEVA, DIONISIO, Calasanz: mensaje espiritual y pedagógico (Madrid 1973).

— Calasanz y sus Constituciones (Salamanca 1979).

— Las Constituciones del P. Esteban Cherubini, in AnCal 50 (1983) 633-681.

FAUBELL, VICENTE, Antología periodística calasancia (Salamanca 1988).

FLORENSA, JUAN, Calassanç, sacerdote in Urgell, in AnCal 50 (1983) 273-292.

GARCÍA DURÁN, ADOLFO, Itinerario espiritual de San José de Calasanz (1592-1622) (Barcelona 1967).

Un catecismo infantil calasancio, in AnCal 50 (1983) 547-560.

GINER, SEVERINO, El carisma de San José de Calasanz según los testigos del Proceso de Beatificación, in AnCal 39 (1978) 183-212.

El Proceso de Beatificación de San José de Calasanz (Madrid 1973).

En torno a una reciente monografía sobre Mons. Albizzi, in AnCal 40 (1978) 549-572.

GIOVANNOZZI, GIOVANNI, II Calasanzio e l’opera sua (Florencia 1930).

GUILLÉN, FERNANDO, Las Constituciones de las Escuelas Pías in tiempos de San José de Calasanz, in AnCa1 37 (1977) 149-176.

LECOINTRE, CLAIRE, Gaspar Schoppe et les Ecoles Pies: un exemple de collaboration scientifique et pédagogique au 17e siêcle, in Archivum 18 (1985) 275-306.

LÓPEZ NAVÍO, JOSÉ, Ambiente histórico y social in que vivió San José de Calasanz, in AnCal 25-26 (1971) 207-259.

— Don Juan Mercado y Calasanz, in AnCal 20 (1968) 455-498.

— Testamento de Micer Juan Calasanz (Zaragoza 1966).

MARTÍN, RAFAEL, Tercera clase de Religiosos in la Orden de las Escuelas Pías, in AnCa1 5 (1961) 35-101.

MIR DURÁN, JOSÉ, San José de Calasanz, gloria de la Diócesis de Urgel y honor de su clero, in [C. RABAZA], Memorias de un cronista (Valencia 1912) p.339-347.

MONER, JOSÉ RAMÓN, San José de Calasanz y el bandolerismo in la Corona de Aragón (1558-1591), in Ancal 9 (1963) 101-196.

MOROSI, FERDINANDO, Le Scuole Pie di Bologna, in Ricerche 5 (1982) 78-93.

— Memorie storiche della prima Casa di Firenze, in Ricerche -12 (1984) 251-271.

PELLICCIA, GUERRINO La scuola primaria a Roma dal secolo XVI al XIX (Roma 1985).

PICANYOL, LEODEGARIO, El período español de San José de Calasanz, in Rass 26-27 (1957) 33-83

— La Cappella dell’apparizione della casa di San Pantaleo, dedicata a Maria Assunta, in Rass 16 (1950) 2-12.

— Le Scuole Pie e Galileo Galilei (Roma 1942).

— Sulla data di nascita di San Giuseppe Calasanzio, in Rass 18 (1951) 20-49.

POCH, JOSÉ, Aportación documental a la historia de la Universidad de Huesca durante la segunda mitad del s. XVI, in AnCal 15 (1966) 129-252.

— Aportación documental biográfico-calasancia, in AnCal 22 (1969) 261-283.

— Don Gaspar Juan de la Figuera, obispo y visitador, sus relaciones con San José de Calasanz, in AnCal 8 (1962) 355-463.

— El Fundador de las Escuelas Pías in la Historia Eclesiástica de la Corona de Aragón, in AnCa1 20 (1968) 219-453.

— Heráldica y sigilografía calasancia, in Argensola 38 (1959) 97-106.

— La infanzonía de los Calasanz, in AnCal 7 (1962) 25-57.

— Las órdenes sagradas del universitario José de Calasanz (1575-1583), in Ancal 50 (1983) 257-272.

— La vocación sacerdotal de San José de Calasanz, in RevCal 12 (1957) 73-104.

— Lugares calasancios in el Condado de Urgell, in Archivum 2 (1977) 215-260.

— Manuscrito inédito del s. XVIII de los Calasanz de la villa de Casserres, in AnCal 19 (1968) 5-104.

— Presencia de San José de Calasanz in la villa de Tremp, in RevCal 4 (1955) 375-400.

— Referencias genealógico-calasancias in la provincia de Huesca, in AnCal 5 (1961) 103-177.

— San José de Calasanz, hijo de Peralta de la Sal, in Argensola 28 (1956) 327-355.

— San José de Calasanz, «Oficial Eclesiástico» de la Villa de Tremp (1589-1591), in Ancal 4 (1960) 269-356.

— San José de Calasanz y seis obispos españoles, in RevCal 12 (1957) 105-179.

— Tres testamentos del padre del Fundador de las Escuelas Pías, in AnCal 40 (1978) 439-490.

PUIGDOLLERS, RODOLFO, Texto y actualización del Inventario de 1688 de las reliquias de San José de Calasanz y del V. Glicerio Landriani que se conservan in la casa de San Pantaleón, in Archivum 11 (1982) 91-178.

PUJOL I TUBAU, PERE, Sant Josep de Calassanç Oficial del Capítol d’Urgell (1587-1589) (Barcelona 1921).

SÁNTHA, GEORGIUS, Antiquissimum de praesentia Romana S. P. N. et de eiusdem in S. Theologia doctoris dignitate documentum, in EphCal 2 (1959) 55-58.

— Calasanctius et visitatio apostolica ecclesiae et domus S. Pantaleonis die 27 men. oct. a. 1625 habita, in EphCa1 4-5 (1959) 160-169, 187-202.

— Calasanz, las Escuelas Pías y el duque Jorge Ossolinski, in RevCal 12 (1957) 229-265.

— Card. Franciscus Albitius (1593-1684) et Scholae Piae, in Archivum l l (1982) 53-90.

— Card. Martius Ginetti (1585-1671) et Scholae Piae, in EphCal 41 (1972).

— Card. Princeps Franciscus Dietrichstein, Ep. Olomucensis (1570-1636) et Scholae Piae, in EphCa1 29 (1960).

— Comes Franciscus Magni (1590-1652) et Scholae Piae, in EphCal 1 (1960) 1-24.

— De canonicatu Barbastrensi a Scto. losepho Calasanctio obtento, in EphCal 6 (1957) 138-152.

— De S. Fundatoris N. in Archiconfraternitate SS. XII Apostolorum praesentia et opera, in EphCa1 7 (1958) 177-189

— De S. Fund. N. in confraternitate Doctrinae christianae Urbis praesentia, industria, muneribus, in EphCal 6 (1958) 149-161.

— Ensayos críticos (Salamanca 1976).

— Iter Calasanctii ad condendam Religionem Scholarum Piarum. Trecenti quinquaginta anni a Brevi «Ad ea, per quae» expedito feliciter exacti, in EphCa1 36 (1967) 74-85.

— La oración continua, según S. José de Calasanz, in RevCal 12 (1957) 649-663.

— (Assumed) L’opera delle Scuole Pie e le cause della loro riduzione sotto Innocenzo X, in Archivum 25 (1989) 1-136.

— Maiora Ordinis Sch. P. problemata praesente S. Iosepho Calasanctio in Capitulis Generalibus annorum 1637 et 1641 agitata, in EphCal 10-11 (1972) 1-6 (1973).

— Nova quaedam documenta, nuper in Arch. Sec. Vat. reperta, circa exordia Congregationis Paulinae PP. M. D. Sch. P., in EphCa1 29 (1960) 186-204.

— Operositas atque industria Calasanctii in Archiconfraternitatibus SS. Stigmatum, SS. Trinitatis Peregrinorum atque convalescentium et B. Mariae Suffragii de Urbe, in EphCal 9-10 (1959) 327-339.

—P. Gasparus Dragonetti (1513-1628), in EphCal 29 (1960) 146-173.

— P. Melchior Alacchi ex Omnibus Sanctis (1591-1642), in Archivum 13 (1983) 14-76.

— P. Valerianus Magni, O. M. Cap. et Scholae Piae, in EphCal 3 (1959) 130-145.

— Primum Beneficium ecclesiasticum a S. Iosepho Calasanctio in Urbem ingresso obtentum, in EphCal 29 (1960) 306-312.

— Probatio ac institutio iuniorum nostrorum temporibus S. P. N., in EphCal 35 (1966) 201-250.

— Quattuor novi elenchi antiquissimorum S. Iosephi Calasanctii in Scholis Piis, qui in Palatio D. Octavii Mannini uno cum illo vixerant, cooperatorum, in EphCa1 11-12 (1959) 362-390.

— Quinque instrumenta per DD. Vincentium Panizza et Octaviüm Bettum, Notariis Trib. A. C. Romae, annis 1599-1609, iussu S. P. N. exarata et subsignata, in EphCa1 6 (1959) 219-226.

— Quomodo perventum sit ad decretum «In causa P.Marii», die 15 ian. 1643 emanatum?, in EphCal 32 (1963) 394-406.

— Quomodo perventum sit a 4.a Congr. Cardinalium negotiis Scholarum Piarum praepositorum (8 sept. 1645) ad Breve Reductionis Innocentianae (16 mart. 1646)?, in EphCal 30 (1961) 9-30.

— Sacerdos Hieronymus Nicotera, Magister deput. Regionis S. Angeli in Urbe, eiusque necessitudo cum Scholis Piis in Palatio DD. Vestri, in EphCal 29 (1960) 340-349.

— Sacra Congr. de Propaganda Fide et Scholae Piae in quinquennio 1644-1648, in EphCa1 29 (1960) 1 11-132.

— San José de Calasanz. Su obra. Escritos (Madrid 1956).

— San José de Calasanz y su amistad con los PP. Carmelitas Descalzos, in RevCa1 2 (1955) 183-203.

— 350 anni a condita Domo S. Pantaleonis exacti. Nova aliquot documenta, in EphCal 31 (1962) 266-301.

— Tria Brevia Pontificia P. Stephano Cherubini concessa una cum annexis supplicibus libellis, in EphCal 29 (1960) 258-274.

— Ultimus Scti. Iosephi Calasanctii ad reintegrandum suum Ordinem conatus causaeque haud prosperi eiusdem successus, in EphCal 4-5 (1958) 109-115.

SAPA, ANGEL, Psicologia de San José de Calasanz, in RevCal 12 (1957) 401-437.

— Teologia spirituale pedagogica di San Giuseppe Calasanzio (Florencia 1951).

SERRAIMA, ENRIQUE, Hugonotes y bandidos in el Pirineo Catalán. La actuación de S. José de Calasanz in Urgel (1587-1589), in Estudios de Historia Moderna 4 (1954).

TALENTI, VINCENZIO, Vita del Beato Giuseppe Calasanzio della Madre di Dio (Florencia, ed. de 1917).

TOSETTI, URBANO, Compendio storico della vita di San Giuseppe Calasanzio (Florencia, ed. de 1927).

TOSTI, OSVALDO, Giovan Francesco Fiammelli e l’introduzione degli Scolopi in Firenze, in Ricerche 13 (1985) 3-67.

— Gli Scolopi a Pisa, in Ricerche 15 (1985) 281-320.

— 34 lettere del P. Francesco Castelli relative ai primordi delle Scuole Pie a Firenze, in Ricerche 17 (1986) 149-228.

VIDAL, ANTONIO, De re Calasanctiana, in RevCal 146, 147, 150, 152 (1925).

VILÁ PALÁ, CLAUDIO, ¿Berro, Sántha o Calasanz? in torno a la fecha fundacional, in Archivum 10 (1981) 223-262.

— Calasanz in la iglesia y convento de las SS. Llagas de S. Francisco in Roma, in EphCa1 2 (1983) 66-71.

— Calasanz visita Asís in 1599 y luego se enrola in la escuela de Sta. Dorotea, in EphCa1 1 (1981) 15-28.

— Calasanz y San Felipe Neri, in Archivum 9 (1981) 45-60.

Dos amigos de Calasanz: los PP. Bagnacavallo y Larino, in Archivum 27 (1990) 81-147.

— El P. Mario Sozzi. I. Datos anteriores a su ingreso in la Escuela Pía, in Archivum 5 (1979) 57-86.

— El P. Mario Sozzi. II. Su actuación in los años 1631-1639, in Archivum 7-8 (1980) 87-140.

— Mario Sozzi: último cuadrienio de su vida (1639-1643), in Archivum 29-30 (1991).

— in torno a la unión de las Escuelas Pías con los PP. de Luca (octubre. de 1613-octubre de 1614), in Archivum 6 (1979) 197-244.

— Fuentes inmediatas de la pedagogía calasancia (Madrid 1960).

— Galería de Escolapios «seculares», in Archivum 14 (1983) 263-340.

— La Madonna dei Monti e il Calasanzio, in EphCal 9-10 (1980) 386-393.

— Las Escuelas Pías seglares, in Archivum 14 (1983) 203-262.

— P. Silvestre Pietrasanta, S.I.: datos biográficos y bibliográficos, in Archivum 1 (1977) 49-112.

Positio super virtutibus del P. Pedro Casani (Roma 1982).

— Ubaldini„ Visitador de las Escuelas Pías, in Archivum 3 (1978) 31-70.

VARIOS, Juicio histórico-crítico sobre la «Positio super virtutibus» del P. Pedro Casani

Bibliography of bibliographies

GINER, SEVERINO, Bibliografía y biógrafos de S. José de Calasanz, in VARIOS, Escuelas Pías. Ser e Historia (Salamanca 1978) p.25-34.

PÉREZ, RAFAEL, San José de Calasanz in la Bibliografía, in RevCal 12 (1957) 695-721.

Acronyms and abreviations

AEPZ Archivo de las Escuelas Pías de Zaragoza

AGEP Archivo General de las Escuelas Pías (Roma).

AnCal Analecta Calasanctiana (Journal).

Archivum Archivum Scholarum Piarum (Journal)

BARTLIK B. BARTLIK, Chronologia historica seu Annales… Scholarum Piarum. Ed in EphCal (1932-1958) AND ARCHIVUM (1977-1981)

BAU, BC C. BAU, Biografía crítica de San José de Calasanz (Madrid 1949)

BAU, RV C. BAU, Revisión de la vida de San José de Calasanz. AnCal 10 (1963)

BERRO I V. BERRO, Annotazioni della Fondatione della Congregatione e Religione... delle Scuole Pie. Tomo I: Archivum 21-22 (1987) 49-250.

BERRO II Id., Tomo II: Archivum 23 (1988) 1-232.

BERRO III Id., Tomo III: Archivum 24 (1988) 1-241.

C. letter, from EGC.

Cat Catalaunia (Internal magazine of the Pious Schools of Cataluña)

CatalRel Catalogus Religiosorum ab anno 1617 ad annum 1637: Archivum 28 (1990).

CC Original Constitutions of Calasanz

CCP G. L. MONCALLERO-G. LIMITI, II Codice Calasanziano Palermitano (Roma 1965).

CS VARIOS, Cartas selectas de S. José de Calasanz, 2 vols. (Salamanca 1977).

DENES VARIOS, Diccionario Enciclopédico Escolapio (Salamanca 1983...).

EC G. SÁNTHA-C. VILÁ, Epistolarium Coaetaneorum S. Josephi Calasanctii (Roma 1977-1978).

EcoCen L’Eco dei nostri Centenari (Roma 1945-1949) (Magazine)

EEC G. SÁNTHA, Epistulae ad S. losephum Calasanctium ex Europa Centrali (Roma 1969).

EGC L. PICANYOL, Epistolario di San Giuseppe Calasanzio (Roma 1950-1956).

EHI G. SÁNTHA, Epistulae ad S. losephum Calasanctium ex Hispania et Italia (Roma 1972).

EphCal Ephemerides Calasanctianae (Official magazine of the Order).

LiberCongr. Paul. Liber Congr. Paulinae Pauperum Matris Dei Sch. P.: Archivum 19-20 (1986).

PanEs Panorama Escolapio (Madrid 1970-1977) (Magazine).

PAOLUCCI Il regestum Calasanctianum 68 dell’Arch. Generale (Documenti Paolucci): Archivum 26 (1989).

PASTOR L. VON PASTOR, Historia de los papas (Barcelona 1910-1961) 39 vols.

PosCas Positio super virtutibus of Fr. Peter Casani (Roma 1982).

ProcIn Proceso Informativo (auctor. Ordin. 1650) (RegCal 30)

Rass Rassegna di storia e bibliografia scolopica (Roma 1937-1957) (Journal).

RegCal Regestum Calasanctianum, section of AGEP

RegGen, section of AGEP

RegProv section of AGEP

RegRe Section of AGEP.

RevCal Revista Calasancia (Madrid 1888-1969).

Ricerche Ricerche, Bollettino degli Scolopi italiani (Firenze 1981...).

SÁNTHA, Ensayos G. SÁNTHA, Ensayos críticos (Salamanca 1976).

SÁNTHA, SJC G. SÁNTHA, San José de Calasanz. Obra pedagógica (Madrid, BAC, 1984, 2).

SCOMA I Memorie Cronologiche della Fondazione e progressi della Provincia di Sicilia delle Scuole Pie: Archivum 17 (1985) 99-154 (nn.1-83).

SCOMA II Id.: Archivum 18 (1985) 307-372 (nn.84-208).

SCOMA III Id.: Archivum 19-20 (1986) 51-170 (nn.209-392

First part

His years in Spain

Chapter 1

Peralta de la Sal, his home town

Peralta de la Sal is now a village in the province of Huesca. Its full and historical name is ‘Peralta de la Sal y de la Honor’, with the category of town. In 1970, for administrative reasons, the three neighboring municipalities of Peralta, Calasanz and Gabasa voluntarily decided to merge into a single municipality under the official name of Peralta de Calasanz, whose capital is the first of them[1]. However, the new name has not replaced the old one and the birthplace of Saint Joseph Calasanz continues to be called as before.

1 The merger and the new name were approved by a decree of the Head of State on February 26, 1970, after the Council of Ministers had given its approval on the 20th of the same month and year (cf. B.O.E. 59 [March 10, 1970] 3901 and PanEs 3-4 [1970] 58).

Its proper name – Peralta -, if a plausible etymology can be found at all, the most obvious is the Latin ‘Petra alta’ (high stone). It appears in papal Bulls from the end of the 11th century and is then continued in other documents over the centuries[2], although it is simply called Peralta[3] when it is first mentioned (1077). The allusion to the ‘high stone’ could refer to the church, which actually stands on a rocky ridge. In addition, the current transept, which must have been a single nave in the past, is half dug into the rock face, which was rightly uncovered during the recent restoration work. And behind the church, the rocky promontory rises like a ship’s flag, towering over the hill.

2 In a Bull of 1097, Urban II speaks of “ecclesiam Mamacastra, ecclesiam de Petra alta” (cf. J. VILLANUEVA, Viaje literario a las iglesias de España, v.9, pp. 222-224); in another Bull of 1150, Eugene III also speaks of “ecclesiam de Calasanz, ecclesias de Momagastre, de Petra alta...” (cf. P. KEHR, Papsturkunden in Spanien, 1, pp. 328-329), etc.

3 “Inter terminos Gavas (sic) vel Peralte” (cf. complete doc. in F. CASTILLÓN CORTADA, Presencia benedictina en el valle del Cinca (Huesca): Hispania Sacra 27 [1974] 121-122 4 Cf. RevCal 147 (1925) 178.

The first surname - de la Sal - comes from the abundant salt pans where the salty water is dried in the sun, making salt one of the town’s characteristic products. The second - de la Honor - recalls the fact that the town was the head of a barony with all its rights and peculiarities from the deepest Middle Ages until the last century. Nowadays, far from the stately organizations, it has in a way regained its old importance as a capital with the creation of this new municipality called Peralta de Calasanz. It is true that this modern name refers to the neighboring town with which it has merged. But it is undeniable that it spontaneously brings to mind the ‘Calasanz of Peralta’, its most famous son.

To the four winds

In an old census dated August 18, 1566 in Peralta, the village is mentioned with these words: “The said town of Peralta de la Sal and its district are located in the current Kingdom of Aragon, bordering the districts of Calasanz, Sanct Esteban de Littera, del Campell, Tamarite de Littera, Çorita and Gavasa.”[4] The description was not complete, because they forgot Azanuy, which then as now lies between Calasanz and San Esteban de Litera on the western border, and they also left out Baells on the eastern border, which lies between Alcampel and Zurita.

4 Cf. RevCal 147 (1925) 178.

The centuries that have passed since the aforementioned census have changed this description considerably, especially if we take into account the recent creation of the municipality of Peralta de Calasanz, whose total area is 114.9 km^2, while the municipality of Peralta de la Sal alone is 45.39 km^2. According to the above-mentioned census, Peralta borders Tamarite de Litera to the south, but between the two districts today lie three enclaves (Alcaná, Pelagriñón and Rocafort), which were arbitrarily annexed to Gabasa, Alcampel and San Esteban de Litera. All of them were part of the historical barony of Peralta, together with the village of Cuatrocorz, which still belongs to Peralta today. Zurita, on the other hand, was incorporated into BaelIs.[5]

5 Cf. map 326 of the Inst. Geogr. y Catastral.

The river Sosa crosses the municipality of Peralta from north to southwest. It is formed by its two headwaters, the Zurita and the Calasanz, which collect their water from the ravines to the east and north in the areas of Zurita, Gabasa and Calasanz, just a few steps away from the town. Further south, two other ravines, the Cananillo and the Lareñ, run from east to west through the area and, when it rains, cause the sparse flow of the Sosa, which flows into the Cinca after crossing Monzón, to swell a little more.

Only a few lands in Peralta benefit from the waters of the Sosa, either because of its low flow or because of the rugged terrain. But there is no shortage of irrigated land on its banks and occasional reed beds, such as the one that accompanies the Calasanz River to its entrance in Peralta. The small river crosses the town from north to south, dividing it in two. The cultivated areas, which are almost completely dry, are dominated by olive groves and vineyards and, to a lesser extent, almond trees and cereals.

Most of the municipality is mountainous and uncultivated, with an abundance of scrubland. Although, strictly speaking, these are not mountains, but hills and plateaus that bring the entire municipality to an average altitude of 500 to 600 meters above sea level, with the town being 523 meters high. Among these elevations, the massif of Tozal Gordo stands out at 784 m high and next to it its twin, the hill of La Mora at 769 m high. Still standing tall and majestic on its platform is a golden ashlar tower, a veritable watchtower that dominates the entire area of Peralta and its surroundings. It is a remnant of what was the former castle of Momagastre from the Moorish period. It is surrounded by a huge carpet of pines and holm oaks, which were much more luxuriant in earlier centuries. At the end of the 18th century, Ignacio de Asso mentions the “extensive holm oak forests in the districts of Peralta, Zurita, Gavasa, etc.”[6]

6 J. DE ASSO Y DEL RIO, Historia de la economía política de Aragón (Zaragoza 1798) p. 84.

About a thousand meters east of the city, at the confluence of the Manantial, Collenera and Poza Grande ravines, the water of the three saline springs is concentrated in about 300 ponds or salt pans which transform this whole corner into a huge grid where the white of the salt combines with the blue and green tones of the evaporating water. The annual production at the beginning of the century was around 500,000 kg of salt and is now around three million, as the current owner explains. Until not so long ago, the exploitation was shared by all the owners of the village.

In the past, the economic weight of the village must have been very great. When Philip V incorporated all the salt mines of the Kingdom of Aragon into the Crown by Royal Decree in 1708, the parish priest of Peralta, Father Antony Zaydín, wrote a memorandum to the king “on behalf of his church chapter, the town council and the inhabitants”, asking him to return the rights to the salt mines to their former owners, not without exaggeration pointing out the importance they had for the local economy: “The town - he said - and its citizens suffer greatly from the loss of the product of the salt mines, for yesterday they always depended on it for the support of their homes and families and now they are completely lost. ... Since Divine Providence, having permitted the scarcity and misery of the land of the said town, has subsidized the arbitration of the ‘Salina’ in its wants with its revenues, and dispossessed it, it is in so miserable a situation that many of its inhabitants are obliged to abandon with the pain of not having the means to avoid perishing, as their short lands do not yield the necessary fruits to support themselves... they find no way to relief, while many families are already begging at doors looking for it.” And the disastrous effects on the maintenance of the worship and clergy were no less terrible, for “a great part of the income of the presbytery has always consisted of the rights to the first fruits of the salt and the distributions of the product of the said salt mines with which it is endowed.” By its incorporation into the Royal Patrimony, it remains “in a wretched and deplorable condition and becomes impossible for the many and pious dues it has annexed to the same Church, while the latter finds itself in the pitiable situation of lacking due support and being its many poor parishioners deprived of its alms.” And he concluded, in summary, that this plundering of their rights “leaves the presbytery without first-fruits, the benefices without income, the (Piarists) Fathers without support, the Church without assistance, the services diminished, the souls without suffrages, the Legacies without fulfillment, the town exhausted, and its neighbors utterly helpless.”[7]

7 Private archive of Casa Zaydín (Peralta). Printed copy.

Perhaps it is an exaggeration to reflect on the disasters caused by the nationalization of the salt pans, but it certainly gives us an idea of what it meant for the livelihood of the town. And although this memorandum dates from 1708 or a little later, we can assume that these salt mines had the same economic importance at the time of Joseph Calasanz. In fact, the title “de la Sal” was more than just a nominal distinction for Peralta.

The town of Peralta

In 1677, Father Louis Cavada, Provincial of the Pious Schools of Sardinia, went to Barbastro with a companion to found the first Piarist school in Spain. And it was not without emotion that he recalled years later, when he wrote in Spanish the ‘Crónica de esta nuestra Provincia de Sardeña’: “The Provincial, at the insistence of the relatives of our Ven. Founder, went with his companion to the town of Peralta and was the first to have the joy of stepping on and kissing the floor of the house where the Ven. Father was born, whose image they found next to the main altar of the parish church ...”[8]

8 Cf. EGC II, p. 26.

This first visit of the Piarists to Peralta de la Sal was a good opportunity to gather information about the family and the town of the Founder and send it to Rome. And in this interesting report, written in Italian, Father Cavada said, among other things:

“The town of Peralta de la Sal ... is two leagues from the borders of Catalonia; from the city of Barbastro, four; from the town of Benabarre ... two leagues; from the city of Lérida seven and from the city of Urgel eighteen ... The town is not very large, but it is good and at present consists of 116 fires or houses, friendly and peaceful people; and although it is in Aragon, it belongs to the diocese of Urgel, a town in Catalonia, in the Pyrenees ... and usually in Peralta Catalan is spoken more than Spanish ...; not far from the church, in the flattest part of the town, are the houses of his happy parents, where he was born ...”[9]

9 RegCal 13,6.2.

The explicit reference to the distances separating Peralta from the towns of Barbastro, Benabarre, Lérida and Urgel has its explanation, as it was known that the Father Founder had been in these towns. However, it should be noted that the number of “fires” or houses given by Father Cavada is exaggerated, since other statistics show that Peralta had 59 “fires” in 1495, 62 in 1542, 87 in 1650 and 90 in 1713.[10] If we apply the generally accepted demographic index of 4.5 inhabitants per ‘fire’, we obtain the following statistics: in 1495 Peralta had 265 inhabitants, 279 in 1542, 391 in 1650 and 405 in 1713; and Joseph Calasanz was born in 1557.

10 Cf. Gran geografía comarcal de Catalunya, vol. 12 (1984) p. 432; I. J. DE Asso y DEL Río, o.c., p. 308. This author gives 62 houses in 1495 and 87 in 1650.

Of the two parts into which the river Calasanz divides the town, the smaller is the one on the left bank, connected to the other by a bridge with two low arches whose worn ashlars betray the many centuries of its existence. On the right bank, right next to the bridge, were “the houses” of which Father Cavada spoke in 1677, barely twenty-nine years after the death of Joseph Calasanz (+ 1648). We can therefore assume with reasonable certainty that his relatives and the elders of the town knew with certainty where their already famous compatriot had been born. In 1693, they began the lengthy process of founding a Piarist house, which became a reality in 1697, although the Piarists did not begin to occupy the venerable houses, the birthplace of the saint, until 1715, after they had acquired them. This marked the beginning of a transformation that would continue for centuries until the present day.[11]

11 Cf. C. RABAZA, Historia de las Escuelas Pías en España, vol. 1 (Valencia 1917) pp. 45-51.

The village on the right bank of the Calasanz River lies in a hollow, as if it were divided into two halves facing each other. The streets and houses lean against the two slopes, which on rainy days become a torrent whose muddy water flows into the Calasanz River which borders the village. One gets the impression that things have hardly changed since the mid-sixteenth century. Today we can see the same layout of streets leading up and down the slopes, where the old adobe or stone walls, the arched doorways of voussoirs or bricks with the occasional heraldic crest of the Infanzonía, the windows and small windows of the upper floors, the play of light and shadow created by the different heights, entrances and projections of the buildings, the bare and peeling façades alternate alongside others polished and repainted...

The parish church of Santa María has indeed changed. The original Romanesque church, of which hardly any traces remain, was followed by the current one, which is more spacious and occupies a large part of the old site. The remodeling was probably carried out in the first half of the 17th century, when Joseph Calasanz was in Rome. However, the massive and simple baptismal font, in which the saint was baptized and in which the children of his people continue to be baptized, remains as a valuable legacy of the former temple.

You can only see Peralta when you reach the edge of the ravine it protects. This makes you wonder whether the name - apart from its obvious Latin etymology - has something to do with the heights and rocks. The name has nothing to do with the place where it is located - although there is the aforementioned “high stone” - but it is probably a common name, as there are Peraltas in Navarre, Gerona, Tarragona, Albacete and two others in the same province of Huesca. Even in the old toponymy of Urgel there are Peralta, Peramitja and Perabaixa (High, Middle and Low). And we cannot rule out the hypothesis that the Urgelitan recolonizers gave it the name of their place of origin, as was customary in all conquests.

A look back

From anywhere in the municipality of Peralta, you can see the silhouette of the Momagastre tower - perhaps from the Latin ‘Magnum Castrum’ - standing out against the horizon. It is one of the images that has been imprinted on Joseph Calasanz’s pupils since childhood. One fine day he must have asked someone, perhaps his father, what it was. And most probably he was told that it was a Moorish castle, because in Spain, almost from north to south and from east to west, all ruined castles are described as Moorish unless proven otherwise. In this case, it was true. But you certainly can not be told much more than that. There was a time when these lands were conquered by the Moors and then, after a few centuries, were reconquered by the Christians. The same old story.

There would be no point in going back to the 11th and 12th centuries to tell the story of a man who died in the middle of the 17th century if it were not necessary to explain a problematic situation that remains controversial and conflictual even today. Cavada stated in his above-mentioned report that Peralta “is two leagues from the borders of Catalonia” and yet “more Catalan than Spanish is spoken”; “it is in the Kingdom of Aragon”, but “it belongs to the bishopric of Urgel, a town in Catalonia.” And until a few years ago, you could add that Peralta and some villages in the surrounding area still belonged to the diocese of Urgel, while the entire surrounding area belonged to the diocese of Lérida. Why so many anomalies?

It is a particular matter of civil and ecclesiastical history to follow step by step the complicated process of the ‘reconquista’ of this area between the rivers Cinca and Noguera Ribagorzana, as well as the changing affiliation of its parishes to the different dioceses, abbeys and collegiate churches. But we cannot fail to briefly describe the historical panorama that illustrates the particular situation of the town of Peralta. There is no doubt that the biography of Joseph Calasanz is marked by it, especially in the first thirty-four years of his long life, which he spent in Spain.

The chronicle of the Moor Rasis states that in 922, Muhamad ibn Lubb had the castles of Mamagasra and Calazany (Momagastre and Calasanz), among others, reinforced.[12] These were the two fortresses that defended the entire area of the current municipality of Peralta de Calasanz.

12 Cf. J. POCH, Castell i Vila de Calassanç: Cat. 168 (1975) 3.

In the middle of the following century, the first king of Aragon, Ramiro I (1035-1063), annexed the states of Sobrarbe and Ribagorza to his kingdom after the unexpected death of his brother Gonzalo. With his new conquests, he extended his southern borders to include the castles of Laguarres, Lascuarre, Luzás and Viacamp and later reconquered Benabarre. He attempted to take Graus, but died during the siege (1063). The Moorish king of Zaragoza and the Castilian prince, then Sancho II, had come to the defense of the besieged, with the then twenty-year-old Cid in his army.

The son and successor of Ramiro I, Sancho Ramírez (1063-1094), continued the Reconquista and took Graus (1083) and then Monzón (1089) for good. International armies even came to conquer Barbastro, encouraged by Pope Alexander II in a kind of premature crusade. The city was conquered (1064), but the following year it fell back into the hands of the Moorish king of Saragossa and was only finally reconquered in 1101. At that time, the Kingdom of Aragon extended to the east as far as the Noguera Ribagorzana and to the south its border ran along a line marked by Viacamp, Benabarre, Estada, Estadilla and Monzón. In fact, in 1085 Sancho Ramírez confirmed to Raymundo Dalmacio, Bishop of Roda since 1087, all the donations to his predecessor Salomón and added the “tithes” of Estada, Estadilla and the entire territory between the Cinca and the Noguera Ribagorzana and from Benasque to Monzón.[13]

13 E. GROS BITRIA, Los límites diocesanos en el Aragón oriental, Guara edit. (Zaragoza 1980) pp. 77-78; J. M. LACARRA, La reconquista y repoblación del Valle del Ebro, in La reconquista española y la repoblación del país (Zaragoza 1951) pp. 43-44; J. POCH, La “Señora” de la Villa de Calasanz, el año 1381: Argensola 61-64 (1966-67) 61-62.

While this was happening in the Kingdom of Aragon, the Counts of Urgel and Barcelona crossed the river Noguera Ribagorzana and extended their conquests in the lower Ribagorza and the region of La Litera to the borderline of Benabarre, Graus, Estada, Estadilla, Barbastro and Monzón, which the King of Aragon in turn reached. The knight of Urgel, Arnold Mir de Tost, was particularly prominent in these warlike ventures of the allied Catalan counts. In 1048, he promised to give the Abbey of St. Peter of his city and Lordship of Ager the “tithe” of all the lands and castles that he would win from the Moors from the Noguera Ribagorzana to the Cinca.[14] In the years that followed, the allied counts recovered castles and towns such as Miravet, Estopiñán, Camporrells, Casserres, Falç, Purroy, Pilzán, Cañelles... The donation of the church of Vilet or Siurana, between Gavasa and Peralta, to the monastery of Alaón in 1077 assures us that two years earlier the church of St. Michael of Gavasa had been consecrated.[15] And this suggests that the neighbouring Peralta de la Sal had already been conquered at the same time, along with the strategically important Moorish castle of Momagastre.

14 ...” Et in omnibus terris et kastris quas et que adquisituri sumus, Deo dante, ex partibus Hispanie, videlicet de flumine Nogere usque ad alveum Cinche decimam partem et promittimus et damus” (cf. J. POCH, Lugares calasancios en el Condado de Urgel: Archivum 2 [1977] 229-230, 247-248).

15 “... dono et concedo ecciesia Sancte Marie de Siurana (o del Vilet) tibi Bernardo Abbati Alaonensi… Que ecclesia… inter terminos Gavas (sic) vel Peralte, que modo possidere videtur… hec descriptio facta est in secundo anno post consecrationem Sancti Michaelis de Gavassa et Sancti Martini de Nercha sub era MCXV” (cf. F. CASTILLÓN CORTADA, o.c., p. 121).

From these southern positions, which strengthened his back, the offensive of the Count of Urgel Ermengol IV began in 1083 to conquer the Moorish fortress of Calasanz. In that year, he gave Santa Maria de Solsona some goods, tithes and first fruits of the Castro of Gavasa, “which Almighty God has given us”, so that - among other things - “he who is the health of Christians and has redeemed them, gives us this city called Calasanz, which we have besieged.”[16] This difficult and long siege was reinforced by troops from Pallars and from King Peter I of Aragon, who was allied with Ermengol IV and planned the simultaneous conquest of Calasanz in the north and San Esteban and Tamarite de Litera in the south in 1089. The fortress of Calasanz fell in 1090 and the Count of Urgel did not lose time to donate the new parish, which had been built there under the invocation of Saint Cyprian, to his favourite abbey of Santa María de Solsona.[17] In the following year, 1091, he donated the churches of Saint-Michel de Momagastre and Saint-Bartholomew in the town of Albelda de Litera, which had been conquered by the Moors, to the same church in the county of Urgel, as the count wrote on the parchment of the donation.[18]

16 “Et in illo castro que nuncupant Gavasa, quod dedit nobis omnipotens Deus, damus… Domino Deo et Genitrici sue alme Marie Celsone… ut et Ipse qui est salus christianorum atque redemptorum donet nobis hanc villam Calasancio nomine advocatam, quam tenemus obsessam ut in nostra potestate sit captam” (P. PUJOL I TUBAU, Sant Josep de Calassanç Oficial del Capitol d’Urgel, [Barcelona 1921] pp. 8-9, no. 1).

17 Cf. J. POCH, Lugares calasancios…, pp. 232-233, 250-251.

18 Ibid. p. 233-234.

The first lords of Peralta

One of the signatories of the aforementioned donations of Ermengol IV was the Urgelite knight Roland Ramón,[19] who took part in the siege and capitulation of Calasanz and in return received the lordship of Peralta and the neighbouring lands from the Count of Urgel. In his will of 1096, he leaves a legacy for the construction of the church of Peralta and a perpetual donation of his manorial goods - his “dominicatura”, as he said - for the feeding of a lamp during Lent.[20] The fact that he also looked after the lamps in the churches of Calasanz, Gavasa and Purroy suggests that his dominion or “dominicatura” also included these newly acquired places. And the suspicion is confirmed, because in 1153 his son, Rolando de Puigroig (Purroy), confirms the donation of the church of Vilet or Siurana, located between Gavasa and Peralta, to the monastery of Alaón, stating that he had received it in his will from his father, to whom the Count of Urgel had given it.[21]

19 See in three documents (ibid., pp. 249-251).

20 He assigns “IIII uncias ad edificamentum de ipsa ecclesia de Petra alta, cum una lampade quod ibi ardeat in diebus sanctis quadragesimis, de ipsa dominicatura” (ibid., p. 235).

21 The church of Vilet, today a simple hermitage, was a priory attached to the monastery of Alaón until it was confiscated in the last century. Cf. F. CASTILLÓN CORTADA, El Priorato de S. María de Vilet y sus intentos independentistas del Monasterio de Alaón. Analecta Sacra Tarraconensia 51-52 [1978-1979] 101-115. The quoted Latin document can be found in full ibid, pp. 127-128.

In late 1096 or early 1097, the Saracens recaptured the town and castle of Calasanz. And this time only the King of Aragon, Peter I, and his men came, who began the siege in 1098 and finally recaptured the fortress in 1102, shortly after they had also recaptured the city of Barbastro (1101). The villa and castle of Calasanz remained under the sovereignty of the kings of Aragon until the middle of the twelfth century. However, when the Count of Barcelona, Ramon Berenguer IV, was appointed Consort Prince through his marriage to Petronila of Aragon, there was an agreement under which the town and castle of Calasanz were annexed to the sovereign county of Urgel. In fact, in his will of 1167, when he bequeathed all his possessions to his son Ermengol VIII, Ermengol VII explicitly mentions the fortresses of Albesa, Albelda, Ager, Casserres, Pilzá, Puigrog, Gavasa, Calasanz and Momagastre.[22] Peralta is not mentioned, but is included in the terms of Momagastre, as Peralta was not and probably did not have a castle, and in those centuries, it was the castles and not the towns that were linked to the terms and feudal rights. Under the reign of Ermengol VIII, the castles of Calasanz and Momagastre still remain in 1206, when he leased them to Peter Ferrández de Castro, the future father-in-law of his daughter and heir to the county of Urgel, Aurembiaix.[23]

22 Cf. J. POCH, Lugares Calasancios…, pp. 253 and 235-236.

23 “Ego itaque Ermengaudus jam dictus Comes convenio vobis Petro Ferrandi tradere et deliberare Castrum meum de Montmegastre tenendum et haben dum per me… Convenio etiam vobis Petro Ferrandi jam dicto tradere et deliberare Castellum Calasancii tenendum per me...” (ibid., p. 238, n. 38).

The historian Zurita reports in his ‘Annals’ that in 1203, when Ermengol VIII of Urgel arranged the betrothal of his only daughter Aurembiaix to Álvaro, the son of Peter Ferrández de Castro, it was agreed that Aurembiaix “would “inherit the honour he had in Ribagorza, namely the nine castles of Albelda, Momagastre, Pelegrino, now called Pelagriño, Rocafort, Calasanz, Gavasa, Purroy, Pilzan, Caserras, in the event of the count’s son inheriting the county.”[24] The count died (1208) without sons and so his daughter, who was still a minor, became the heir to the entire county. A long battle began with the Counts of Cabrera, who rightfully claimed the county, against the Kings of Aragon, the protectors of Countess Aurembiaix.

24 ZURITA, Anales de la Corona de Aragon, 1.II, c.57.

What is important for our history is that, since the Reconquista of the lands of ‘Baja Ribagorza’ and ‘La Litera’, there is a nucleus that remains integrated into the county of Urgel until the incorporation of this county into the Crown and then continues to exist as a barony until the abolition of the lordships decreed by the Courts of Cádiz (1812).

It is not easy to determine, over the centuries, the castles, villages and towns that make up what will eventually be called the “Barony of Peralta”. Of the nine towns newly called “Honour” in Ribagorza, some, such as Albelda and Calasanz, will secede; and others, such as Zurita and Cuatrocorz, will be included in the lists, in which the name Peralta will not always be read, but will remain crouched as if under the protection of the castle of Momagastre.

The act of foundation of this barony in the county of Urgel is probably the donation that Aurembiaix signed in Toledo on May 1, 1226 in favour of Raymond de Peralta to thank him for the services he had rendered to her and her mother, Countess Elvira, and that Raymond’s father, William de Peralta, had rendered to Count Ermengol VIII, Aurembiaix’s father. The perpetual gift to him and his descendants refers to the castle of Momagastre, “which lies next to Peralta”, with all its possessions and its “lordship”, in open and free allodium. He also grants him, as a feudal estate, certain rights of lordship over the castles of Gavasa, Purroy, Rocafort and Pelagriñón, accepting the homage of loyalty he has shown him and considering him a feudatory. He wants all these donations to be valid “per secula seculorum”.[25]

25 ...” ego Orembiaxia filia quondam bone memorie Ermengaudi Comitis Urgellensis… dono inter vivos vobis Raimundo de Peralta et omni vestre posteritati… in perpetuum concedo castrum et villam de Momagastre, quod est prope Peraltam… cum omnibus pertinentiis et senioratico pro vestro et pro francho libero et ingenuo alodio… et penso habeatis super castris et villis et senioratico de Gavassa, et de Podio Rubeo, et de Rocafort, et de Pelagriño, et super omnibus ad ipsa castra, villas et senioraticum pertinentibus...” (cf. the whole very long doc. in J. P0CH, o.c., p. 254-255).

Before the death of Countess Aurembiaix in 1231, James I had incorporated the county of Urgel into the Crown and demanded that Raymond de Peralta hand over the castles of Ribagorza. A legal dispute ensued and the final judgement of 1234 forced the king to respect Raymond de Peralta’s rights over Momagastre and the other castles already mentioned on the basis of the donation of Aurembiaix.[26] This firmly established the Peralta family’s rule over what was later called the “Barony of Peralta”.

26 “Sit notum cunctis, quod post multas contenciones diucius agitatas inter Ill. Jacobum Dei gr. Regem Aragonum ex una parte et Nobilem virum Raymundum de Peralta ex altera parte super potestate videlicet de Montemagastre et super potestatibus castrorum Podii rubei, Gavase, Rochefortis et Pelagrinonii… Nos igitur… arbitrantes, dicimus… quod dictus Dom. Rex difiniat et absolvat et remittat in perpetuum per se et successores suos dicto Raymundo de Peralta, et suis successoribus potestatem de Montemagastro ut dictus Raymundus de Peralta habeat dictum Castrum pro suo alodio francho et libero… Item Dominus Rex det eidem Raymundo de Peralta et suis successoribus omnes reditus et expletos praedictorum quattuor Castrorum retentis sibi et suis successoribus potestate, fidelitate, homagio, pace et tregua in ipsis quatuor Castris, secundum consuetudinem Barchinone…” (cf. ibid., p259-260).

Peralta de la Sal in the diocese of Urgel

There is no doubt that the Reconquista was carried out with a certain religious inspiration to liberate the previously Christian lands and peoples from Saracen domination. Divine protection was invoked and, as proof of gratitude for the favours received or as a guarantee of future help, not only were temples rebuilt or erected and diocesan boundaries extended, but donations of land, tithes, rights and new churches were also made to certain sanctuaries, monasteries, convents and abbeys for which the conquerors felt particular devotion or interest.

Arnold Mir de Tost donated churches near Peralta to his favourite monastery or canonry of St. Peter de Ager, while his lord, the Count of Urgel Ermengol IV, preferred to donate his property to Santa María de Solsona, as can be seen from the donations to Gavasa, Calasanz, Momagastre and Albelda de Litera. He must have done the same with the church of Peralta, because in 1097 Pope Urban II confirmed the ownership of the Augustinian canonry of Solsona, naming it “ecclesiam de Mamagastra, ecclesiam de Petra alta”.[27] Eugene III ratifies the authorization of his predecessor in 1150 and lists the following among many others: “ecclesiam de Albella, ecclesiam de Calasanz, ecclesias de Momagastre, de Petra alta, de Balager, de Albesa...”[28] And the same is repeated in other documents from 1180 and 1188: “ecclesiam de Calasant, ecclesias de Albella, de Momagastre, de Petra alta, de Albesa...”[29] The assignment of these churches to the Augustinian canons of Solsona was of course made with the consent of the Bishop of Urgel, in whose diocese they were all located, always respecting the inviolable episcopal rights.[30]

27 Cf. VILLANUEVA, Viaje literario, t.IX, p. 222-224.

28 P. KEHR, Papsturkunden in Spanien, I. Katalonien (Berlin 1926) p. 328-329. In the Bull of Urban II Calasanz is not mentioned because in that year of 1097 it was again in the hands of Saracens.

29 Cf. VILLANUEVA, o.c., t. IX, p. 40-55; D. COSTA Y BOFARULL, Memorias de la ciudad de Solsona y su Iglesia (Barcelona 1959) v.II, p. 640-652, docs. XVIII-XXII; J. POCH, Castell i Vila de Calassanç: Cat. 168 (1975) 4-5

30 Thus it is recorded in this document of November 10, 1163: “Et ego Bernardus Urgellensis episcopus et clerici Urgellensis ecclesiae Coelsonensem ecclesiam, quae ad nostram diocesim sive regimen pertinet… laudamus… quascumque possessiones, quaecumque bona eadem ecclesia impraesentiarum iuste et canonice possidet… Ecclesias, videlicet de Chalasanz, ecclesiam de Muntmagastre, de Petraalta… Has ecclesias concedimus clericis coelsonensis ecclesiae cum veteribus capellaniis, reservato nobis in omnibus integre jure pontificali…” (VILLANUEVA, o.c., t.IX, p. 228-234).

Other donations or attributions were made directly to the church of Seo, so that Peralta, Momagastre, Calasanz, etc. were ascribed to Santa Maria de Solsona, while the churches of Caladrons, Pilzan, Fet, Finestres, etc. are attributed to San Pedro de Ager, and those of Gavasa, Rocafort, Purroy, etc. are directly linked to the Seo.[31]

31 Cf. J. POCH, Lugares Calasancios…, p. 236.

At the end of the 13th century, the canonry of Solsona exercised patronage over 75 churches, which belonged not only to the diocese of Urgel, but also to those of Vich, Barcelona, Lérida and Zaragoza. However, long before this canonry of Solsona was converted into a collegiate church (1592) and transformed into a diocese (1593), the parish of Peralta de la Sal was directly linked to the Seo de Urgel. During Joseph Calasanz’s childhood, it had 13 beneficiaries, who, it is said, were appointed by the bishop of the diocese.[32]

32 In a notarial protocol of the Chapter and Beneficiaries of Peralta (March 22, 1610) we read: “No ignoren ni ignorar poden V.M., Señors Rector y beneficiats de la Comunitat de la iglesia parrochial de Peralta de la Sal, diócesis de Urgel, com de temps immemorandum a esta part y que no hi ha memoria de homens en contrari, tots los beneficis de dita Iglesia Parrochial, los quals canonicamente son estats provehits per dit Ordinari de Urgel…” (quoted in J. POCH, De la “batllia” i del catalá parlat i escrit a Peralta de la Sal, Cat 210 [1978] 7)

The parish of Peralta has thus been continuously anchored in the diocese of Urgel from the beginning, i.e. since the middle of the XI century, either as dependent on the Augustinian canonry of Solsona or as directly linked to the Seo.

Joseph de Calasanz therefore belonged to the diocese of Urgel from the unknown date of his baptism. In many official documents concerning him, the clarification that he belonged to “the diocese of Urgel” appears as an individual and personal note that gives the impression of being more than just a protocol reference. Let us take a look at some of them: In the documents relating to his ordinations as priest and deacon, it says that the ordained Joseph Calasanz is “Urgelensis dioecesis”.[33] In Rome, he did not forget his affiliation to the diocese of Urgel in the documents in which he asked for ecclesiastical benefices,[34] and he also mentioned the diocese when he enrolled in certain Roman Confraternities.[35] In 1623, when he was already the Founder and Minister General of the Pious Schools and summarized the history of his institution in a kind of report, he described himself as “Joseph of the Mother of God from the town of Peralta de la Sal, Diocese of Urgel, in the Kingdom of Aragon”,[36] etc.

33 Cf. AnCal 50 (1983) 269-270.

34 “Josephus Calasanz, presbyter Urgelensis, Sacrae Theologiae Doctor,” he says when asking for a benefice in Fraga in 1592 (cf. EphCal 11 [1960] 309); “Josephus Calasanz, presbyter Urgelensis dioecesis, magister in Theologia…” he writes asking for a canonry in Barbastro in 1594 (cf. EphCal 6 [1957] 147); “Josephum Calasans presbiterum Urgelensis Civitatis vel dioecesis…” in 1596 (ib…, p. 148). Other Roman doc. in EphCal 6 (1959) 223-225.

35 “Don Giuseppe Calasantio, Sacerdote della diocesi de Urgele…” in 1599 (cf. EphCal 9-10 [1959] 328-329); “R. Giuseppe Calasani Sacerdote Urgelensis dioecesis”, in 1600 (ibid., p. 332).

36 Cf. EGC II, p. 170.

The deep esteem he always had for his diocese was evident in the years of service he dedicated to it before leaving Spain and in the first years of his stay in Rome, until he devoted himself entirely to his Pious Schools. But even after that, there is no lack of details that prove the persistence of this esteem. The first attempt at a Piarist foundation in Spain, for example, took place in his diocese of Urgel, although it failed due to the conflicts of the “Guerra dels segadors” (Reapers´ War). He expresses his nostalgia when he says: “If I were not eighty years old, I would gladly go to this foundation”[37]; at this stage of his long life, he is still eager to serve his diocese in everything he can.[38]

37 Cf. l.2902. Letter dated July 1, 1638, addressed to Fr. Melchior Alacchi who is trying to found a school in Guisona, diocese of Urgel.

38 In May 1638 some priests of Urgel visit him and he says “to whom I have offered all that I can do in their service” (c.2858).

Peralta de la Sal remained part of the Diocese of Urgel until January 1, 1956, when it was transferred to the Diocese of Lérida due to the requirements of Art. 9 of the 1953 Concordat on the reorganization of diocesan boundaries.[39] Since 1995, Peralta belongs to the diocese of Barbastro.

39 Cf. the decree of the Sda. Consistorial Congr. in Boletín Oficial del Obispado de Urgel, 98 (1955) 241-245. When presenting this decree, the Bishop of Urgel, in a kind of farewell to his parishioners until then, expressed his regret for leaving Peralta de la Sal where San Joseph de Calasanz had been born, saying: “And how can we not feel deep emotion on “detaching” ourselves from Peralta de la Sal, cradle of the great Spanish pedagogue and Saint, Joseph Calasanz, unfading glory of the secular Clergy of the Diocese of Urgel and distinguished Founder, later, of the Pious Schools?” And he recalled in summary his wanderings in that diocese (cf. ibid., p. 240).

Peralta and Catalonia: deep roots

Although we are already on the inside, it seems obligatory to point out that in this delicate and polemical matter it is necessary to tiptoe and speak almost in a low voice. It provokes reactions in its civil and ecclesiastical historical aspects, when considered in terms of general historical geography and also in its explicit and very personal reference to the Founder of the Pious Schools. And it is a topic that we cannot ignore.

The first serious discussions began in the time of James the Conqueror, precisely in a reign in which the fate of the county of Urgel was at stake and the survival of the recently founded “honor” or barony of Peralta de la Sal was being fought out in court. The brief dates are as follows: in 1243, during the division of his states, James I convenes a Court in Daroca for the Aragonese, in which they swear in his son Alfonso as his successor in Aragon, whose border in the east is determined by the river Segre. The Catalans protested and persuaded the monarch the following year (1244) in the court of Barcelona, where Prince Peter was sworn in as heir to Catalonia, to change his decision and establish the border of Catalonia at the river Cinca. The Aragonese did not resign themselves, but had to wait patiently until the Court of Saragossa in 1300, when James II established the new border on the Noguera Ribagorzana river, halfway between the Cinca and the Segre, thus definitively incorporating the regions of Sobrarbe, Ribagorza and La Litera, including Peralta de la Sal, into the Kingdom of Aragon.

In 1610-1611, John Baptist Labaña described the Kingdom of Aragon: “The river Noguera Ribagorzana is the border between Aragon and Catalonia...”[40] And the geographer Ignacio de Asso repeated the same thing almost two centuries later: “The Noguera Ribagorzana, which forms the border between Aragon and Catalonia, is somewhat more copious.”[41]

40 J. B. LABAÑA, Itinerario del Reino de Aragón (1610-1611), in J. GARCÍA MERCADAL, Viajes de extranjeros por España y Portugal, t.II (Aguilar, Madrid 1959) p. 225.

41 I. DE ASSO, Historia de la economía política de Aragón (Zaragoza 1798) p. 82.

So, if it is true that when Joseph de Calasanz was born in 1557, his town had already belonged to the Kingdom of Aragon for 257 years, we must not forget that from the ‘Reconquista’ around 1075 to the year 1300, another 225 years passed, during which Peralta belonged uninterruptedly to the Catalan County of Urgel and, moreover, for the last half century it was within the officially declared borders of Catalonia (1244-1300). And these first two long centuries had a strong influence on the social and cultural context of Peralta.

Although the Reconquista did not mean the total eradication of the conquered peoples, there was undoubtedly a significant repopulation, when new villages were not founded. And these recolonizers - the victors - imposed their customs, their laws, their religion and their language. And of all this, only religion was common between Aragon and Catalonia. Thus, during these two long centuries of belonging to Catalonia, Peralta de la Sal lived in an environment where customs, laws, institutions and language were simply Catalan. To this must be added the almost five centuries during which the parish - with all its profound influence on the collective life of a people - was incorporated into the Catalan diocese of Urgel, when Joseph Calasanz was born, either directly in La Seo or as a dependency of the Augustinian canonry of Solsona.

Certainly, the 257 years of belonging to the Kingdom of Aragon must have changed many aspects of life in Peralta and, above all, created an individual and collective awareness of “being Aragonese” But there were other things that were atavistically rooted and still manifested themselves during the years of Joseph Calasanz’s life. It would suffice to recall the Catalan institution of the “hereu” with its characteristic “marriage contracts”; the possibility, in some cases, of seeking refuge in the ‘Fueros of Aragon’ or the ‘Usatges’ and customs of Catalonia.[42] And, above all, the language.

42 In the marriage contracts of John Carpi with Esperanza Calasanz, sister of the Saint, we read: ”…which marriage is not according to the privileges and observances of the present kingdom of Aragon, nor practices, nor constitutions of Cataluya (sic)” (RegC 74,53). In the matrimonial capitulations of his brother Peter Calasanz with Jerónima Paúl it is also noted: “and the present marriage and the present Chapters were not made according to the laws and observances of the present Kingdom of Aragon nor the customs of Catalonia, but…” (RegCal 13,6-8).

There are practically nine long centuries in which the same language has been spoken in Peralta, from that distant last third of the 11th century to the present day, and almost half a millennium to the days of the birth of Joseph de Calasanz.

It is no surprise to philologists that Catalan resists today in the more or less wide strip of land between the Cinca and the Noguera Ribagorzana. There are certain regions between the Cinca and Isábena rivers where areas of transition from Aragonese to Catalan and from Catalan to Aragonese can be seen, while in others Catalan is simply spoken, called Ribagorzano or Literano (from La Litera) because of its particular nuances. It is very similar to the occidental Catalan of Lérida, which also has its own modalities compared to that of Barcelona or any other Catalan region. The Catalan spoken in Peralta to this day is therefore Ribagorzano or Literano-Catalan. The term “chapurriau”, with which it is qualified, has a certain pejorative connotation, which probably comes from those who, since they speak Castilian unilaterally, can hardly distinguish nuances in another foreign language, which in this case they consider to be badly spoken.[43]

43 Cf. Gran Enciclopedia Aragonesa, t.III: Catalán en Aragón; t. VIII: Literano; t. XI: Ribagorzano. Extensive bibliography cited. In a printed document of Charles III of 1762, in recognition of the infanzonía of Bardaxí family, residents of Fonz, a village west of Peralta, we read: “That because of the proximity of Catalonia to the said village of Fonz, in this one, speaking vulgarly in Cathalán, they pronounce Bardaxi as Bardachín…” (Private archives of Casa Zaydín, of Peralta de la Sal).

If this is true for today, it is undeniable that it is even more so if we refer to the time four centuries ago. And the writings that have survived from that time, from Peralta and its region, confirm this reality. As for Joseph Calasanz, we must remember his university years in Lérida and the five years (1587-1592) that he spent in his diocese of Urgel in a purely Catalan environment. As an example of his clean and elegant Catalan, twelve letters that he wrote as secretary of the chapter of Urgel remain.[44] Of his extensive Roman correspondence, only one letter in Catalan has survived, dated 1620.[45] However, it is known that he wrote another letter in Catalan to the Bishop of Urgel in 1638, when he was in his eighties.[46] Despite his age and the many years he had lived in Rome, he could hardly forget his mother tongue, the language of his people.

44 Cf. P. PUJOL I TUBAU, Sant Josep de Calassanç…, p. 70-79; EGC, X, p. 395-419. On these letters and other documents of Calasanz and Peralta de la Sal, in Catalan, see the following articles of J. POCH - M. PUIG: El catalá escrit de Sant Josep de Calassanç: Cat 149 (1973); El carteig catalá de S. Josep de Calassanç: Cat 160 (1974); Dos nuevos escritos autógrafos del Fundador de la Escuela Pía: PanEs 40-41(1974) 60-64. And of POCH, Encara més prosa catalana del prevere J. Calassanç: Cat 206 (1978); De la ¨batllía¨ i del catalá parlat i escrit a Peralta de la Sal (segles XVI-XVII): Cat 210 (1978) 5-8; Encara més catalá parlat i escrit a Peralta de la Sal: Cat 212 (1979) 12-14; Un altre document calassanci a la catedral d’Urgel: Cat 217 (1979) 4-8; Mostra inédita de catalá del comtat de Ribagorça (segles XIV-XV): Cat 222 (1980) 3-7; Plet de requestes a Peralta de sal. El litigi fou formulat en catalá: Cat 260 (1983) 11-13.

45 C.45.

46 Father General shows that he is very happy that the Pious School is entering Spain and he writes to me in Catalan and I also want to answer him in the same language” (EGC VI, p. 139, commentary on C.2858).

The years he lived in Catalonia and his contact with the Catalans naturally contributed to Joseph Calasanz forming a personal image of them, which is expressed in three letters to Father Melchior Alacchi, whom he had sent to Spain to found the first Piarist house in Guisona in the diocese of Urgel: “The Catalan people - he says - have no equals in the world for those who behave well towards them and, on the contrary, for those who behave badly.”[47] And with new nuances: “The Catalan nation is uniquely benevolent towards those who behave well, because they are realistic people (reali) and of great judgment and prudence.”[48] Father Leodegario Picanyol comments on the first letter quoted above in Italian: “From the way the saint expresses himself in this passage, I would say that he did not consider himself a member of the “Catalan nation”, which, moreover, coincides with another sentence of a letter written earlier to the same Father Alacchi, in which Calasanz refers to himself as “of Aragonese nation”.[49] He speaks, in fact, of Catalonia as a nation distinct from his own and to which he does not count himself. And the fact is that Peralta de la Sal was - as Father Cavada said in a paragraph quoted earlier - “two leagues from the borders of Catalonia” Not much, but enough to feel completely “in the Kingdom of Aragon”

47 C.2902. And previously he had said: “I expect great profit in that Nation, which is kind and pious with strangers who behave well, like no other Nation” (C.2858). The idea of Nation was different from ours, and in the Crown of Aragon it had its own connotations, since it was formed by the three “nations” of Aragon, Catalonia and Valencia.

48 C.2932. With these words he defines the concept that the Catalans call “seny” as an ethnic characteristic.

49 EGC VI, p. 374. The same commentary was already written by Picanyol in Rass 18 (1951) 19.

In the Kingdom of Aragón

The border drawn in 1300 was an incontrovertible fact. The inhabitants of Peralta de la Sal had known this since the time of Joseph de Calasanz and recorded it in their documents. In a census carried out in Peralta on August 18, 1566, it is stated that “the said town of Peralta de la Sal and its territories are in what is now the Kingdom of Aragon.”[50] In the marriage contracts of Peter Calasanz Gastón, the saint’s elder brother, which were concluded in Peralta on 20 February, 1576 in Peralta, it states that “neither the present marriage nor the present chapters are concluded according to the laws or customs of the present Kingdom of Aragon”; and he reiterates that these properties “ are duly named, faced and specified according to the law of the present Kingdom of Aragon, wanting the present obligation to be a special one and to have all those effects that constitute a special obligation according to the law and customs of said Kingdom.”[51] Another notarial document from 1579 begins as follows: “In the town of Peralta de la Sal and in the presence of John Porquet, bayle and ordinary judge of the said town of Peralta de la Sal in the Kingdom of Aragon...”[52] On May 29, 1607, “Cosme Sala, farmer, neighbour and resident of the town of Peralta de la Sal, Kingdom of Aragon, makes his will in Tamarite de Litera. And D. Joseph Merigó, who transcribes it, comments on it with a certain mockery: “It is a will in good Catalan, which proves that Peralta was Aragon.”[53] On the same day, July 26, 1617, a married couple in Peralta de la Sal made a will; he “Antonius Adeva, farmer from the town of Peralta de la Sal”, and she “Margalida Pilçano, wife of Antonius Adeva, neighbours from the town of Peralta de la Sal”, and both do not enumerate their goods, but have them declared “according to the law of the present Kingdom of Aragón”.[54] When the Founder of the Pious Schools died in Rome, reports on his family were requested from his home town, and a solemn notarial attestation dated 26 May 1651 was drawn up, in which it was stated that: “It will be more than a hundred years ago that in the said town of Peralta de la Sal in the diocese of Urgel in the Kingdom of Aragon...”[55]

50 Cf. RevCal 147 (1925) 178.

51 RegCal 13,6.8. The same reference to the “present Kingdom of Aragon” appears in the marriage contracts of Esperanza Calasanz (cf. n. 42 of this chapter).

52 AEPZ, Peralta, 4.

53 RegCal 74, n. 226.

54 Cf. J. POCH, Tres testamentos del padre del fundador de las Escuelas Pías: AnCal 40(1978) 487, 489.

55 Cf. RegCal 13,6.8. Free version in BAU, BC, p. 11.

All these testimonies come from people from Peralta, contemporaries of Joseph Calasanz, who spontaneously declare their conviction that they come from the Kingdom of Aragon. And the Saint himself expressed it with no less clarity in his personal writings. On November 8, 1587, Calasanz renewed a document in Balaguer for the parish priest of his town, recalling that on November 3rd, the canon Raphael Gomis, who was accompanied by the young priest Calasanz as secretary, had been there as a Visitator and wrote in Latin: “in the town of Peralta de la Sal of the diocese of Urgel of the Kingdom of Aragon.”[56] In a long report from 1623 on the origins of the Pious Schools, he calls himself: “Joseph of the Mother of God, from the place called Peralta de la Sal, diocese of Urgel, in the Kingdom of Aragon.”[57] But the saint’s most emphatic confession is undoubtedly found in the letter of August 7, 1632 to Father Alacchi, in which it says: “... since I am of Aragonese nation, but have Roman feelings and customs, because I have been in Rome for more than 40 years, I have completely forgotten my homeland…”[58]

56 “in vila Peraltae Salis Regni Aragonum dioecesis Urgelen” (cf. RevCal 150 [1925] 410).

57 EGC II, p. 170. In another almost unpublished report, from 1634, the phrase is repeated, changing “del Reino” instead of “en el Reino” (cf. RegCal 11, XI).

58 C.1849.

There was probably no such forgetfulness, given the “diplomatic” nuance of the expression. The difficulties in Venice stemmed from his “Spanish” and not exactly “Aragonese” nationality.[59] But he spontaneously invokes his status as an Aragonese and not a Spaniard. And he must not have kept it very hidden, because all those who lived with him, especially in the last years of his life, knew that Peralta de la Sal was in the Kingdom of Aragon, and it is logical to assume that the source of the information could be none other than himself. Let us look at some examples of the witnesses who testified in the beatification process, compiled by Father Antony Vidal. Father Joseph Fedele: “I know that... he was born in Spain, in a place called Peralta, in the Kingdom of Aragon, Diocese of Urgel”; Father Benedict Quarantotto: “I know that the Servant of God... was born in Spain, in the Kingdom of Aragon, in a place called Peralta de la Sal, Diocese of Urgel...”; Father Gabriel Bianchi: ”...and the place where he himself was born is called Peralta, in the Kingdom of Aragon, in the diocese of Urgel...”; Father Alexis Armini: “I know that this Servant of God comes from Peralta de la Sal, a place in the Kingdom of Aragon and within its borders, in the diocese of Urgel, bordering Catalonia.”[60]

59 See an outline of the polemic on the meaning and “diplomatic” scope of this and similar expressions in CS, v.I, p. 330, n. 11.

60 Cf. A. VIDAL, De re calasanctiana: RevCal 152 (1925) 550-553.

One of the most knowledgeable witnesses in this matter was undoubtedly the canon and penitentiary of Lérida and a great friend of the old Founder in his last years, Michael Jiménez Barber. In the first informative process in July 1551, he testified: “I know where the place Peralta de la Sal is which I am being asked about. My mother is from a place three miles from there and I am from six [Binaced] and that place is in the Kingdom of Aragon.”[61] The same witness recalls that when Joseph Calasanz was studying at the University of Lérida, “all the youth of our land of Aragón elected him Prior of the nation.”[62] And according to the statutes - apart from the confusion of the word ‘prior’ used here - each of the three nations of the Crown of Aragon (Aragon, Catalonia and Valencia) elected their “conseller” of the rector, who had to be from the nation of the electors. The Aragonese therefore chose Calasanz because he was Aragonese.

61 Procln, p. 209. He was in Rome and Italy for at least the years 1645-1648. He returned to Rome in 1651 and was chosen to testify as a witness in the Process of Beatification of Calasanz, as he did in July-August 1651. He said he was then 38 years old and doctor and penitentiary canon of the cathedral of Lérida (cf. EHI p. 165-168; EC p. 241-242; S. GINER, El proceso de Beatificación de San José de Calasanz [Madrid 1973], ICCE, p. 80).

62 Procln, p. 213-214.

Another interesting testimony is that of the Vicereine of Sardinia, whose brother, the Marquis of Aytona, was the lord of the Barony of Peralta at the time, as had been her mother, Doña Margarita de Castro y Alagón, lady of the House of Castro. In a letter dated July 30, 1646, the vicereine wrote to the almost not-so-young Founder: “I knew that Y.P. was Aragonese and from your name I had no doubt that you knew my parents’ house.”[63]

63 EHI, p. 1463-64.

The two most important early chroniclers or historians of the Order of the Pious Schools and its Founder were Fathers Vincent Berro and John Charles Caputi. From both of them we have two curious testimonies on the subject that concerns us. The first had the detail of explaining the name of the Founder already in the title of his memoirs, which literally translates as: “Notes on the foundation of the Congregation and the Religion of the Clerics Regular Poor of the Mother of God of the Pious Schools, erected by Father Joseph of the Mother of God, in the world Joseph Calasanz, Aragonese, collected by Father Vincent of the Conception, professed priest of the same Religion.”[64]

64 Cf. BERRO I, p. 49.

The testimony of Father Caputi is even more explicit and reads as follows:

“After the petitions of the King of France were brought to me by considerate persons by some Catalan gentlemen, who asserted that our Ven. Father Founder was born in the Kingdom (sic) of Catalonia and was a vassal of the King of France, who occupied it in part at that time, I renounced these offers, knowing that the Father was from the Kingdom of Aragón and not from Catalonia, because when he died in 1648 there was opposition between the Aragonese and the Catalans, as each of them pretended to be his countryman, his compatriot, but there was an Aragonese doctor who provided histories of the Kingdom of Aragon, which stated that not only the Calasanz family but also Peralta de la Sal was under the rule of the Kingdom of Aragon, since our Father himself claimed to be Aragonese, and in all the Confraternities in which he was registered in Rome he was recorded as D. Joseph Calasanz, Aragonese.”[65]

65 S. GINER, o.c., p. 114, n. 98 (original in Italian).

Joseph Calasanz and Zaragoza, St. Lawrence, and Our Lady of Pilar

In 1592, Philip II began to discuss with Rome the secularisation of the Chapter of Canons of St. Augustine, of La Seo of Zaragoza. Two years later, he sent his ambassador a list of 21 candidates to fill the 24 canonries. And he adds another eight “who are at this court” in Rome, so that from them the remaining three are chosen. All those chosen “are to be considered the best subjects of the Kingdom of Aragon”, said the King. And in 1952 (sic) a list of 28 future canons for this change of chapter appeared in the archives of La Seo of Zaragoza, and in no. 26 we read: “Dr. Josephed (sic) de Calasanz, native of Peralta, near Monçón, who is in Rome.”[66] If he had not been considered an Aragonese, his name would not appear in this list.

66 Cf. J. POCH, Mossén Josep Calassanç a la diócesi d’Urgel (1587-1591): Cat 195 (1977) 38-40.

It is not known whether it is related to his election as Canon of Zaragoza, whether it is a competition piece, or whether purpose Calasanz wrote a memorable page in which he contrasts the advantages and disadvantages of Rome and Zaragoza, with the latter triumphing. The text is in Italian, with the exception of a quotation from St. Ambrose and the last paragraph alluding to the Pilar, which are in Latin. The exaggeration of the merits of Christian Zaragoza compared to those of Rome is obvious. And the “Aragonesism” becomes even clearer when he writes that “according to Prudentius, the blood of St. Lawrence, an Aragonese, brought about the victory of Rome over the rites of the false gods. Thus, Rome sent tyrants to Saragossa who martyred their children, and Saragossa sent the invincible martyr St. Lawrence to Rome, who made them triumph over false idolatry.”[67]

67 Cf. photocopy, transcription and translation of the document in A. CASTILLO GENZOR, Calasanz. Abolengo y ejecutoria: Raza y Fe: Doce de Octubre (Zaragoza 1966) 18-19.

It is true that Prudentius glorifies the figure of the martyr St. Lawrence with these words in the first four stanzas of the second hymn of his Peristefanon.[68] But neither in this very long poem of 584 verses nor in another poem dedicated to the martyrs of Saragossa[69] does Prudentius allude to Lawrence’s nationality. And given the subject matter, he would have had to do so if he had considered him to be a Saragossa native or at least a Spaniard.

68 Cf. A. PRUDENCIO, Obras completas (BAC, Madrid 1950) p. 488.

69 Cf. ibid., p. 540-551.

In addition to the aforementioned paragraph, Calasanz adds as another merit of Zaragoza: “Words of Our Lady to Santiago: This pillar will remain in this place until the end of the world, and there will never be a lack of followers of Christ in this city.”[70] He, who said of himself that he was “an Aragonese of the nation”, could not fail to express in some way his devotion to Zaragoza and in particular to Our Lady of Pilar.

70 The Latin text in this Calasanctian doc. reads: “verba Virginis ad Sanctum Jacobum: Et erit Pilare istud in loco isto usque ad finem mundi et Christum colentes numquam ex hac urbe deficient.” The paragraph appears in the famous doc. (also Latin) preserved in the Archivo del Pilar, but the phrase “verba Virginis ad Sanctum Jacobum” has been prefixed, and the original text bears some variant: “eritque pilare illud in loco isto usque in finem mundi” (cf. España Sagrada, t.30 [1775] p. 426-428. Translation and interesting comments in Z. GARCÍA VILLADA, Historia Eclesiástica de España [Madrid 1929], t.I, part 1a., p. 67-79). The changed version must have been taken by Calasanz from the proper office of Our Lady of Pilar, which Clement VIII had just approved for his temple in Zaragoza.

The Royal House of Castro and the Barons of Peralta

Doña Catalina de Moncada y Alagón, Vicereine of Sardinia,[71] wrote in the aforementioned letter to Father Joseph Calasanz dated July 30, 1646: “My brother, the Marquis of Aytona, is lord of the House of Castro because it belonged to my mother, who was the daughter of the Baroness of La Laguna, whom your paternity could know in Aragon.”[72] And she ended the letter with these words full of affection: “As my eyesight is so poor, this letter is not from my hand. Do not forget to commend me to God and to make sure how much I appreciate you.” And the old Founder replied, a few days before his eighty-ninth birthday: “In addition to my old obligation to always pray for the Illustrious and Distinguished House of Moncada, there is now the new one that Your Excellency imposes on me with your letter, in which you tell me of some misfortunes that have befallen your Distinguished House in recent years.” And after giving her a few words of encouragement and Christian resignation, he concluded: “In the meantime, I will pray unceasingly to the Lord to preserve the health of Your Excellency’s entire house for many years to come, and especially for your two sons, and to constantly increase divine grace for them. This is what I can wish you as your most devoted servant and vassal by paying my respects to you.”[73]

71 Her husband Don Louis Guillén de Moncada y Aragón was Viceroy of Sardinia from 1644-1649 (cf. J. MATEU IBARS, Los virreyes de Cerdeña. Fuentes para su estudio [Padova 1964-67] v.II, p. 52-60).

72 EHI, p. 1463-1464. The brother of the Viceroy was Don Guillén Ramón de Moncada y Aragón, Lord of the House of Moncada and heir of all its titles, such as IV Marquis of Aytona, Count of Osona, Viscount of Illa, Grand Seneschal and Rational Master of Catalonia, Commander of La Fresneda, Gentleman of the Chamber of His Majesty and Major Steward of the Queen and Great of Spain and Lord of the House of Castro and of the Barony –among many others– of Peralta de la Sal. He married Doña Ana de Silva y Portugal and died in 1670 (cf. GARCÍA CARRAFFA, Enciclopedia heráldica y genealógica hispano-americana, t.57 [Moncada]).

73 CS, c.658.

Calling himself a vassal was not a simple courtesy to a lady of the Spanish aristocracy, but an allusion to or recognition of a historical reality. However, this vassalage did not belong to the Vicereine, but to her House of Moncada and in particular to her brother, the Marquis of Aytona, who was then Lord of the House of Castro and as such Lord of the Barony of Peralta de la Sal.

In the above paragraph, the Vicereine states the connection of the House of Castro: Her mother inherited the titles of the House of Castro as she was the only daughter of the Baroness of La Laguna. Her mother was Margarita de Castro y Alagón, mistress of the House of Castro and all its numerous titles and lands, including that of the Baroness of Peralta de la Sal. In 1610, she had married Francis de Moncada y Moncada, the third Marquis of Aytona and lord of the House of Moncada and all its numerous estates and titles. This marriage united the two great houses of Castro and Moncada for the future.

Doña Margarita de Castro y de Alagón had inherited the lands of the House of Castro from her mother, Doña Estefanía de Castro y Cervellón, XXIII Baroness de la Laguna, who had married Don Martín de Alagón y Espés, who was still alive when her daughter married the heir to the House of Moncada y Aytona in 1610. In the same year, J. B. Labaña wrote in his Itinerary of the Kingdom of Aragon on his arrival in Castro: “This castle and the barony belonging to it was given by King James I to Ferdinand Sánchez, his son by a noble maiden, whose barony is now held by the Baron of La Laguna through his wife Doña Estefanía de Castro y Cervellón, whose heiress daughter married this Viceroy’s heir, the Marquis of Aytona, in 1610.”[74] And with these clues, Labaña takes us back to the origins of the barony and the House of Castro.

74 J. B. LABAÑA, o.c., p. 159.

Zurita writes that in 1275, the illegitimate son of James I, Don Fernán Sánchez, married to Doña Aldonza Jiménez de Urrea, died. He had a son named Don Philip Fernández, “from whom the lords of the House of Castro are descended.”[75] In the very long list of “honours” or possessions that the bastard prince accumulated during his life, there is of course Castro, which gave its name to the new dynasty or House of Castro, and with it the town of Estadilla, which would later become the head of the barony.[76]

75 ZURITA, I.III, ch.95.

76 cf. A. VIDAL, De re calasanctiana: RevCal 150 (1925) 408. The author lists 76 localities, belonging to the bailiwicks of Zaragoza, Ribagorza and Barbastro, in which the aforementioned prince had “honors.”

In the same years in which the Countess of Urgel, Aurembiaix, spoke of her “honor” of Ribagorza, she gave it partly as a fief and partly as an inheritance to Raymond of Peralta. The latter received recognition of his rights to rule over that “honor” from James I. At this time, another “honor” or barony arose on the western border: that of Castro.[77] And although the founder of the new dynasty was a bastard, he was nevertheless the son of a king, so that his descendants always bore the pompous title of Royal Lords of Castro, one of the most prestigious noble houses in the Kingdom of Aragon.

77 This is the precise name given to the possessions of Ferdinand Sánchez, lost during the war he waged against his own father, King James I, and his brother Peter III of Aragon, and restored by Alfonso III to the son of the bastard, Felipe de Castro (ibid., p. 183-184).

In the middle of the 14th century, the heiress of the Barony of Peralta married the heir of the House of Castro and the Barony of Peralta was henceforth united with the Royal House of Castro. New links between the heirs were added by other noble surnames who annexed their lands and dominions to the House of Castro, such as the Pinós and the Cervelló. A century later, for example, on March 10, 1452, Don Philip Galcerán de Castro dictated a will in Catalan and listed his baronies as follows: “Perçó nos Felip Galcerán de Castre, Señor de les Baronies de Castre, de Peralta, de Tremacet e de Crabera (sic), e de les Honors de Monclús e de Olsó, e de la vila de Guimerá e del loch de Danycaula, volens e cobejans venir a la santa Gloria del Paradís....¨ and appoints a universal heir: “hereu universal instituhim al dit nostre net Felip de Castre [whose father, also Philip, had already died] de tots los Castells, viles e lochs de les dites Baronies e honors. ... ab les jurisdictions altes e baixes, civils e criminals, mer e mixte imperi...”[78]

78 Kind deference of Fr. Poch (letter of March 1, 1964), with reference to the Bibl. de la R. Acad. de la Historia, collection Salazar y Castro, without specifying more. He probably resided in Estadilla, since he says: “En aprés elegim e assignam la sepultura de nostre cos… en la Iglesia del sr. Sant Esteve de la vila nostra de Stadella” (ibid.).

In these testamentary clauses, we see that the lands or dominions of the House of Castro are not limited to the baronies of Castro and Peralta, but that there are others which later disappear from their titles, while new ones are added through wills or marital unions. What is clear, however, is the full dominion over their lands and vassals, with full jurisdiction even over gallows and knives, as was generally common to all great noble titles.

The lack of direct heirs led to a loud and protracted legal dispute in the middle of the following century, the main opponents of which were the Viscount of Ebol and the Baron of La Laguna,[79] with the latter emerging victorious. His name was Berenguer Arnaldo de Castro, married to Leonor de Boixadors and Requesens. It seems that the baron died in 1559, leaving a son of the same name, so that for twenty years the baroness Leonor controlled the destiny of the House of Castro in her own name and that of her son, practically throughout the childhood and youth of her illustrious “vassal”, the future Founder of the Pious Schools.

79 On August 28, 1546, the Deputies of the Kingdom of Aragon wrote to Prince Philip (II): “Agora se ha ofrecido que aviendo pleyto sobre la Casa de Castro, que es una de las principales deste Reino, entre el vizconde de Ebol y el Varón de la Laguna y otras partes…” (ibid.). (ibid.)

In a census signed in Peralta de la Sal on August 18, 1569, we read the names of these three lords of Castro, together with that of Peter Calasanz, the father of our Saint and “bayle” (bailiff) of Peralta de la Sal:

“Let it be known to all that I Francis Nabal, infanzon and notary public with address and resident in the town of Destadilla, and procurator of the very illustrious lords Doña Leonor de Boxados y de Castro, widow of Don Berenguer de Castro, mother, and her son, of the house and baronies of Castro and of the town and barony of Peralta de la Sal, am duly appointed and represented. And as the lawful proxy of the aforesaid by a public deed of appointment and substitution issued and executed in his own name by the said Lord Don Berenguer de Castro. And therefore, as lawful procurator of the aforesaid Lady Leonor de Boxados y de Castro, his mother, made in the city of Estadilla on the fourth day of November in the year of the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ, one thousand five hundred and fifty-nine... was made

And at the end:

“We intervened and were present, the undersigned and following. Et primo I Peter Calasanz bayle, Antón Sala de la Pila and Peter Pallarés jurors of the said place Peralta de la Sal ...”[80]

80 Cf. Revcal 147 (1925) 178, 180.

in 1579, the Baron de la Laguna appears already married to Margarita de Alagón and with a son of his same name, but what he decides in the document he does in his own name and in that of his mother, who must have kept her titles until her death.[81] However, on October 17, 1580, the said baron makes an appointment and alludes to his deceased father, but does not name his mother,[82] so it can be assumed that Doña Leonor, the baroness whom he had heard so often in his own house and who must have known the child and the young Joseph Calasanz Gastón personally, had already died.

81 “Nos dompnus Berengarius de Castro, Baro de la Llacuna tam in nomine nostro proprio quam etiam nomine multum Illis. domine dompne Eleonoris de Boxadors et de Castro, et dompnus Berengarius de Castro filius primogenitus dicti multum Illis. dompni Baronis et multum Illis. domine Margarite de Alagón huius consortis…” (J. POCH, Aportación documental a la historia de la Universidad de Huesca durante la segunda mitad del siglo XVI: Ancal 15 [1966] 237, n. 189). The doc. is dated April 5, 1579.

82 Cf. n. 85 ff.

One last generation of the Barons of Peralta was able to get to know Calasanz until he left Spain in 1592. The first-born of the last-named barons died still young and left as universal heir to the House of Castro the daughter Estefanía, who married Don Martín de Alagón y Espés, who became Baron of La Laguna. The aforementioned baron played an important role in the very serious events in Zaragoza in 1591-1592 regarding Antony Pérez. The Count of Luna qualifies him as a “young man and of little experience”.[83] Both lords of Peralta retained their titles in 1614, four years after their daughter and heiress Margarita de Castro y Alagón had married the heir to the House of Moncada. At the beginning of a will made in Peralta on February 4, 1614, it states:

83 Cf. F. DE GURREA Y ARAGÓN, Conde de Luna, Comentarios de los sucesos de Aragón en los años 1591 y 1592 (Madrid 1888) p. 72.

“In the presence of the great Monserrate Joan Sala, General Bayle of the Barony of Peralta de la Sal by the illustrious D. Martín Despés y de Alagón and donya Estefanía de Castro y Cervellón as spouses, Barons of La Laguna, Viscounts of Illa, lords of the House and State of Castro and of the Barony of Peralta, elected and appointed by their Lordships ...”[84]

84 Cf. J. POCH, Manuscrito inédito del siglo XVIII, de los Calasanz de la villa de Casserres: AnCal 19 (1968) 66.

This was the Baroness of La Laguna, “who could meet your Reverence in Aragon”, as the Vicereine of Sardinia had written to the almost not-so-young Founder of the Pious Schools. And so many memories of his childhood and youth crowded into his mind...

Authorities and hierarchies

All the baronies and lordships held by the Royal Lords of Castro were summarized in three titles that we have just seen next to their names: Barons of La Laguna, Viscounts of Illa and Lords of the House of Castro. The Barony of La Laguna was in the Principality of Catalonia, the Viscounty of Illa in Roussillon and the House of Castro in the Kingdom of Aragon.

Of the three demarcations, the House of Castro was the oldest and most prestigious, not only because of its rank of Royal Lords, but also because of the number of baronies, castles, towns and other dominions it possessed, all in the Kingdom of Aragon. And each of these three delimitations of its extensive manorial possessions had at its head a general ‘bayle’, whose duties consisted of representing its lords and exercising functions of justice, administration and defense of the rights and contributions of their lords, appointing lawyers and prosecutors and even other public offices, exercising absolute and full authority. This can be seen, for example, in the appointment of Peter Castany, the neighbor of Casserres, as general ‘bayle’ of the entire House of Castro in 1580 by Don Berenguer de Castro, who made it explicitly clear that he possessed “a power as absolute as the lords of the baronies in Aragon”[85]

85 “Nos dompnus Berengarius de Castro olim de Cervelione, dominus domus de Castro in Aragonia, vice comes comitatus de Illa in comitatu Rossilionis ac Baronis de la Llacuna in Principatu Cathaloniae, filius multum Illis. domini Berengarii Arnaldi de Castro, olim de Cervelione quondam patris nostri… creamus et constituimus vos eundem honorabilem Petrum Castany… in baiulum generalem totius terre et ditionis dicte domus nostre de Castro necnon quorumvis castrorum sive castellorum, terminorum, villarurn, locorum et pertinentiarum eiusdem domus nostre de Castro… Itaque vos quamdiu de nostro processerit beneplacito sitis baiulus generalis… regatis et exerceatis ipsum baiuliae generalis officium in tota dicta terra, etc. sicut per baiulos generales predecessores vestros peragi et exerceri solitum est et debet etiam cum creatione procuratorum, fiscalium atque etiam cum absoluta potestate et quemadmodum domini baroniarum habent et tenent in Aragonia…” (ib. p.64).

In addition to the general ‘bayle’ of the entire House of Castro, each barony had its general ‘bayle’ and each town or village its local ‘bayle’, all of which had similar functions, namely the representation of the Baron’s authority, the administration of the common and manorial estates, the collection of tithes and other princely dues and the administration of justice in their respective jurisdictions. In general, the local ‘bayles’ of the heads or capitals of the baronies were also the general ‘bayle’ of the entire barony, as was the case in Peralta de la Sal.

Following the central government of the entire Kingdom of Aragon, the House of Castro, like other noble houses, also had at the head of its states, together with the General Bayle or bailiff, the General Governor, of higher category than the previous one and with a certain noble rank, sometimes coming from the same family of Lords. His main duties were the maintenance of public order and the armed defense or general direction of the lordship’s militia. In a record from 1614, which we have already quoted, we read the name of the “General Bayle of the Barony of Peralta” The following record mentions the local Baile of Pelagriñón, a town belonging to the Barony of Peralta, and the General Governor of the entire House of Castro. The document is dated November 6, 1595:

“I, Michael John Ballester, neighbor of the village of Pelagriñón, bayle and ordinary judge of the said village by the very illustrious lords Don Martin Despés and Doña Estefanía de Castro y Cervellón, spouses, barons of La Laguna and lords of the House of Castro and the barony of Peralta de la Sal y de la Honor, and of the said village of Pelagriñón, with the grant made to me by the illustrious lord D. Blasco de Aragón, Governor of the Land of Castro and the Barony of Peralta de la Sal y de la Honor...”[86]

86 86 Cf. BAU, BC, p. 19. Here is another general bayle of the Villa and Barony: “With license and permission of the magnificent Joan Sallent bayle general of the said villa of Peralta and its Barony…” (December 11, 1610) (cf. J. POCH, De la “batllia” y del catalá parlat…: Cat 210 [1978] 6). In 1641, during the “Guerra dels segadors”, the offensive was prepared by those of the Ribagorzan area and, once the decisions were taken, it was said: “It is up to Mr. Félix de Alagón, Governor, to warn the four castles, Villa de Estadilla and the other Villas and Places of the House of Castro” (cf. J. DE MONER, Biblioteca de escritores ribagorzanos [Zaragoza 1884] p. 270).

These authorities had a direct influence on the historical life of the barony of Peralta, as in any other of the baronies, towns and other dominions of the House of Castro. But the entire House of Castro was part of the Kingdom of Aragon and therefore subject to its charters, courts, authorities and historical vicissitudes, just like other counties and dominions. Some modern authors overemphasise the autonomous character of the Barony of Peralta, as if this autonomy detached the barony and its barons from the Kingdom of Aragon and left them in a state of sovereign independence and direct connection with the person of the King.[87] However, there is no lack of documents directly related to the Calasanz family that show the list of hierarchies whose authority was recognised in the Barony of Peralta, together with the specific authority of the Lords of Castro. Thus, we read in the marriage capitulations of Peter Calasanz, brother of the saint, concluded in the same town of Peralta on February 20, 1576:

87 “Only after 1300 did the village of Casserres remain within the kingdom of Aragon but forming part of the autonomous Barony of Peralta, as well as Peralta de la Sal, Gavasa, Purroy, etc. and without any subordination to Aragon or the County of Ribagorza. The barons of Castro-Peralta, in the possession and regime of their barony, depended solely on the monarch of Spain” (J. POCH, Manuscrito inédito del siglo XVIII…, p. 24-25)..

”... the one and the other part promised and pledged themselves et e converso for each and every one of the aforesaid things with the dependent and arising events of these annexed and connected things, to the law and justice before the lord King, the Regent of the office of the General Government of Aragon, the Justice of Aragon, the Ecclesiastical Officer of the Bishop of Urgel, the Ordinary Judge of the House of Castro, and before all other judges and officials, both ecclesiastical and secular, and the lieutenants of these and of each of them...”[88]

88 Cf. J. POCH, San José de Calasanz “oficial Eclesiastico” de la Villa de Tremp (1589-1591): AnCal 4 (1960) 327, n. I.

Ten years earlier, the bajle of Peralta, Peter Calasanz, the Saint’s father, the jurors and representatives of the town had met to notarially appoint their permanent procurators in Zaragoza before the competent authorities of the Kingdom of Aragon, “Joan de Pilares and Joan de Lambea ‘causidicos’ notaries (procurators), inhabitants in the city of Zaragoza and the lieutenant of the çalmedina (official) of the same city of Çaragoza and the walkers (bailiffs) of the jurors of that ...” to bring them “before the Justice of Aragon or his lieutenants or before the ecclesiastical or secular official ... of the bishop of Urgel and before any judge and ecclesiastical or secular official ...”, and they are ready to fulfil what they have promised, “and to hear sentences and orders to pay to the lord King and his first lieutenant-general or regent the office of General Governor-, the Justice of Aragon and his lieutenants or any of them and the said ecclesiastical official...”[89]

89 Cf. A. VIDAL, De re calasanctiana: RevCaI 147 (1925) 179.

The authorities of the House of Castro were therefore not the only ones with jurisdiction in their states, but also those of the Kingdom of Aragon, to which Peralta de la Sal belonged. They could also be contacted for appeal. What had nothing to do with either the barony of Peralta or the entire House of Castro was the neighbouring county of Ribagorza. However, this powerful and prestigious county was also considered an integral part of the Kingdom of Aragon, like all the other manors and baronies within its borders.[90]

90 Don Martín de Aragón, Count of Ribagorza, writes in a report of 1554: “The Lords of vassals that the County has in Ribagorza and jurisdiction over them and which enter into the jurisdiction of the general Courts in the Kingdom of Aragon, are…” (J. M. DE MONER, Biblioteca de escritores ribagorzanos, p. 54). “The County is located within the present Kingdom of Aragon…” (ibid., p. 67).

Places in the Land of Castro and the Barony of Peralta

The baronies, manors, castles, towns and other dominions that made up the lands of the House of Castro in Aragon revolved around the county of Ribagorza, and some places were true enclaves. In 1577, when Joseph Calasanz was twenty years old, the Count of Ribagorza, Don Martin de Gurrea y Aragón, listed the 33 towns that made up the House of Castro, mistakenly believing that they all belonged to the county and that James I had given them to his illegitimate son Ferdinand Sánchez.[91]

91 This is the list: Estadilla, Estada, Olbena, Castro, Puebla de Castro, Sequastiella, Obiergo, Bolorina, Barasona, Pueyo Marguilén, Casterlenas, Aler, Castillon Roig, Purroy, Caserras, Penavera, PERALTA DE LA SAL, Gavasa, Çurita, Camporrels, Momagastre, Pelagriñón, Rocafort, Juseu, Laguarres, Lasquarre, Luçan, Balls, Naça, La Cuba, Caldaró, Vegua and Montalt (P. POCH, La infanzonía de los Calasanz: AnCal 7 [1962] 47). The list, however, does not seem complete, since the place of Cuatrocorz, belonging to the barony of Peralta, is missing, among others. Labaña’s enumeration of the places of the Baron of La Laguna, besides being incomplete, is inaccurate (cf. J. B. LABAÑA, o.c.); around 1622 Don Felipe Luis Piérrez wrote an Alphabet of places of the County of Ribagorza and its limits and lists 203 villas and places belonging to the County, among which he mistakenly includes Gabasa, which belonged to the House of Castro (cf. J. M. DE M0NER, o.c., p. 241-247).

However, it is not easy to determine which of them belonged to the Barony of Peralta. In 1677, Father Cavada said: “The town of Peralta de la Sal is currently part of the royal House of the Marquises of Aytona and head of a Barony of nine places...”[92] And it is very likely that these towns were: Peralta, Momagastre and Cuatrocorz, which still belong to the municipality of Peralta today; the three southern enclaves: Pelagriñón, Rocafort and Alcaná, the first two of which are recorded as belonging to the House of Castro and to which, by analogy, the third must also have belonged, since now belongs to Gabasa and was then adscripted to the diocese of Urgel; and finally, the three towns to the north-east of Peralta: Gabasa, Zurita and La Cuba.[93]

92 Cf. J. POCH, San José de Calasanz hijo de Peralta de la Sal: Argensola 28 (1956) 355.

93 Out of the nine localities listed, seven appear in the list of the Count of Ribagorza cited in n. 91 above: Peralta, Gabasa, Zurita, Momagastre, Pelagriñón, Rocafort and La Cuba. Cuatrocorz is mentioned together with Peralta, Gabasa and Zurita, whose “tithes” are leased by the Lords of Castro to the former bayle de Peralta, Monserrate Joan Sala, in 1614 (cf. PanEs 9 [19701 136). One of the enclaves (Pelagriñón) undoubtedly belonged to the Barony (cf. text related to n. 86), so logically the other two (Rocafort and Alcaná) should also belong to it, which would explain the abnormal present belonging, far from its main area. Although it is difficult to locate a village in Momagastre today, where the ruins of the castle and the shrine of La Mora remain, there is evidence that there was still a parish in 1542, according to documents in the archives of the parish of Peralta (cf. Rass 26-27 [1957] 24). It existed also in 1576, when the parish priest died (cf. n. 97 below). It is also significant that the parish of Alcaná was part of the diocese of Urgel, according to this report, dated October 17, 1588, in which its parish priest appoints Joseph de Calasanz, then secretary of the Chapter of Urgel: “rdus dnus Jacobus Betrán (sic) pbr rector parrochialis ecclesie loci del Canar urgelen. dioc. sub invocatione Ste Margarite urgelen. qui… constituit in procuratores certos etc… illustrem dom. Hieronimum Çaportella I.V.D. Josephum Calasanz et Andream Roger pbros dicte urgelen. dioc.” (Merigó documents, in RegCal 74,58).

However, a procurement document dated April 25, 1615 states that “the General and Plenary Council of the General Curators of the Barony of Peralta de la Sal has been convened and settled, as well as the procurators and messengers of all the villages and towns of the Barony of Peralta de la Sal... “, and then continues, “We have intervened and we have been present, the undersigned and the following, that means, all the eminent men and messengers of the said towns of the said Barony of Peralta ... “, and the places mentioned are Peralta de la Sal, Gavassa, Çurita, Casserres, Castarnella (sic), Aler, Peragriñón and Pueio.[94] Of the eight mentioned - and not nine - four agree with the previous list (Peralta, Gabasa, Zurita and Pelagriñón), and we do not know why the other five are not mentioned. On the other hand, Caserras, Casterlenas, Aler and Pueio de Marguilén are far from the compact block formed by the nine places we have proposed. Although all these places belonged to the House of Castro, it does not seem that the reason for the meeting of the trustees is that they all belong to the Barony of Peralta.

94 Private Archive of Casa Lamarca, de Peralta de la Sal, notary Peter Fortón, April 25, 1615, f.90 ff.

In his letter to the Viceroy of Sardinia mentioned above, Joseph de Calasanz declared himself to be the “most loyal servant and vassal” of the House of Castro. And this statement reflected a view of life and society that went back to the time of the ‘Reconquista’ and would essentially remain alive until the Courts of Cádiz. The Barony of Peralta was no exception and was governed by the same institutions that applied to the Crown of Aragon and indeed to all the lordships in Spain. The Lords of Castro were the main source of civil, judicial and administrative authority. Their names were everywhere. And so were their interests. And the manorial system was supported economically by the levies of their vassals.

However, these levies did not flow directly into the coffers of the lords. They usually leased their baronies, tithes and rights for certain annual amounts. The tenants paid these fixed amounts to their Lords and were responsible for collecting the vassals’ personal contributions directly. In Peralta, for example, we find this neighbour who was bailiff general in 1614 and of whom it is said:

“Monserrate Joan Sala, infançon, resident in the town of Peralta de la Sal, tenant of the tithes of Peralta, Gavassa, Çorita and Quatrecorz through the reverend D. Martín Despés y Alagón and D. Estefanía de Castro y Cervelló, spouses, Barons de la Laguna, Vice-Counts de Illa, Lords of the House of Castro and of the four castles and the Barony of Peralta de la Sal.”[95]

95 Cf. J. POCH, El primer documento conocido de Peralta de la Sal: PanEs 9 (1970) 136.

And as the salt mines were one of the main sources of income for Peralta’s neighbours, it is not surprising that the barons benefited greatly from them. An unpublished notarial deed states that the salt mines were part of their manorial property. They were leased to the city council in 1592, as were the tithes of the salt extracted from them:

“I, Don Martín Despés, Baron of La Laguna and lord of the House of Castro, residing in the city of Çaragoza... lease to and from you, the judge, the jury, the council and university and individuals and neighbours and inhabitants of my town of Peralta de la Honour y de la Sal, for you and to whomever you wish during the time undersigned: namely, the salt mines I have in the terms of said town... together with the right to the tithes due to me as lord of the said city, belonging to all the salt extracted in the conditions of the said city, and this for the period of 6 years, beginning on the first day of January of the first coming year 1593 and ending on the last day of December 1598, for a price, if you wish to lease, of 1,600 gold coins in each year ...”[96]

96 Arch. Protocol. Zaragoza, D. Fecet, 1592, f.1129 (December 19). In 1708, when Philip V incorporated the salt mines of the Kingdom of Aragon into the Royal Patrimony, the parish priest of Peralta, in a memorandum of protest, recognized the seigniorial rights of the House of Castro over the salt mines of Peralta, saying:…” paying also from time immemorandum [the neighbors] tithe of salt and ‘treudo’ by right of Dominicatura to the Marquises of Aytona, Lords of the aforementioned Town, and first fruits to the Rector of the Parish Church of it, in the same way as of the other fruits that produce other estates” (Private Arch. of Casa Zaydin, of Peralta. Printed memorandum).

On The other hand, gone were the days when lords lived in castles or magnificent palaces in their own fiefdoms. They usually resided in the big cities, like the Baron of La Laguna and lord of the House of Castro, “who lives in the city of Zaragoza” And it is precisely in these years that he is seriously compromised in the riots caused by the flight of Antonio Pérez in the capital of the Kingdom of Aragón.

Interference in the ecclesiastical sphere was also common among the nobility, who had endowed benefices in the churches and retained the right of presentation, or simply because the churches were located in their domains. There is no shortage of examples of the Lords of Castro in their dominions.[97] However, not only nobles, but also private families and communities could endow such ecclesiastical benefices, as we shall see in one case in connection with Joseph Calasanz and in another in connection with the town of Peralta.[98]

97 In 1576 the rector of Momagastre, Don Peter Texidor, died and Don Berenguer Arnaldo de Castro y Cervellón, baron of La Laguna and Peralta, on whose church depended the church of Momagastre, presented a candidate for the vacant rectory (cf. J. POCH, Los Calasanz peraltenses y la parroquia de Peralta de la Sal: PanEs 7-8 [1970] 105). Dated April 24, 1528, it states: “Portio in ecclesia Statellae per resignationem ad praesentationem domine Gm (Guiomar) Marie de Castro et portionariorum dicte Ecclesie.” And in the same code: “B(eneficium) Sanctarum Crucum in ecclesia S. Stephani Statellae per resignationem ad presentationem domine Guiomar de Castro et abbatis dicte ecciesiae”, dated May 15, 1529 (Arch. Catedr. Lérida, Beneficios en las Parroquias de la diócesis, f.29v-30v) …

98 “Calaçans. B(eneficium) S. Anthonii in ecciesia de Calassans per obitum ad presentationem Juratorum de Peralta de la Sal alias de la Honor”, dated October 17, 1471 (ibid., f.5).

Against this background of distant and near history and these geographical, economic and social circumstances, Joseph Calasanz Gastón was born in the village and Barony of Peralta de la Sal, the diocese of Urgel and the Kingdom of Aragon.

Chapter 2

Lineage and family

Without attaching too much importance to the matter, the old Founder of the Pious Schools sometimes talked to “his compatriot”, the young Michael Jiménez Barber,[99] about old, very distant stories of famous people whom he considered to be his ancestors. In his procedural declarations of 1651, Don Michael, already a Canon of Lérida, said:

99 Cf. n.61 of the previous chapter. In 1645 Calasanz, recommending him to the nuncio of Venice, tells he is “a Spanish priest and my countryman called D. Michael Barberi” (c.4297). And Barber in 1648 recalls “the love and good will that Fr. General had for me” (EC, p.242).

“He once told me of an incident that took place in the time of a king of Aragón, whom Father Joseph’s grandfather or great-grandfather, while he was at war in Catalonia, faced with seventy soldiers in the village of Corvins at the cross which was outside the said village, a mile or more away. Having found him there with all the aforesaid people, whom he had brought at his own expense, he prostrated himself at the feet of his King of Aragón, who embraced and received him with great kindness, and thanked him much for the service and gift he had rendered him, as the histories of writers of the said kingdom more fully relate.”[100]

100 ProcIn p.211-212.

The event was indeed recorded in several published works, such as the Annals of Zurita or the Life of James I of Gómez Miedes, based on the Chronicle of the Conqueror King or ‘Libre dels Feits’, and it was about Beltrán de Calasanz and not about Calasanz’ grandfather or great-grandfather.[101] However, their ancestors were easier to talk about and they also spoke of them, as Barber says: “I remember talking to him many times and reminding him of his relatives that existed in his town and in mine and in my mother’s town, and I reminded him of many relatives, even of our family, which was related to the Calasanz in the third degree of kinship..., and we often talked about these things together.”[102]

101 Cf. ZURITA, Anales, I.II, c.86; B. GÓMEZ MIEDES, Vita et Res gestae Jacobi I Regis Aragonum, 4, p.80. In one of the versions of Libre dels Feits (Bibl. Nac. Madrid, ms. 10.121) we read: “anam a Albesa e no y trobam los de Tamarit ne los altres sino tant solament en Bertran de Calaçanç ab LX o LXX homens a peu. ...” (cf. photocopy in AnCal 19 (1968) 32-33 and 35-36; other clarifications in J. POCH, La infanzonía de los Calasanz: AnCal 7 [1962] 52 n.33).

102 ProcIn p.210. We give our personal translation, direct from the Italian. In this case it should be noted that the Vatican code (Arch. Congr. SS. Rit., Proc. 2696), of which the one referred here is a copy, adds “di affinitá” to the words “in terzo grado.”

It is regrettable that the canon from Lérida did not give more details of these conversations, at least the names of Calasanz’s grandparents. This would have saved many pages of documents that have since left the problem unresolved. We still do not know who the paternal and maternal grandparents of the saint were. And with this branch of the Calasanz de Peralta cut off from the trunk, it is hardly worth re-examining, not the genealogical tree, but the forest that has grown from the first years after the Founder’s death to the present day. Nevertheless, we cannot completely ignore this complicated problem.

Baroque mentality

It was undoubtedly an honour to be considered a relative of the Founder of an Order whose beatification process was underway. The canon of Lérida has just given us the first example. And after him, others will present their testimonies with more or less veracity, adding stems, branches or grafts to join the foliage of the same family tree. Without the appropriate documentation, no one could contradict them and they lived at least in the certainty of their possible kinship, especially if their first surname was that of Calasanz.

Around 1700, the Piarist Father Joseph Font was in the lands of Peralta de la Sal and found that “all the families with the surname Calasanz claimed to be related to the Ven. Father.”[103] Someone would be right, but it was impossible to know who. Even a century after his death, someone was still trying to discover his relationship to the recently beatified Founder. Thus, in 1751, Antonio de Sangenís y de Calasanz presented his genealogical treatises and confessed his fears and his feeling of “not being able to perfectly fulfil such a laudable cause as I desire, as to rightfully liquidate [prove] the kinship of an eminent hero of our Roman Church, such as the blessed patriarch Father Joseph of the Mother of God, olim de Calasanz... with the ancestral and ancient house, olim de Castany, de Calasanz, et nunc de Sangenís, from the town of Casserres, Kingdom of Aragón...”[104]

103 Cf. EcoCen 3 (1945) 16-17.

104 Cf. J. POCH, Manuscrito inédito del siglo XVIII, de los Calasanz de la villa de Casserres: AnCal 19 (1968) 13.

We must not forget that the Founder of the Pious Schools lived and died in the Baroque period (1557-1648) and that the long process of his beatification, which lasted a century (1648-1748), took place in the same Baroque environment. Beatification and canonization were a process of glorification in which everything that contributed to glorifying and magnifying the figure of the future saint was valid and highly valued. Therefore, not only heroic virtues, holiness and greatness favoured this glorification, but also what society valued as human values. And these included university studies and the resulting academic diplomas, titles of nobility, connections to official dignities and the aristocracy, the family’s wealth and social position, etc. All this is used in our case, certainly in exaggerated tones, but against the background of an undeniable truth.

The Piarists were interested in this process of glorification and at the same time all those who claimed to be relatives of Father Joseph Calasanz. And they will all burden him with doctorates, his father with offices and dignities, his house with riches, and the whole family with old nobility. The danger in these cases is the opposite reaction when cracks are discovered in this compact monument. And there have been a few of these, which have not yet been repaired with cheerful objectivity. With the following pages, we would like to contribute to a more balanced view.

Roots, trunk and branches

Those who tried to prove their kinship with Father Joseph Calasanz had to consult the papers and documents of the family itself or other public archive funds to trace the lineage and find the connection with the Calasanz of Peralta. For some, finding this connection was enough. Others, however, went even further to reconstruct the lineage until they found roots as deep as they could go. So, these genealogists were not only interested in proving their kinship with the Founder; by ennobling their ancestral line and their common roots, they ennobled themselves.

The Italian panegyrists and biographers had to deal with letters, memoranda and affidavits from Spain when drawing up their Founder’s family tree, without many opportunities to check the veracity of the news and with the normal tendency to dignify his ancestry. Two biographers are particularly important, having a strong influence on the whole Calasanzian hagiography, namely Father Alexis Armini and Father Vincent Talenti.[105] The former wrote: “Among the noblest and oldest families of the Kingdom of Aragon is the Calasanz family, still preserved in all its splendor after 560 years. This most noble lineage goes back to a certain Ximeno Fortuñón, who lived around the year 1126 and is mentioned in the chronicles of Aragón.”[106] Talenti is even clearer: “The first writers of the Life of Blessed Joseph and the Memoirs of the Calasanzian Line begin the genealogy of this family with Ximeno, the first of the three Fortuñon brothers... The origin of the Fortuñon family... lies with the kings of Sobrarbe: Ximeno, Iñigo, Fortuño and Sancho, who are also called the first kings of Navarre.”[107]

105 Cf. Sources and bibliography, III. Bibliografia calasancia selecta.

106 ARMINI, o.c. n.4.

107 TALENTI, o.c., p. VIII.

In this way, the last legendary roots of this tree were uncovered, in which the sap blood of the kings flowed. The tree grew, not always with uninterrupted direct descent. Its sturdy medieval trunk takes its nickname Calasanz from the castle of the same name, which was finally conquered by Peter I of Aragón in 1102 and annexed to the county of Urgel around the middle of the 12th century.

Some of the first people to be called “Calasanz” had their own surname, but when they received the castle of Calasanz “in lordship” or “carlanía” or “lease”, they were also called “de Calasanz” This “lordship” or “carlanía” was not necessarily hereditary, so some of the first “Calasanz” to appear in the medieval trunk of the family tree of our Saint were not called Calasanz, but did not even belong to the same family. The truth is, however, that there is no legendary character in this traditional Calasanz trunk, they are all documented, and of many of them we even know their mutual family relationships.[108] But undoubtedly it cannot be accepted as a trunk or as a tree from which Joseph Calasanz Gastón springs without resolution of continuity in 1557 and in Peralta de la Sal.

108 Among the abundant bibliography of recent years on this subject, see: BAU, BC p.23-38; ID, Revision de la Genealogía de San Jose de Calasanz: RevCal 12 (1957) 39-51; BAU, RV p.15-20; J. POCH, Referencias genealógico-calasancias en la provincia de Huesca: AnCal 5 (1961) 107-126; ID, Manuscrito inédito del s. XVIII..., p.7-74; ID., La infanzonía de los Calasanz, p.27-57; ID., Tres testamentos del padre del fundador de las Escuelas Pías: AnCal 40 (1978) 478-479, n.35; ID., La “señora” de la villa de Calasanz, en el año 1381: Argensola 61-64 (1966-67) 53-64.

If we move from the trunk to the branches, the confusion and disorientation is even greater. The genealogists, supposed relatives of the Saint, were the first to cause this confusion. Father Joseph Jericó, one of the most important researchers in the field of Calasanzian subjects, through whose hands passed all the Spanish documentation known until then and even discovered by him, sincerely confessed in 1746: “The greatest difficulty I find is to connect Peter, the father of Our Reverend Father, in the family tree.”[109] And after two long centuries, the same difficulty still exists, despite the research and new documentation of recent times.

109 Cf. EcoCen 11-12 (1948) 78.

The last attempts at a solution

When the first Piarist, Father Louis Cavada, arrived in Peralta de la Sal in 1680 to find out news about the Founder, he was introduced to his closest relatives, nephews of the third or fourth degree. And they told him that after them, the Calasanz of Casserres and after them those of Benabarre were the closest.[110] This was the common opinion of biographers until Don Joseph Merigó, parish priest of Tamarite de Litera, found a certain Peter Calasanz Pano in 1932 while looking through notarial documents, who worked as a blacksmith in 1536-1537 in El Grado, a town in the Ribagorza region on the Cinca, not far from La Puebla de Castro, and disappeared from there in 1539. A few years later, a Peter Calasanz, also a blacksmith, appears in Peralta de la Sal, married to Maria Gastón, the father of St. Joseph Calasanz. From this he concluded that both Peters were one and the same person: ”...I understand -he said- that Peter Calasanz, blacksmith of Peralta de la Sal, is the same Peter Calasanz, blacksmith of El Grado.”[111] This surprising coincidence was joined by another: the Calasanz of El Grado and those of Peralta claimed to have relatives in Juseu, a neighbouring town, of the House of Castro.[112]

110 Cf. BAU, BC, p.25.

111 Cf. J. POCH, Referencias genealógico-calasancias..., p.160; V. FAUBELL, Antología periodística calasancia, p.30.

112 The mentioned Peter from El Grado was the son of Margarita de Pano, married to John de Calasanz, and granddaughter of Johna de Calasanz, who in her will names “Andreu Calasanz, my brother, inhabitant of the place of Juseo” (cf. V. FAUBELL, o.c., p.31). In the matrimonial chap. of Peter Calasanz Gastón, brother of the Saint, with Jerónima Paúl, who was from Juseu, is written about “Mosen Matheo Calasanz from the place of Juseu and of.... relatives and near persons of the said Peter Calasanz” (cf. AnCal 5 [1961] 144). Therefore, there is no record of a kinship relationship between Andreu and Mateo Calasanz. On the other hand, the surname Calasanz of Peter Calasanz Pano logically belongs to his father, while Andreu Calasanz de Juseu is the brother of the grandmother of Margarita Pano, called Johna Calasanz. We are left without knowing, therefore, where the surname Calasanz of Peter de El Grado came from.

The new thesis caused quite a stir, but only met with a timid response.[113] Later, in the years 1949-63, the great biographer P. Bau took up Merigó’s new idea again and spread it with great conviction in several of his writings.[114] But neither Merigó’s own reasons nor Bau’s new and comprehensive considerations were very convincing; and they were partly refuted.[115] Merigó himself wrote to give weight to his argument: “Neither in Azanuy, Benabarre, El Grado, Tamarite, Barbastro, Monzón, Ballobar, Castellón del Puente nor in Naples, towns to which the Calasanz family had spread in the middle of the 16th century, have I been able to find any other Peter than the blacksmith who, in 1539, is no longer in El Grado but in Peralta de la Sal.”[116] And the list was not complete, as Casserres, Calasanz and Juseu, among others, were missing, with Merigó noting that in the last one the Calasanz of El Grado and Peralta had relatives.

113 Cf. V. FAUBELL, o.c., p.32-43.

114 Cf. BAU, BC, p.36-39; ID., Revision de la genealogia..., p.59-71; BAU, RV, P.16-18.

115 Cf. J. POCH, Referencias genealógico-calasancias..., p.160-162.

116 Cf. V. FAUBELL, o.c., p.30.

The same Merigó elaborated on his argument, as he later confessed in another article that he had found a Peter Calasanz in Benabarre in a document from 1529.[117] And in 1546 another Peter Calasanz appears, also in Benabarre, to whom two other famous researchers of the Calasanz subject, the fathers Joseph Poch and Joseph López Navío, directed their attention, first confirming and then denying his identity with the father of the Saint of Peralta.[118]

117 Ib, p.31-32.

118 “I would dare to maintain that the Peter Calasanz who marries Mary Gastón (parents of the Saint), is the brother of ‘micer’ (master) John (who makes a will in 1546 and names his brother Peter Calasanz)... It does not tell us in the document if Peter was already married, but only that he lived in Benabarre. Was he married in that town? Or was he married in Peralta and the couple went to live in Benabarre and there the first children were born?” (J. LÓPEZ NAVÍO, Testamento de Micer Juan Calasanz [Zaragoza 1966], p.10). But then, in another later article he traces a genealogical tree in which two Peters appear, father and son, instead of one, and the son would be the father of the Saint (cf. ID., Don Juan de Mercado y Calasanz: AnCal 20 [1968] 466). “This Peter Calasanz de Benabarre (from the will of Micer John, of 1546) is, to our understanding, the Peter Calasanz who from Benabarre passed to the town of Peralta de la Sal” (J. POCH, Aportación documental a la historia de la Universidad de Huesca, durante la segunda mitad del s. XVI: AnCal 15 [1966] 245). And two years later: “Do we maintain our affirmations, identifying the brother of micer John Calasanz... with Peter Calasanz, from Peralta, father of Saint Joseph Calasanz? We have not yet found the data... that obliged us to abandon our assertion...” (ID., Manuscrito inedito del siglo XVIII..., p.54). But in 1969 he changed his mind and changed it again in 1978, as we shall see.

So, the difficulty is real, and despite the extensive documentation that has been discovered in recent years, we are still at the very beginning. The long list of places enumerated by Merigó where the surname Calasanz already existed in the XVI century gives us an idea of the possible hypotheses about the place of origin of the father of our Saint. And even if we limit ourselves to the town of Benabarre, the most traditional, we find not only Calasanz in abundance, but even several “Peter Calasanz”, contemporaries who aggravate the problem and make it almost insoluble.[119] The doubts and changes of opinion of specialists in these field confirm us in this idea.[120]

119 “The radical obstacle to reach a definitive conclusion lies in the various Calasanz, called Peter, in those years, in Benabarre and in other villages of the Barony of Peralta” (J. POCH, Manuscrito inedito, p.88). “We turn, as is to be expected, to the “parish books” of Benabarre to elucidate the question.... The search of the years 1529-1552 did not resolve the case because the very frequent “Peter Calasanz” are not consigned with any family relationship” (ibid., p.55).

120 The most distinguished researcher in this topic was Fr. Poch, who after accepting Benabarre as the birthplace of the father of the Saint (cf. n.20), changed his mind and wrote in 1969: “For us, Peter Calasanz was a native of the town of Juseu.... From Juseu he went to Peralta de la Sal, where he married (around 1537-38) Mary Gastón” (J. POCH, Aportación documental biográfico-calasancia: AnCal 22 [1969] 276). And in 1978: “As for the birthplace of Peter Calasanz, we maintain that he and his father were natives and inhabitants of Peralta de la Sal, in spite of doubts and disquisitions that - from the 18th century to our days - assigned to Peter Calasanz births in other towns (Benabarre, Azanuy, El Grado, Juseu, etc.)” (ID., Tres testamentos..., p.440).

Infanzonía (nobility) of Calasanz family

When Joseph Calasanz Gastón arrived in Rome at the age of thirty-four in the first months of 1592, he carried among his few personal belongings a seal of nobility that belonged to the Calasanz family because of its similarity to other known seals of the same surname.[121] And in the first letters we have received, he embossed this family seal together with his signature. The first two letters are from Urgel and Tremp, which indicates that he must have already used the seal frequently in Spain in his public dealings or private correspondence. The other five were written from Rome to the parish priest of his village, Father Joseph Texidor, adding to the family seal and his signature the title of doctor, which he had recently received.[122] He kept the seal carefully throughout his life, although he never used it again since 1599. Today it is a valuable and curious relic.

121 Cf. BAU, BC, p.2, 32-33; J. POCH, Heráldica y sigilografía calasancia: Argensola 38 (1959) 97-106; ID., Manuscrito inédito..., p.62.

122 EGC, II, c.1-7.

It is obvious that he himself knew that his family belonged in some way to the nobility of Aragón. And his contemporaries in 16th and 17th century Baroque Rome knew this too, even if they were unable to distinguish the degree of nobility. At the first ceremonial funerals held for him, his lineage and family coat of arms were publicly announced. And several witnesses to the first Informative Process (1651-1653) also described him as noble. Among them was the aforementioned Father Michael Jiménez Barber, a compatriot and confidant of the Saint, especially in these family matters: “I have heard - he explained - that he comes from the Calasanz family, who in this place [of Peralta] are ‘Idalgos Infanzones’ (sic, in Spanish), which means lords, and according to the laws of this Kingdom they enjoy all the privileges that the “Infantes”, sons of the kings of Aragón enjoy...”[123]

123 ProcIn p.211; BAU, BC, p.5-7. The identification of Hidalgos and Infanzones is not a simple clarification by Jiménez Barber, but it is sometimes stated in the Royal Provisions, in which the Infanzonía is recognized from immemorandum, as in the case of the Zaydín de Peralta: “We rule..., declaring as we declare that the said Don Julián Zaydín... have been and are Infanzones and Hijosdalgo by blood and nature and that as such they have been, could, can and should enjoy the Privileges, Exemptions and other Prerogatives enjoyed by the other Infanzones of this Kingdom” (Arch. privado de Casa Zaydín, de Peralta, ms). The same can be seen in this other executive order of the Bardaxí:”... make you observe and keep all the Essemptions, Privileges, Honors, Freedoms and Liberties enjoyed by the other Infanzones and Hijosdalgos by Blood and Nature of our said Kingdom of Aragón...” (ibid. Doc. printed in 1762).

The first affidavits that arrived in Rome from Spain were also formulated in this sense. Suffice it to recall what the town council and the parish priest of Peralta reiterated in 1673:

“As to the quality of the ascendants and the qualifications of the house and family of Calasanz, we say that it is noble, and if it will be necessary to make an authentic and legal report of it, Y. P. will gladly send a communication to this community [of priests of the parish] and to this town.”[124]

124 BAU, BC, p.13.

Whoever reads the long memoranda and declarations of the canonization processes and the assertions of their real or supposed relatives, “this way of speaking with so much prosopopoeia of branches and marriages, of descendants and lineages, of lords of places and houses, the best of cities, might take him back to spheres of idealization in which Casserres and Claravalls, Benabarres and Peraltas, something like Covarrubias and Medinacelis, Aytonas and Moncadas, Albas and Osunas sounded. But a simple glance at a vulgar map or a tour of these humble villages forces you to immediately descend from the heights and brings you into contact with the most ordinary vulgarity. Simple hidalgos or infanzones, with a ‘de’ in the surname and a coat of arms on the front door; but no palaces...”[125]

125 Ibid., p.35.

And that’s it: infanzones, nothing more and nothing less. It is a typical Aragonese noble title or peerage. Here is how the specialists explain it: “The constitution of the Aragonese kingdom itself has a peculiarity that is not observed anywhere else: there are three levels of nobility: that of barons (or rich-men), that of knights and that of infanzones... In Catalonia and Valencia, the nobles do not all have the same power and wealth, but they all have the same rank. In Aragon, the rich-men formed a separate group at the courts...”[126] “The infanzones are those who follow the knights in the order of rank, not because they are inferior to them, but because they were not endowed with knighthood. The infanzón is the true typical Aragonese nobleman; he corresponds to the ‘hijodalgo of blood and place’ known in Castile. The true infanzón is the one of ancient nobility. They are the direct lineal descendants of the first noble infanzones who carried out the Reconquista on behalf of the rich noblemen. They are also sons or descendants of knights, of ‘mesnaderos’ (leaders of armed groups) and even of minor branches of the rich men. Their nobility has no date, it is truly ancient...”[127]

126 A. JIMÉNEZ SOLER, La Edad Media en la Corona de Aragón (Barcelona 1944) p.264-266.

127 J DE RUJULA Y DE OCHOTORENA, Noblezas regionales españolas (Madrid 1932) p.29-32.

This was the nobility of the Calasanz: inmemorial infanzonía. The first to specify the quality or degree of nobility of the Founder of the Pious Schools as early as 1651 was “his countryman”, the canon of Lérida, Father Michael Jiménez Barber, who, as an Aragonese, knew precisely the meaning and degree of this nobility and who even used the typical and precise word applied to the Calasanz of Peralta in the Italian context: They were “infanzones”[128]

128 Cf. J. POCH, La infanzonía de los Calasanz, p.27-57. In this article the two preceding quotations are adduced, with many others.

“Ethnically...”

Picanyol comments on the letter in which Joseph de Calasanz explicitly refers to himself as an “Aragonese by nation” and writes: “which means that he considered himself to belong to Aragón, at least civilly, if not ethnically.”[129] And most probably, if Joseph Calasanz had been asked to define himself by such and similar adverbs, he would have refused to answer, insisting on what he added after declaring himself Aragonese: “but with Roman feelings and customs, since I have been in Rome for more than 40 years and have completely forgotten my homeland.”[130] But not everyone is satisfied with this answer. Nor will we return to what has already been said. But after what we have just said about his family tree, the geographical extent of his surname and the nobility of his family, a reference to his “ethnicity” seems inevitable.

129 EGC, V. p.93.

130 C.1849.

Although Peralta de la Sal belonged to the Kingdom of Aragon without interruption since 1300, it could be that the Calasanz family tree has its roots beyond the borders of that kingdom, or that the most recent branches from which the Peralta sprang could have originated beyond the Noguera Ribagorzana, the borderline between Aragon and Catalonia. But from what we have said and what can be read from the specialists in Calasanzian subjects, especially Father Poch, all the known characters that integrate the trunk and branches of the Calasanzes, including the entire Pleiades of Calasanzes linked to the Saint of Peralta, have their common origin in the lands of Ribagorza; the towns mentioned by Merigó and other scholars where the presence of Calasanzes is documented also come from Ribagorza, from La Litera or very close to it. This means that the Calasanzes, as they are known, come from Aragón, even more so if the surname comes from the town of the same name, which, like Peralta de la Sal, was definitively incorporated into this kingdom in 1300.[131]

131 In 1381 the daughter of Don Hugo de Anglesola was the “lady of the places of Calasanz, Fenestres et Camporrells et other places besieged in the County of Ribagorza, within the Kingdom of Aragon.” The father pretended to attend the Courts de Aragoneses in Zaragoza that year, as “tutor et curator” of his daughter, lady of Aragonese lands. But he was excluded, alleging that “the said Mossen Huch could not be seated in the said Courts as tutor and curator of the said daughter, because the said Mossen Huch is evidently Cathalán and living and inherited in the Principality of Catalonia. And neither Catalan, nor any other foreigner of the said Kingdom could be seated in the said Courts” (J. POCH, La señora de la villa de Calasanz en el año 1381, p.56-57).

When reviewing the exaggerations that biographers have made about the nobility of Joseph Calasanz, no one has ever denied him such a title and the most critical and well-documented have confirmed the clarification of Father Michael Jiménez Barber that he was “infanzón”, with “infanzonía de natura o inmemorial”, from the Calasanz family.[132] And it is obvious that this noble title was typically and exclusively Aragonese, unlike the titles that existed in the other nations of the Crown of Aragon (Catalonia and Valencia) and the Crown of Castile. As the Calasanz family was “infanzón from time immemorial”, their “ethnicity” must therefore have been Aragonese from time immemorial.

132 Cf. J. POCH, La infanzonía de los Calasanz, p.27-57; ID., Manuscrito inédito del s. XVIII..., p.33-69; ID., Tres testamentos..., p.478-480, n.35-37; ID., Heráldica y sigilografía calasancia: Argensola 38 (1959) 97-106.

The surname “de Calasanz”

Among the rights of the “infanzones”, as with all nobles, it is customary to place a “de” in front of the surname. But, in the numerous published or unpublished documents relating to the Calasanz, it can be seen that from the XIII to the XV century it is normal for all Calasanz to have the particle ‘de’, while from the XVI century onwards it is more common for all Calasanz not to have ‘de’. Nevertheless, there are many cases in which the same person may or may not have the particle in different documents; in the same family and in the limited circle of grandparents, parents, children, brothers, some receive the surname with ‘de’ and others do not; this diversity can even be observed in people who explicitly refer to themselves as “infanzones” or “lords of the place”.[133]

133 “La mag.a señora Rafella Bellet viuda mujer que fue del q. discreto Ramón Calaçans not. hab. en la villa de Benabarre... hace procuradores suyos... al mag° señor moss. Joha. Calaçans señor de Claravalls hab. en la dicha villa de Benabarre” (Doc. Merigó, RegCal 74, n.41). In the will of Domingo Mola is witness: “Magnificus Sebastianus de Calasanz dominus loci de Claravalis”, who signs himself later: “Yo Sebastiá Calasanz me firmo...” (ibid., n.44). “Yo Sebastiá Calasanz inffançon, hab. En la villa de Tamarite... agora de presente constituyo... general procurador mio assaber es al mag°. John de Calasanz señor de Claravalls padre mio...” (ibid., n.45). “Johna de Calasanz, mujer de Domingo de Pano hab. in el lugar del Grado.... Andreu Calasanz mi hermano hab. En el lugar de Juseu...” (ibid., n.3); “Domingo Pano hab, en el Grado.... Andreu de Calasanz del lugar de Juseo cunyado mio, del dote de mi mujer Joana Calasanz.... Margarita de Pano viuda del q. Joha de Calasanz nieta mía” (ibid., n.8); “Margarita de Pano viuda relicta del q. Joha Calasanz hab, en el lugar del Grado.... (sus hijos) Monserrat, Peter, Michael, Maria and Johaneta Calasanz... fago eredero mio universal a Monserrat Calasanz hijo mio...” (ibid., n.33); “Capitulaciones matrimoniales entre Monserrat Calasanz hijo legitimo... de los hon. Joha de Calasanz and Margarita de Pano q. vecinos del lugar del Grado...” (ibid., n.35). The last four textual quotations refer to the Calasanz family of El Grado, which some (Merigó and Bau) suppose to be the immediate family of origin of the father of the Saint of Peralta. Being the same common surnames Calasanz and Pano, applied to the same persons, they take or omit the ‘de’, as it happens in the first three quotations regarding the Calasanz de Claravalls. Cf. also J. POCH, Manuscrito inédito..., p.33-46.

In our case, we must say that there is not a single document in which the ‘de’ appears in the quite a few documents that refer to the Calasanz de Peralta household. The ‘de’ never appears in the censuses, wills, marriage chapters, property registers, sales contracts and other notarial deeds in which the father and brothers of the Saint are involved or mentioned, sometimes even with the personal signatures of Peter, father and son. See, for example, this paragraph in the marriage chapters of the first-born and heir Peter, in which all members of the family are named:

“Item, it is a covenant and condition between the said parties that the said Peter Calasanz son shall bring, and the said Peter Calasanz and Mary Gaston his parents give him... putting aside the said donors... to the said Peter Calasanz their son for his marriage, to Jusepe Calasanz, María Calasanz, Juana Calasanz, Madalena Calasanz and Ysabel Calasanz their children...”[134]

134 RegCal 13, 6-8.

As for the saint, we must also note that from the first two signatures he signed as a witness when he was still a student, in 1573 and 1577,[135] until the end of his days, he never used the ‘de’ before his surname.

135 Cf. J. POCH, Aportación documental a la historia de la Universidad de Huesca…: AnCal 15 (1966) 224, n.169.

In his first Roman letters that we have obtained, he does not forget to show off his brand new Doctorate and his family seal of the infanzonía, but he signs “Joseph Calasanz”.[136] In the rich collection of curial documents of the Bishop and Cathedral Chapter Archives of Seo de Urgel, in which his name and signature appear, the ‘de’ does not appear once.[137] There is another collection of documents that are very rich in signatures or quotations of his name and surname, such as the account books of the merchant Antoni Janer, in whose house in Seo de Urgel the young priest Calasanz lived for several months. In them, he signs “Joseph Calasanz” around 30 times and “Josephus Calasanz” a further ten times in Latin”.” The merchant himself calls him “Juseph Calesans” around 150 times “and only adds the ‘de’ twice.[138]

136 C.1-7.

137 Cf. P. PUJOL I TUBAU, Sant Josep de Calassanç Oficial del Capitol d’Urgel (Barcelona 1921) Apendix II, p.81-89.

138 Cf. ID, Noves dades de l’estada de Sant Josep de Calassanç al bisbat d’Urgel (1587-1591), Documentary appendices, unpublished ms. A copy in my possession by deference of Fr. Poch.

Apart from a few exceptions,[139] the name Joseph of Calasanz, which corresponds more to the baroque exaggeration of past times and which the long custom of the centuries has consecrated, has become almost completely established in Spanish writings. To delete it today for reasons of historical criticism would at least be a sin against euphony, apart from the fact that, for the sake of justice, Peralta’s Calasanzes could also have used the ‘de’, as others did, without more titles than the usual one of the immemorial infanzonía.

139 Fr. Joseph Jericó translated into Spanish the work of Fr. Urbano Tosetti, Compendio storico della vita di S. Giuseppe Calasanzio (Rome 1767) and omitted the ‘de’: Compendio histórico de la vida de San Joseph Calasanz (Valencia 1768). Already before, when editing his work Varones insignes en santidad de vida... (Valencia 1751), he dealt first of all with the Founder, calling him simply “Joseph Calasanz.” Fr. Antony Vidal justifies the suppression of the ‘de’ in his article De re calasanctiana: RevCal 146 (1925) 105-106. L. Picanyol also alludes briefly to the matter (cf. EGC II, p.25).

Modern Catalan writers tend to use the modality calassanç, especially in a Catalan context, as this is how the Spanish word Calasanz sounds phonetically. However, neither the saint himself nor the contemporary documents that refer to him, both in Castilian and Catalan texts, use this version. Read what Father Picanyol, a specialist in Calasanzian calligraphy and a perfect connoisseur of the Catalan language, writes on the subject. We translate from the Latin:

“There has been much debate about how the saint spelled his own surname: Calassans, Calasanz, Calasans or Calasanç. From all the documents we have seen in Spain, and especially from those we have examined in Urgel, it appears that there are great differences; the final ‘s’ predominates; once the ‘z’ undoubtedly appears; another time, however, the ‘z’ or perhaps the ‘ç’, but in its old form (β), for the sign ‘ç’ is never used by him, although it is often used at the beginning or in the middle of the word, as can be seen in the present autograph... Nowhere is the ‘de’ used in Spain since the mid-18th century,[140] nor the double ‘s’ in the middle of the surname, as is sometimes seen when someone else writes the surname... In the first five letters preserved in Rome, in some there is an ‘s’ at the end, in others the already mentioned z (β), as can be easily deduced, since the same sign is used in the middle of words that are written like this today: hacer, parece, hacienda...”[141]

140 The first biography of the Saint, printed in Spain in 1675, still omitted the ‘de’: P. E. DE SOTO REAL y PIRISI, Vida del Bienaventurado P. y Ven. Siervo de Dios Joseph Calasanz de la Madre de Dios, Fundador de la Orden de los Clérigos Pobres de la Madre de Dios de la Escuela Pía. En Madrid (1675).

141 Cf. L. PICANYOL, De cognomine Calasanctii scribendo: EphCal 2 (1932) 58-59. J. Poch in his innumerable articles on the Saint systematically uses Calasanz when he writes in Spanish, and Calassanç when he writes in Catalan. I quote in its entirety the mentioned Latin paragraph of Picanyol in his article San Joseph de Calasanz y seis obispos espanoles: RevCal 12 (1957) 127, n.23.

And it is curious that in this meticulous distinction of the common variants of the controversial surname, he has just omitted the one that has become the most common in recent times: CALASSANÇ.

One more detail: in 1623, the Holy Founder wrote a brief account of the origin and development of the Pious Schools, saying that among the first collaborators “there is currently living Joseph of the Mother of God, from the town of Peralta de la Sal, diocese of Urgel, in the Kingdom of Aragon[142]...” In 1634, the Piarist John B. Morandi, then archivist of the Order, made a copy that extended the message up to that year and enlarged the paragraph like this: “lives at the time the Reverend Father Joseph of the Mother of God, so called now, and before Joseph Calassanz of the place Peralta de la Sal, diocese of Urgel, in the Kingdom of Aragon, in Spain....” But the Holy Founder crossed out the honorary title Reverend and placed a marginal note after the first Joseph with this sentence, which he then also crossed out: “Calasanz, from the diocese of Urgel, now called.”[143]

142 EGC II, p.170.

143 RegCal 11, XI. The document is in Italian, but the surname appears as quoted.

Peter Calasanz, Bayle (Bailiff) of Peralta

The office of bayle (batlle, balle, baile) (bailiff) was widespread throughout the Crown of Aragón (Aragón, Catalonia and Valencia), in its gradations as general and local bayle and with its functions of lordly representation, tax collection and administration of justice.

When the first Piarists arrived in Peralta de la Sal in 1680, the neighbours still remembered that they had heard more than a century ago that the Founder’s father had been a general bayle. Father Louis Cavada put it this way:

“The town of Peralta is now part of the royal house of the Marquises of Aytona and is at the head of a barony of nine places, always governed by a principal person called General Bayle, to whom the other particular Bayles of the other towns and villages are subordinate. And this office of General Bayle of the whole barony was held for many years by D. Peter Calasanz, the father of the Ven. Founder, who has left a very credible memory of the great rectitude and vigilance with which he administered justice.”[144]

144 Cf. BAU, BC, p.18. The dependence of the local bayles on the general bayle of Peralta can be seen in the following document, dated in Pelagriñón on December 19, 1593: “Yo Michael John Ballester, vezino del lugar de Pelagriñón bayle y juez ordinario de dicho lugar... de licencia y permiso y facultad a mí por el muy magco. Joan Sallen bayle general de la dicha haronía de Peralta de la Sal y de la honor por sus señores para lo infrascrito hacer y otorgar...” (I Michael John Ballester, neighbor of the place of Pelagriñón bayle and ordinary judge of said place... of license and permission and faculty to me by the most magnificent Joan Sallen bayle general of the said barony of Peralta de la Sal and of the honor by their lords for the undersigned to do and grant...) (Doc. Merigó, Regcal 74, n.214). In the text cited in note 86 of the previous chapter, dated November 6, 1595, we read the same formula, but the permissions are given by the “Governor of the land of Castro and of the Barony of Peralta de la Sal y de la honor”, while here it is the “ General Bayle of the said Barony.” Father Cavada is not exact when he speaks of “Governor of the whole Barony”, since there was no such position, but rather that of “Governor of the land of Castro” and “General Bayle of the barony.”

The message has been widely confirmed, as documents from 1559, 1564 and 1571 state “Peter Calasanz, general bayle”; and in others from 1566, 1569 and 1572 it is signed “Peter Calasanz, bayle”.[145] The mixture of dates suggests that from at least 1559 to 1572, both inclusive, he was both the local bayle of the town and the general bayle of the entire barony of Peralta. Here is a text that speaks of a meeting of the council that took place in Peralta on August 18, 1566: Those invited and summoned

145 cf. J. POCH, Aportación documental a la hist. de la Univ. de Huesca..., p.236, n. 189; ID., Aportación documental biográfico-calasancia, p.266.

“…assembled in the slope of the church of the said place, where and at other times for such and similar acts and business the said council is wont to assemble and meet; into the said council and into the assembly of the same we entered and we were present, the undersigned and the following. Et first myself Peter Calasanz bayle, Anthon Sala de la Pila and Peter Pallarés, jurors of the said place of Peralta de la Sal ...”[146]

146 A. VIDAL, De re calasanctiana: Revcal 147 (1925) 180. Let us clarify that the meetings were held “at the baxada de la yglesia del dicho lugar” (at the church slope of the said place), but not outdoors, but in the town hall that was there, as stated in another document of December 13, 1592: “in loco de Peralta de la Sal..., convocado y ajuntado el dicho concejo en las casas vulgarmente dichas de la Villa del dicho lugar, donde, etc....” (in the place of Peralta de la Sal..., summoned and assembled the said council in the houses vulgarly said of the Town of the said place, where, etc.) In this meeting it was decided to build “some houses... in front of the houses that at present are and are called of the town...”, that is to say, “two small houses next to the big one to sell salt... with two windows to throw the salt” (cf. Doc. Merigó, Regcal 74, n.196). They must have been municipal warehouses to store the product of the salt mines until it was sold.

It is also noted that he had been a member of the “special council” as an “outstanding man” since 1551, together with the bayle and the jurors of the town.[147] This early membership of the council and his long tenure as bayle de la villa and barony, perhaps throughout the period from 1559 to 1579,[148] leads us to believe that he must have been a native of Peralta and not an outsider, as it seems unlikely that an outsider would have been elected to such positions.

147 Cf. J. POCH, Tres testamentos..., p.464, n.24.

148 Cf. ibid., p.464.

But the doubt remains, as there are no traces of other Calasanz in Peralta before him or of contemporaries who could be his relatives.

Peter Calasanz, “ferrero” (blacksmith).

In 1921, the Canon of Urgel, Peter Pujol i Tubau, published the valuable paper on St. Joseph Calasanz, official of the Chapter of Urgel, and included in the documentary appendix the certificate of receiving the tonsure, in which his name and that of his parents were read, with the words: “Josephum Calasans, filium legitimum et naturalen Petri Calasans, fabri fe. ... et Marie Gastona, conjugum, loci Peralte de la [Sal, Ur] gellensis diocesis.”[149] The words fabri fe... (‘fabri ferrarii’ = blacksmith), applied to the father of the Founder of the Pious Schools, caused an unexpected shock. Nobody could have guessed that overnight the entire baroque altarpiece would shake and even collapse, where the niches of his parents were located next to the central niche of the Saint of Peralta. The General Bayle and governor of the Barony of Peralta, whose noble lineage came from the royal houses of Navarre and Aragón, had simply been a blacksmith. Today, however, we are amazed when we read pages such as those of the director of the Revista Calasancia, confused by the novelty and even sceptical when we read the word. Almost as a curiosity, it is worth quoting a few paragraphs:

149 Cf. P. PUJOL I TUBAU, Sant Josep de Calassanç..., p.82. Translation: “Joseph Calasanz, legitimate and natural son of Peter Calasanz, blacksmith, and María Gastón, spouses, of the place of Peralta de la Sal, in the diocese of Urgel.”

“D. Peter de Calasanz might have found himself in this case [come down in the world because he was a second son] and in that of earning an honest living under the anvil of a hard and painful trade. But this would in no way tarnish the splendour of his brilliant coat of arms, long polished by the industrious deeds of an ancient and generous lineage, neatly soaked in the die of the centuries…. D. Peter de Calasanz could be a poor man without ceasing to be noble on all four sides, as he was. Joseph was the son of David, though he was also a carpenter... But [the word blacksmith] contradicts the assumption based on the testimony of all biographers... that D. Peter Calasanz was governor, baron, judge or bailiff of the town of Peralta de la Sal... The first-born died while preparing to train his troops to join Philip II’s plan to annex Portugal to the numerous crowns of the Crown of Castile... How can all this be reconciled with the modest duties of a ‘fabri ferrarii’? Not at all. Not even if we add D. Peter Calasanz to the ranks of the admirable lattice makers - who, by the way, were highly respected - who have filled the chapels and cathedrals of Upper Aragón and Catalonia with masterpieces.”[150]

150 A. HUERTAS, La Primera Biografía (1675) de S. José de Calasanz: RevCal 139 (1924) 658-659. Talenti already related Peter Calasanz son with the project of the conquest of Portugal (cf. TALENTI, Vita, p.13-14).

To confirm or refute the news from the archives of Urgel, we dusted off the corresponding document on parchment that the Saint had taken with him to Rome along with the other certificates of the other ordinations, and we saw with no less astonishment that the words ‘fabri ferrarii’ had been scratched off, but the long features of the two eff were still visible. No doubt someone carefully scratched off the word in those first moments after the Founder’s death, thinking it a disgrace to his fame. The first to speak of the scraping was Berro. He piously attributed it to the humility of the Founder and assumed that the scraping was an honorary title.[151]

151 Cf. BERRO I, p.52. And the text of the Dimissorial Letters in AnCal 50 (1983) 269.

But there is more. In 1746, Don Joseph Bardaxí, an outstanding diver in notarial writings related to Calasanz de Peralta and collaborator of Father Joseph Jericó in his research, wrote that in the numerous documents in which Peter Calasanz is mentioned, “I find that in all of them he has the title of Ferrero.”[152] But Father Jericho said nothing about this surprising discovery in his works, nor did he share it with Father Talenti, to whom he provided so much data for his great biography. And when he did tell him, the Tuscan biographer also kept quiet about it.

152 Cf. full text of the letter in AnCal 22 (1969) 268, n.4.

To the documents read and not kept by Bardaxí were added others discovered by Don Joseph Merigó, such as the marriage contracts of Esperanza Calasanz, sister of the Saint of Peralta, in which her father is referred to several times as “maesse (master) Peter Calasans Ferrero”.[153] And precisely by invoking homonymy and the common trade with “Ferrero”, he identified the Peter Calasanz of El Grado with that of Peralta, furthermore unhinging things by claiming: “I am convinced that Peter Calasanz, the father of St. Joseph, is not the brother of Michael and John Calasanz de Benabarre, nor did he ever bear the titles of nobility conferred on him. He was simply a native of El Grado... and practised the trade of blacksmith and had to sweat at the forge and anvil to raise his family.”[154]

153 Cf. Doc. Merigó, RegCal 74, n.53.

154 Cf. V. FAUBELL, o.c., p.27.

But Merigó knew that the Aragonese aristocratic title of infanzón was not incompatible with manual trades, as he had copied the following data from the immense collection of notarial deeds that he had exhumed: “Yo, Michael Morillo calcetero (hosier) infançon...”; “John de Blecua sastre (tailor) infançon...”; “Yo Johan de Naya molinero (miller) infançon...”.[155] And the Baron of Valdeolivos rightly replied: “All the families linked to the Calasanz belonged to the same social class; therefore, the Calasanz were undoubtedly part of it. Having a certain amount of wealth was not an essential condition for being an infanzón; other conditions were required that were even compatible with misery.”[156]

155 Cf. Doc. Merigó, n.109.

156 Cf. V. FAUBELL, o.c., p.41.

The blacksmith’s workshops of Peralta

The clanging of the hammers on the anvil does not please some modern Calasanzian historians, such as Father Poch, who tries to transform the humble profession of “village blacksmith” into that of “master gunsmith” or “master of making petronel” (scopetarius). When the father of the Saint -writes Poch- “appeared qualified as ‘fabri ferrarius’, the economic-social position of the Calasanz family of Peralta seemed to be exclusively linked to the hard situation of the “poor blacksmith” of the village. There is not a single document that confirms the ‘fabri ferrarius’ as the equivalent of the simple blacksmith with an anvil and hammer. For us, the ‘fabri ferrarius’ in question - given the archival instruments of the time and those places, in similar families - must be identified with the “master gunsmith” (scopetarius) of some documents.”[157]

157 J. POCH, Aportacion documental biografico-calasancia, p.275; ID., Manuscrito inédito del s. XVIII, p.8-9. Some “maestros de hazer pedreñales” and “scopetani” are cited. It is interesting to note that the Saint’s sister, Johanna Calasanz, was married in Benabarre to “Peter Joan Agostí”, who is described as “ferrer” in Catalan and “scopetarii” in Latin. Cf. ID, El Fundador de las Escuelas Pías en la Historia Eclesiástica de la Corona de Aragón: AnCal 20 (1968) 305, n.84; Rass 26-27 (1957) 43-44.

We have read before that no one wanted to hear about anvils or hammers, not even for forging cathedral lattices. And the most normal thing is that the smithy of the Calasanz family in Peralta was just that: a village smithy where they repaired agricultural tools or attached horseshoes to animals or any other vulgar and banal tinkering that the neighbours might demand.

Coincidentally, a document signed in Peralta on October 18, 1592 has been preserved, in which the council and the jury decided to give the municipal smithy to a neighbour of Pelagriñón for a year, imposing salary and obligations on him. At the same time, they pointed out another forge in the same town, which was privately owned but had the same duties. Two blacksmiths in a town as small as Peralta, dedicated to the same tasks, gives the impression that they are profitable and that there is work for both of them. And the explanation for this is not only to be found in the usual activities of any other village blacksmith, with which it would be difficult to maintain the two businesses, but above all in the salt trade, whose transportation - almost to this day - was carried out on the backs of donkeys and other beasts of burden, whose horseshoes often required many blows of the hammer on the anvils of both blacksmiths. See a few paragraphs of this “Ferrero permit”:”

“... we give the honour for ferrero (blacksmith) of the said place [of Peralta], to you Joan Sala, an ironsmith of the place Pelagrinyon for one year... for a price... and a salary of one bushel of wheat and another bushel of barley per pair of beasts of burden that shall be in the said place, with the following covenants and conditions, and first it is a condition that the said ironsmith shall be bound to repair all the ploughs and narrow hoes of the villagers of the said place as often as may be necessary during the said year... Item is condition that the said blacksmith shall be bound to shoe all the horses of the inhabitants of the said village, receiving nine coins per shoe for the shoeing of mules and bulls, and eight coins per shoe for the shoeing of asses, and three coins per foot for the shoeing of each foot... Item is condition that if the said forger should make very notable faults due to his fault of not having a person and equipment to sharpen the ploughs and other ironworks of the inhabitants of the said place that will be offered, the aforesaid can at the expense of the said forger go to sharpen them to the other forger of the said place the times that, as said, it should be necessary...”[158]

158 Doc. Merigó, n.195.

The abundance of work in Peralta’s forge may be evidenced not only by the fact that there were two, but also by the suggestion that the blacksmith had another person as an assistant. We do not know whether Peter Calasanz carried out his work in this municipal smithy or in the other one mentioned. Since the smithy is not mentioned in any of the wills or marriage contracts of his children or in any of the property registers whose complete or implied texts we have obtained, it could be concluded that it did not belong to him and was not hereditary.[159] What we do know is that his son and heir Peter was also a blacksmith, and it is logical that he worked in his father’s forge.[160] But whether it was his own or a municipal forge, in the document we read, both are put on an equal footing as far as the duties of the trade are concerned, and there is no allusion to “arms or petronels”. When the municipal one was leased to John Sala, a neighbour of Pelagriñón, in 1592, the two Calasanz “ferreros” had already passed away.

159 With plausible intuition, Fr. Poch suspects that Father Jericho, so solicitous in conserving Calasanzian documents and sending them, in addition, transcribed to Rome, was interested in not leaving copies of wills, marriage contracts, etc., in which the office of “ferrero” of Peter Calasanz father was recorded, and therefore we do not have more data on the matter (cf. J. POCH, Tres testamentos..., p.475-477).

160 In a public instrument of sale, signed in Peralta, on May 20, 1576, we read: “Witnesses to the aforementioned things were the Rev. mossen Peter Gul priest and Peter Calasanz minor ferrero neighbours of that place Peralta de la Sal...” (AEPZ, Peralta 4). In a document dated October 15, 1570, we read: “John Rius herero (sic) hab. in the place of Peralta de la Sal...” (Doc. Merigó, n. 1570). (Doc. Merigó, n. 181), He was to exercise his trade in “the other” blacksmith’s shop, different from that of the Calasanz family.

The Holy Founder of the Pious Schools always had a special affection for the little donkeys and knew how to care for them, and he complained about those who mistreated them. When he was 72 years old, he complained: “I am not surprised that the little donkey died, because not everyone knows how to take care of the animals, and they usually die because they are not well cared for and are mistreated without giving them the proper food and rest they need. From now on, the superior should be more careful and not rely on the diligence of a young man, but watch them frequently.”[161]

161 C.1233.

This weakness for donkeys and the special way of treating them probably stemmed from those distant years of his childhood when the donkey herd would stop next to his father’s store and wait for their horseshoes to be shod before heading up the slope to the valley of the salt pans. How often on cold winter afternoons did he stand huddled against the forge, pulling the rope of the bellows to watch the singing iron that his father and older brother struck on the anvil with their rhythmically beating hammers!

María Gastón, the mother

No attempt has ever been made to trace the family tree of the Gastons, from whom Mary, the mother of the Saint, descended. However, neither her name nor the nobility of her family, which like the Calasanz family must have come from the Infanzones, have been forgotten. The available documents show that she was a resident of Peralta and we know many details of her family, while her husband Peter Calasanz was presented to us completely isolated, with no parents, no siblings, no ancestral seat and no certain place of origin.

Don Michael Jiménez Barber, the “compatriot” of the Founder, said that “Father Joseph’s father was called Peter Calasanz and his mother Maria Gastón, from a noble family, both in the land of Peralta and abroad, namely in Monzón, which is the most important city in this country and all the Kings go there to celebrate the Courts, and it counts this family of Gastons among its own.”[162] When Father Cavada arrived in Peralta in 1680, he was also informed about the Gaston family and learned that “the same position (of General Bayle) and other more honourable positions in the city were held and are still held by the relatives of our venerable father’s mother, Mary Gaston, who is one of the best families that existed in Peralta and is still preserved today.”[163]

162 BAU, BC, p.8.

163 Ibid., p.18.

A brother of Mary Gaston, named Peter, appears in the marriage contracts of his nephews Peter and Hope Calasanz Gaston and in other contemporary documents.[164] This Peter, the heir to the Gastons’ paternal house, probably gave his name to a house very close to the church. It is still called “Peregastó’s house” today.” When Maria Gastón married Peter Calasanz, she received as a dowry, along with other properties, several houses adjacent to that of her brother Peter, which are mentioned in the marriage contract of Peter Calasanz Gastón in 1576.[165]

164 In the marriage Chapters of Hope, “Peter Gastón and Maese Peter John Agustín, his brother-in-law and uncle” are named (Doc. Merigó, n.53). The latter was married to Joanna, Hope’s sister. In the marriage Cap. of Peter, the Rev. Mosen Matheo Calasanz de Juseu, John de Lujuanes de Pla de Castellón and “Peter Gastón de Peralta, relatives and family of the said Peter Calasanz” (cf. AnCal 5 [1961] 144) are named. In a census of 1566, together with “Peter Calasanz bayle”, “Anthon Gastón” and “Peter Gastón” are named (RevCal 147 [1925] 180). In 1555 “Peter Gastón hab. loci de Peralta de la Sall” (sic) appears doing business in Tamarite de Litera (Doc. Merigó, n.42). In 1502-1506 “Johannes Gastho” and “Raymundus Gasto” are named as inhabitants in Tamarite (ibid. n.74-76). In 1592 there is a “Joan Gasto”, Juror of Gavassa (ibid. n. 194).

165 ...” some houses located in the said place of Peralta de la Sal that confront with houses of Peter Gastó, with courtyard of Rahina and with via publica” (RegCal 13, 6-8).

The great expert on Peralta news, Father Jericho, deduces from a very interesting document, which we will see later, that the father of Maria and Peter Gastón must have been called Johannes, and from the abundant dowry he gave his daughter, it is clear that it was indeed “one of the best families that existed in Peralta”.[166]

166 Cf. J. POCH, Aportación documental biográfico-calasancia: AnCal22 (1969) 272-274.

A wealthy family

The disturbing discovery that the Founder’s father had been a blacksmith had extreme consequences, denying him any title of nobility and putting him in the painful position of “sweating at the forge and the anvil to raise his family”.[167] If he had the choice between nobility and wealth, he preferred the former: “Peter Calasanz could be poor without ceasing to be noble from all four sides, as he was,” said Father Huertas.[168] And there was no reason to be so upset. Their nobility was of a very low degree -infanzonia-, but it was nobility nonetheless. Blacksmithing was an undeniable fact, but it was neither a sign of indigence nor the only source of income to support the large Calasanz-Gastón family.

167 Cf. text of Merigó cited in n.154 of this chapter.

168 Cf. text quoted in n.150 of this chapter.

The desire to secure the future of the family estate and name a sole heir is already an indication that he was not living in poverty and that there was something substantial to secure. And Peter Calasanz, the father, made three wills during his lifetime, in 1571, 1585 and 1586 respectively. Father Jericho, who read all three wills - and kept any of them - said that “it is clear from them that Peter Calasanz was one of the richest cavaliers in the country, for in addition to his estates, which were sufficient to provide for seven children, he made several gifts and endowments of charities, which were not small for that time.”[169]

169 Cf. J. POCH, o.c., p.266. See what is said in n. 159.

In the marriage contracts of his first-born son Peter, in 1576, he practically reinstated him as heir, but reserved 4,000 Jaquesan gold coins for himself; 2,000 more for his wife; he guaranteed the 3,600 that his daughter-in-law Jerónima Paúl brought to the wedding with real estate, in addition to the dowry. And since he still has two unmarried children, he adds the following clause: “with the proviso that the said donors [Peter and Maria] may give from the said estates of the present donation to the said Josepe Calasanz and Ysabel Calasanz, their children, in property and dowry all that the said donors think and what is practised according to the possibilities of their house and estates and the customs of the said place of Peralta among such persons of such rank and condition.”[170]

170 RegCal 13, 68.

The last requirement denotes an unusual social position which reveals more than just economic status. But the entire lengthy text of these capitulations is in some ways a reflection of the family’s socio-economic position. In fact, in 1963, Dr. Philip Matías Llopis, professor at the University of Barcelona, made this judgement solely on this basis: “If you look at the marriage capitulations of Peter Calasanz Gastón from 1576, you get the impression of an economic situation of middle-class landowners that was more comfortable than modest, without reaching the position that the higher noble classes used to have.”[171]

171 Cf. J. POCH, o.c., p.275.

He married his five daughters: Maria and Magdalena in Peralta, Johanna in Benabarre, Elisabeth in Arén and Hope in Alcampel and gave them the dowry “that corresponded to their status and position” Of them all, only the capitulations of Hope, who was married to John Carpi, an infanzón of Alcampel, in 1574 have been preserved. The bride brought as her dowry “1700 coins and a bed with two half chests” and the husband was the universal heir to her house.[172] He also paid all the expenses for the priestly career of his son Joseph, of whom he said in 1571, when he named his first-born son Peter as universal heir, that “he should not only be entertained with the propriety befitting his quality, giving him all that he needed, but also, trusting that he would be a clergyman, be given a sufficient fortune to ascend to holy orders, if he could not already have a benefice.”[173] And the whole career of the young cleric Calasanz was a journey through various centres of study, such as Estadilla and the universities of Lérida, Valencia, Alcalá de Henares and again Lérida, which must have cost the “infanzón-smith” of Peralta more than a few gold coins”.

172 Doc. Merigó, n.53.

173 Cf. J. POCH, Tres testamentos..., p.446.

All these expenses to properly “house” his daughters and sons inevitably meant an economic existence that could hardly depend on the blows of the hammer on the blacksmith’s anvil. In view of what has been said, however, we should not underestimate the income that came from the “hard work” in the forge, for there were also two, the father and the eldest son, who carried it.

However, we must not forget the twenty or so years in which the head of the family, Peter Calasanz, was the local and general bayle of Peralta and its barony. The bailiwicks of towns, villages and baronies were honourable and coveted, because in addition to the social distinction, the advantages of power and command and the sinecure of dealing with “the lords”, they brought with them considerable emoluments, high dues for participation in many acts of administration and justice, a proportional participation in the collection of tithes, dues, rents, manorial rights and dues, etc.[174] And twenty years of bailiwick were many years.

174 In the appointment of a Bayle, made in 1574 by the Lords of Castro, Don Berenguer and Doña Eleonor, the economic emoluments of the office are referred to as follows ...” vestrumque bajuliae officium...; et habeatis et recipiatis vestrisque utilitatibus applicetis ea salaria, lucra et emolumenta quae per alios qui hucusque dictum offitium retinuerunt, juste sunt solita exigi et recipi assueta...” (J. POCH, Aportación doc. a la historia de la Univ. de Huesca: AnCal 15 [1966] 237, n.189 ).

In an old “Centena” or land register of Peralta, which covers the years 1500-1626, the lands and possessions of Peter Calasanz are mentioned indirectly. The centena that referred to him has been lost and therefore the surviving references are incomplete. However, it can be seen that as a farmer he must have had considerable property. Twelve properties are listed, only half of which are said to have been “given to Peter Calasanz as a dowry for his wife”, the other six were acquired by sale. Houses, vineyards, fields, a salt mine, olive groves, a pine grove, two orchards, a threshing floor and a hayloft are mentioned.[175]

175 Cf. J. POCH, Aportación doc. biogr.-cal..., p.272-274.

All this leads to the conclusion that the Calasanz-Gastón family owed their income to the honourable and productive bailiwick, the agricultural property and the sonorous blows of the hammers on the anvil of the forge.

When the son of the blacksmith from Peralta arrived in Rome, he made a touching gesture: he sent his home town a silver and gold chalice, on the bottom of which he engraved this inscription: “Pro ferro aurum et argentum. 1593” (Gold and silver instead of iron). He had no reason to be ashamed or to hide the fact that he was the son of a blacksmith. Today, the chalice is kept with reverence in Peralta, his birthplace.[176]

176 See photograph in EcoCen 3-4 (1949) plate XI-XII.

Chapter 3

Childhood at home and first studies

He was the eighth child of Peter Calasanz and Maria Gaston. Seven other siblings had preceded him. The first-born was called John and he was followed by Mary, Johanna, Magdalene, Hope, Elizabeth and Peter,[177] without us knowing the date of their births or the order in which they entered this world. But all seven were alive on the day the last of the siblings was born, who was also unknown. They brought him to be baptized in the old church that had disappeared and over which the present church was built. The baptismal font is still the same. And they called him Joseph: Joseph Calasanz Gastón.

177 Cf. J. POCH, Tres testamentos..., p.446.

The date of birth

In the notarial report sent to Rome in 1651 by the Rector and Beneficiaries of Peralta de la Sal to relate what they knew about the Founder of the Pious Schools and his family, they complained “that the said town of Peralta de la Sal, where Doctor Calasanz was born and baptized, for eight years has been invaded, plundered and burned down twice by the French and therefore the documents of the said place have been lost, including the five church books (quinque libri) in which the baptism of the said Doctor Calasanz was written down, and for this reason the certificate of his baptism cannot be taken out.”[178]

178 Cf. BAU, BC, p.11-12. On this ill-fated vandalism of the French Marshal La Mothe, more details can be found in J. P0CH, La “fe de baptisme” de Calasanz: Cat 246 (1982) 13-15. A captain, eyewitness of the facts, wrote a letter-report, published in Barcelona in 1643, while the “Reapers War” (Guerra dels Segadors) was still going on, and said among other things: “Sa Excelencia [La Mothe] ab sa gent comensá a jugar de fet, saquejant y destruint las majors vilas de Ribagorsa, com són Calasans y Peralta de la Sal y moltas altras desta frontera...” (ibid., p.14).

The burning of these books has caused the biographers of the Saint of Peralta to climb the walls, especially some of our time who are eager to determine the exact date of his birth. But as with other common details, we must remember other Spanish saints who were born at the same time or even later than ours and whose birth dates are unknown, such as St. John of Ribera,[179] St. Ignatius of Loyola,[180] St. John of the Cross,[181] St. Vincent de Paul[182] and St. Anthony Mary Claret.[183]

179 Cf. R. ROBRES LLUCH, San Juan de Ribera (Barcelona 1960) p.10, n.1.

180 Cf. R. GARCÍA-VILLOSLADA, San Ignacio de Loyola (BAC, Madrid 1986), p.57-60.

181 Cf. CRISÓGONO DE JESÚS, Vida y obras completas de San Juan de la Cruz, (BAC, Madrid 1946) p.21, n.19.

182 Cf. J. HERRERA-V. PARDO, San Vicente de Paul: biografia y escritos (BAC, Madrid 1950) p.33. In p.35, n.1, summary of the discussion about his probable Spanish origin, although undoubtedly his parents were from Tamarite de Litera. The brother of Joseph de Calasanz, Peter, married Jerónima Paul, from Juseu.

183 Cf. C. FERNÁNDEZ, El B. P. Antonio M. Claret (Madrid 1946) t.I, p.26.

The confusion began on the same morning which his mortal remains were placed in the Roman church of San Pantaleo. When Theodore Ameyden wrote the news in his diary - after asking for information - he added that he was “a man of 93 years”, and the same age was given in the daily newspaper ‘Avvisi di Roma’ of August 29, 1648.[184] Among the declarants in the Ordinary Process (1651-53), Brother Lorenzo Ferrari also said that “he was 93 to 94 years old”, although later he simply said that he would be “about 90 years old”.[185] He was probably the one who informed the journalists early that morning, reflecting the uncertainty that prevailed in the Piarist community of San Pantaleo. On the same day, an inscription with the name, age and date of death of the venerable deceased was engraved on a lead plate and placed on the coffin, stating that he had died at the age of ninety-two,[186] but in the notarial death certificate the doubt was insinuated with the statement “at the age of about 92 years”.[187] A few days later, Father Bonaventure Catalucci wrote a biographical sketch, known as a ‘Breve notizia’, in which he stated that he was born in 1556 or 1558, the same day that St. Ignatius of Loyola died (July 31, 1556).[188] Father Vincent Berro also acknowledged the alternative of the dates, but corrected the day by saying that it was September 3rd or 4th and that he was baptized on the 11th of the same month.[189]

184 Cf. SÁNTHA, SJC, p.3, n.1.

185 Cf. ProcIn p.608 and 618.

186 “Hic requiescit corpus Ven. Servi Dei P. Josephi a Matre Dei Scholarum Piarum Fundatoris et Propagatoris. Obiit anno aetatis suae LXXXXII, die 25 augusti anno Domini 1648” (BAU, BC, p.47).

187 “In nonagesimo secundo aetatis suae anno circiter vocatus a Deo animam ei reddidit” (ibid.).

188 Cf. BAU, RV, p.11.

189 “This heavenly Child was given by God [to his parents] on September 3rd or 4th, 1556 or as others say 1558, who on the 11th of the same month, being regenerated in the Sacred Baptismal Font, was called Joseph” (BERRO I, p.53. Corrected).

Among all the doubts, September 11, 1556 finally prevailed as the date of his birth,[190] although we do not know exactly why the date of the 11th prevailed, which Berro gave as the date of his baptism, and not that of September 3rd or 4th. Father Berro’s fineness in distinguishing between baptism and birth and the credibility earned by his statements, which are usually corroborated by other documents, are a guarantee that these dates are considered the most probable.

190 The three maximum Calasanctian biographers unanimously admit this date. Cf. A. ARMINI, Vita del Ven. Servo di Cristo P. Giuseppe della Madre di Dio (Rome 1710) p.8; V. TALENTI, Vita del Beato Giuseppe Calasanzio della Madre di Dio (Florence 1917) p.1; U. TOSETTI, Compendio storico della vita di S. Giuseppe Calasanzio (Florence 1927) p.4.

Father Bau, in his Biografía Crítica (Critical Biography) of 1949, adhered to 1556 as the year of birth for many documentary reasons, but he himself suggested the date of December 9th.[191] And true to this tradition, the entire Order of the Pious Schools solemnly celebrated the fourth anniversary of the birth of its Founder in 1956.

191 BAU, BC, p.42-68.

An erroneous tradition

In the extensive special issue 12 of the Revista Calasancia, which was dedicated to the celebration of the aforementioned jubilee, Father Bau published an article on ‘The date of birth of St. Joseph of Calasanz’ and, with ample argumentation, proposed a new date: July 31, 1558, which paradoxically left the centenary unjustified.[192] He thus resumed the date proposed in the ‘Breve notizia’ with regard to the day and month, opting for 1558 instead of 1556, both of which were given there alternatively.

192 Cf. RevCal. 12 (1957) 25-37. Previously, he presented the same thesis in his work, published that same year, Historia de las Escuelas Pías en Cuba (Habana 1957) p.9-l3. And he maintained it in his last work BAU, RV, p.25-26.

The publication of the Saint’s ‘Epistolario’ (Letters), which took place in the years 1950-1956, has enriched the documentary fund, because in 10 letters he speaks about his age. With such personal testimonies, it was impossible to maintain the traditional birth date of 1556. The old tradition suggested the alternative of 1558. To save this tradition, Father Bau had to put forward the gratuitous hypothesis that “the saint always reckons in the classical way, i.e. by years not yet completed.”[193] On the basis of this hypothesis, all calculations of the saint’s personal statements about his age point to 1558 as his year of birth. However, if we assume the opposite hypothesis, as is usual, all the dates agree with 1557.

193 Cf. BAU, Historia de las Escuelas Pías en Cuba, p. 11. The “classic” formula alluded to is that of ‘annum agens’, although the one that computes by years completed ‘annos natus’ is equally classic

Father Picanyol, in his commentary on the Calasanzian Letters, where the age is mentioned, and in his other writings, including those expressly devoted to this subject, does not get out of the dilemma: “... one of two things: either he had already reached it or was about to reach it... If he had already fulfilled it, he was born in 1557; if it was yet to be fulfilled, in 1558. And we are always left with doubt.”[194] Sometimes, however, he exaggerates the uncertainty and sees difficulties where there are none.[195]

194 Rass 26-27 (1957) 48; ID., Sulla data di nascita di S. Giuseppe Calasanzio: Rass 18(1951)20-39.

195 “It should be noted that in this letter [C.2902] dated July 1, 1638 Calasanz asserts to be 80 years old; in another one, instead [l.3134], written one year later [September 3, 1639] ... he confesses to be 82 years old, from which it is clear how fragile and uncertain are the arguments taken from the letters to establish the date of birth of our Saint” (EGC VI, p.374, com. a la C.2902). However, the Saint is very precise, because if he was born at the beginning of September, as Berro affirms, and on July 11, 1638 he says that he is 80 years old, he was born in 1557. And if on September 3, 1639 he says he is 82, it is equally accurate, because on those days of September he was 82, and therefore he was born in 1557. If, by hypothesis, he counted annum agens, the calculation would give 1558 twice.

The solution, then, is to find out how the Saint counted his years. Bau did not bother to prove his hypothesis, but turned it into a thesis. Before, there were others who had already proposed the year 1557, simply by following the usual way of calculating ages.[196] And that is the most logical position. There is no documentary evidence that Calasanz counted “his age” by years begun and not by years completed. And certain statements he made can hardly be explained by Bau’s hypothesis.[197]

196 Cf. E. LLANAS, Escolapios insignes, t.I, p.10ff.

197 On September 15, 1635 he says: “trovandomi gravato di 78 anni” (C.2441). If he had just turned 77 at the beginning of the month (in case he was born in 1558), how can he feel the weight of the 78 he has just begun? On December 8, 1646 he writes: “sebene mi ritrovo nella vigilia di anni novanta” (C.4429). If by hypothesis he was born in 1558, he was 88 completed in the previous September, which is not the vigil of the 90. In both cases it is more logical to start from 1557.

There are not ten but thirteen explicit references by the Saint to his age, and without preconceived hypotheses, i.e. assuming that he counted the years as everyone did then[198] and now, they all point to 1557 as his year of birth.[199] In addition, there are several other letters addressed to him whose calculation also points to the same year,[200] as well as one of the reports from Father Pietrasanta, who, in his office as Visitator, wanted to find out the Founder’s age personally.[201]

198 Without the intention of fully proving the thesis, we propose two examples, the first one of Rev. Francis Motes, who met Calasanz in Claverol, when he was 14 or 15 years old, and who, when giving his testimony, says, dated December 2, 1648, that he was 73 years old, and that he was born on February 21, 1575. Then he had already completed them since February 21, 1648 (cf. J. POCH, Un document inédito sobre S. José de Calasanz: Argensola 42 [19601 103, n.8). Fr. Pennazzi was born on January 1, 1620 and on October 30, 1643 he says: “I am 24 years old and not yet finished” (EC, p. 2038). He was two months short of finishing or completing them.

199 On September 23, 1620, in the Ordinary Process of V. P. Glicerio Landriani, he testifies to being 63 years old (cf. Rass 26-27 [1957] 48); on August 9, 1631: “within 74 years now” (C.1662); on April 8, 1634: “as a 76 years old man” (C.22l3); on September 15, 1635: “finding myself burdened with 78 years” (C.2441); on July 11, 1638: “if I were not of the age of 80 years that I am” (C.2902); on February 5, 1639: “I with more than 80 years old” (C.3036). Whether he was born in 1557 or 1558, he was already past 80. On September 3, 1639: “being 82 years old” (C.3134); on May 10, 1642: “due to the serious age of 84 years I can’t do any more” (C.3987); on September 22, 1646: “being 89 years old” (C.4408 ); December 8, 1646: “I find myself in the eve of 90s” (C.4429); October 5, 1647: “with being 90 years old” (CCP, p347); November 2, 1647: “though I am nonagenarian” (C.4505); June 1648: “ninety years old” (EGC, X, c.4554).

200 Fr. F. Salazar Maldonado (September 3, 1641): “If Y.P. did not write, being those characters of a man of 84 years of age, without glasses and with a bad pen, it was difficult to believe that it was your hand.” (EHI, p.1860); Fr. J. Orselli to Calasanz (December 14, 1642): “and I told him [to the king of Poland] the great consolation that S.P. would feel in his old age of 85 years, and H.M. accepted the office giving me his hand and repeating S.P.’s age, that is 85 years!” (EEC, p.987). Cf. also EHI, p.136, n.2.

201 “In regard to the age of 88 years, in which he finds himself.” Report of July 1645 (EGC, IX, p.209). He would have them in September, but he rounds them off, because he is interested in “making him old” in order to appoint him a General Vicar.

In his usual way of referring to the age of others, he counted by completed years, and so there is no reason to suppose that he used a different measure for counting his own age. When the entire Order was going through the very serious crisis of the Brothers who wanted to become priests, an appeal was made to the Pope to find a solution, and by decree of October 22, 1639, it was decided that all complainant Brothers who have made solemn profession “before the age of 21” will be recognized as clerics.[202] And as a result of this decision, there are a large number of letters from the Saint in which he speaks of the years of various “plaintiffs” and asks “whether they have professed before the age of 21”; “that they legitimately show that they have professed before the age of 21”; “as for those of 21 years…”[203] Even if it is not specified here whether these are completed years or years yet to be completed, it is logical that they are completed years, as the Pontifical Brief requires.

202 “Omnes Religiosos reclamantes hujusmodi, qui emiserunt professionem ante vigesimum primum primum annum elapsum esse veros clericos...” (EGC, IX, p.110).

203 Cf. C. 3193, 3200, 3437, 3560, 3802, 3809, 3853, etc.

The same must be said when he alludes to the age of sixteen years for profession, for sometimes he expressly says “16 completed years” and others omit the word “completed” because it is understood.[204] Similarly, it is expressed without specifying it when he speaks of ages which we know by right to have been understood as completed years, such as ordination to the priesthood, the ability to hear confessions, the appointment as Master of novices.[205]

204 “As for the point of having made the profession before 16 years completed...” (C.2244); “having made profession before the year 16...” (C.3946).

205 “To be a priest is not enough to have the age of 25 years but still...” (C. 1588). It was a requirement of the Council of Trent (ses. 23, De refor., c.12); I believe, he says, that Father Ignatius “be 35 years old, and years of profession are not required...” (C.3708). (C.3708). It was a requirement of Clement VIII, Cum ad regularem (cf. T. SCHAEFER, De Religiosis [Rome 1947] p.505). “As for confessors, even if they do not reach 30 years of age, since there are no others, Y.R. can dispense them” (C.3756).

All these concrete cases give us the certainty that it would be absurd for the saint to speak of the age of others and to understand by it normally the completed years, and that only when he referred to his own, did he understand it as not completed. We can therefore conclude from his own direct allusions that he must have been born in 1557.

What was certainly not

Hagiographers traditionally filled the childhood of their heroes with miracles, generously adorning them with all kinds of gifts and virtues and giving painters the opportunity to place golden halos on their little blond heads. And so it was, of course, with St. Joseph Calasanz, who even had a star appear to announce his birth. “The child was very obedient to his parents,” says Armini, “and he grew up with no other entertainment than devotion and prayers... He was modest in his face, moderate in his looks, composed in his actions, and so restrained in his speech that no word came out of his mouth that was not honest, and he did not bear them even with others, and when he heard them he covered his face with shame..., and he was very careful in anything that might defile his virginal innocence, in which he was so zealous that he did not easily allow his mother to see any part of his body naked...”[206] And Talenti added, after the quoted sentence which he had copied from Armini: “... tormented it with eager penances, for he was eager to hear the examples of the saints and read their lives, and wanted to emulate them as much as possible at that age, mortifying his feelings with penitential exercises and privations, not infrequently forcing his frail little body to endure the short sleep he was granted on bare earth or on hard boards.”[207] Bau also alluded to these traditional stories: ...” “he looked with aversion on games and childish amusements; he was never seen to run or jump without modesty, nor did he disturb with his cries, nor did he ever got into mischiefs of that age...”[208]

206 ARMINI, Vita, p.11-12

207 TALENTI, Vita, p.4.

208 BAU, BC, p.70.

Today, such a child would probably be taken to a psychiatrist. How could he not run and jump with the other children on the steep streets of his village, get muddy playing in the stream on rainy days and get lost in the reeds of the river? How could his mother let him sleep on the hard ground or on planks? How could she allow him not to be washed from top to toe when he came out of the bog dirty or full of dust from the threshing floor on harvest days?

In reality, the reliable pieces of news we have are humanly sober and to a certain extent plentiful, without having to resort to these implausible and nowadays unacceptable fantasies.

The beginnings of his piety

Brother Lorenzo Ferrari, who cared for the Saint in the last six years of his life, attested in the Ordinary Process:

“I have heard from Fr. Joseph himself that his father and mother brought him up in the fear of God and made him learn the good letters; and I also learned from him that when he was a little boy his parents brought him up by separating him from bad company, so that from then on he would accustom himself to the fear of God; and that all fathers and mothers should do the same to bring up their children in the fear of God”[209]; “and once, when he was exhorting me and other young subjects to Christian piety, he told us that when he was a little boy he used to attend devotions, and always prayed the Little Office of Our Lady and other devotions, but especially the Most Holy Rosary.”[210]

209 SÁNTHA, SJC, p.5, n.5.

210 BAU, BC, p.81

There was another extraordinary witness who went to the church of San Pantaleo to venerate the body of the Saint who was exposed on August 26, 1648. His name was Father Joseph Marquet[211] and he had been Archdeacon of the Church of Perpignan in Roussillon, which was then in Spanish possession. He was staying in Rome near the church of Montserrat, which belonged to the Crown of Aragon. After the homage, he entered the sacristy and introduced himself: He came from Peralta de la Sal, was a companion of Father Joseph Calasanz and was the same age.[212] And in the emotion of the moment, he began to recall memories of his saintly friend’s distant childhood. And around him must have swirled some of the priests who then made their statements in the Process, such as Scassellati and Quarantotto or the historian Caputi, who referred to this conversation.

211 In Italian he is called Muschez or Mosques, etc., but it must be Marquet, because even today there is still in the village of Calasanz the so-called “Casa Marquet” and occasionally this surname appears in the parish books. However, today, this surname has completely disappeared in Peralta de la Sal.

212 Caputi said that he was 93 years old on this occasion (August 26, 1648) (cf. Notizie historiche, VI, n.479: EcoCen 4 [1946] 20), but in another place (, RegCal 27, p.91 v) he affirms that in 1649 he was 92; then in 1648 he was 91, like the Saint when he died, because he would have been 91 at the beginning of September. Father C. Scassellati says that “he was of the same age” (cf. BAU, BC, p.83).

The old priest said, among other things, that he had attended school with Father in Peralta and that the teacher sometimes made him get up on a chair and “made him recite the miracles of Our Lady, just as his mother had taught him.”[213] The allusion is of course to the very famous work of Gonzalo de Berceo, and it is likely that many people knew a large deal of such poetry by heart, even without being able to read. And it is no wonder that little Joseph Calasanz had learned a few stanzas from his mother’s lips and climbed onto a chair and began, for example, with the words:

213 Cf. BAU. RV. P.32.

“Amigos e vasallos de Dios Omnipotent,

Si vos me escuchásedes per vuestro consiment

Querría vos contar un buen aveniment

Tenédselo en cabo por bueno verament...”

(“Friends and vassals of Almighty God,

If you would listen to me with your knowledge

I would like to tell you a good event,

Take it as something really good...”)

And more than once he could recite at the end:

“A la Virgen gloriosa todos gracias rendamos

De qui tantos miraclos leemos e provamos:

Ella nos de su gracia que servirla podamos

E nos guíe fer cosas per ond salvos seamos.”

(“We all want to thank the glorious Virgin,

Of whom we read and taste so many miracles:

May she give us her grace so that we may serve her,

And may she guide us to do things by which we can be saved.”)

The fervent Marian devotion of Joseph Calasanz “to the Mother of God” had its deep roots in those hours in Peralta when his mother made him repeat over and over again with tenderness the beautiful monochrome stanzas of Berceo. And little Joseph probably prayed the rosary on winter evenings by the fireplace while his mother prepared dinner and the sisters set the table, and the whole family prayed along devoutly.

The devil among the olive trees

Amid his childhood memories, the not-so-young Father Joseph Marquet remembers an incident in the sacristy of San Pantaleo that has practically gone down in history. A witness told it like this:

“A certain Father Joseph Musquez told me in the sacristy of our church of San Pantaleo, when the Servant of God [Calasanz] was exposed in the church on August 26, 1648, a singular event of the same Servant of God, which occurred at his tender age of about five years in his native Peralta. The aforementioned Father Joseph said to me: ‘Father, do not be surprised that this servant of God is a saint, for even as a child he, who was muy countryman and myself about his own age, left his house and village with a knife or dagger in his hand. When I asked him where he was going, he replied: “I want to kill the devil, because he is the enemy of God”[214]

214 Ib, p.30. This Process Declaration from 1690 is of Fr. Benedict Quarantotto, and not Saliniero, as Bau writes. Cf. S. GINER, El proceso de Beatificación de San Joseph de Calasanz (Madrid 1973) p.169, and CS, I, p.165, n.6.

Although this statement dates from 1690, it retains a sobriety that is all the more admirable given that it was pompously dramatized just a month after it was first told.

In fact, Father Catalucci simply said in the ‘Breve notizia’ that “accompanied by another companion, he left the village to kill the devil as his enemy.”[215] But the panegyrist, Father Jacinth of St. Vincent, for whom the sketch or ‘Breve notizia’ had been made, made the child climb an olive tree and the devil let him fall from the branch “and hit the ground with such a violent blow that, according to the friend’s account, he should have remained dead. But protected by the help of heaven, he rose up like a new Antaeus, with a still more furious resolution to attack and kill the devil who had dropped him; so, he went about and searched for him in the surrounding trees.”[216]

215 Cf. BAU, RV, p.11. Photocopy of the first page of this document, in whose first paragraph the fact is narrated, in C. BAU, Historia de las Escuelas Pías en Cataluña (Barcelona 1951) p.16-17.

216 BAU, RV, p.29. Berro says that the branch broke, but it seemed to him that olive wood is too resistant and said it was a fig tree: “He went into that olive grove, climbed into a fig tree, breaking the branch into which he had climbed “ (BERRO I, P.53-54). Cf. ARMINI, Vita, p.10; TALENTI, p.2-3. In 1904 a small chapel, ‘el pilaret’, was erected on a bank near the village to commemorate the event (see a reproduction in drawing in TIMÓN-DAVID, Vida, p.2-3, plate). The anti-religious fury destroyed it at the beginning of the war of 1936-39, and in 1956 it was rebuilt with a different and more monumental aspect.

The scene is entirely plausible, except that the boy - still less his companions - saw the devil or his evil shadow among the branches, and if he actually managed to climb up and fall, he would feel the blow and the adventure would be over. And we can recall the parallel scene of St. Teresa and her brother Rodrigo sneaking out of the house and crossing the walls of Avila to go to the land of the Moors to be beheaded for their love of Christ. Both cases reflect the religious spirit of Spain at the time and, above all, the deeply Christian atmosphere in their own homes.

However, it does not seem fair that this adventure became an obsession for some biographers, who cast the shadow of the devil over the saint’s entire life, almost like an omnipresent antagonist.[217] And even less so that the flourishing years of his childhood and youth were disturbed by ever new visions and violent attacks, as Talenti fantasizes: “The devil... tried to frighten him and prevent him from doing holy works by appearing to him in the terrible forms of cruel and monstrous beasts and even tried several times to drown him and throw him into a well.”[218] Life, even that of the saints, is much more normal and human than the novelists and hagiographers of other times used to write.

217 As a sample, we can see the following references to the devil in less than one hundred pages out of the 700 that Talenti’s hagiographic work has: “The devil had singularly used two means to impede the expansion of the Pious Schools to him so harmful” (p.213); “They were of great distress to B. Joseph those prejudices that.... brought the devil to his Order.” (p.217); “The devil aggravated it to him enormously” (p.239); “The Pious Schools brought such great detriment to hell, and the devil, feeling it greater, raged against them...” (p.244); “The unleashing of all hell to excite storms to submerge the Pious Schools...” (p.250); “the devil, false Angel, did not leave out...” (p.252); “the devil would not get to give there the prank..., and they heard the devil laughing and snickering at the prank made...” (p.259); “In 1636 the devil found how to constrain the V. Fr.” (p.261); “The devil did not desist from continually blowing into the fire...” (p.269); “Fearing the infernal adversary...” (ibid.); “But with God’s help the devil did not succeed...” (ibid.); “The new darnel that the devil sowed...” (p.273); “were aroused by the infernal enemy...” (ibid.); “Were driven by the devil to change Religion...” (ibid.); “God allowed the devil to induce them...” (p.277); “The devil pertinaciously continued to foment...” (p.282); “Had allowed themselves too powerfully to be overcome by the devil” (p.283); “The devil never ceased... to blow......” (p.286), etc. (V. TALENTI, Vita).

218 Ibid. n.6.

The prophecy of the mules

The previous evoking memories had a direct eyewitness: Father Joseph Marquet. But there was another anecdote of later origin, which fitted in with the traditional childhood tales and which must undoubtedly have a historical background, because the memory of it - if false - could not be maintained for more than a century. It was told to Father Louis Cavada as he traveled through Peralta in 1680, and he evokes it in a letter dated August 5, 1690, saying:

“Now I remember that when I was in Peralta de la Sal, an old priest there told me that he had heard his father say that Our Reverend Father’s father was much distressed because of certain people in Catalonia, to whom he had advanced money to bring to his house the quantity of wheat he needed for his provision, and as he had not kept his word, he could not get it anywhere. Thinking and complaining about this, he strolled across the square in front of his house. At that moment, his son, i.e. Our Ven. Father, about fifteen years old, came back from school. He knew the reason for his father’s grief and comforted him, telling him not to worry, but to trust in God, who would provide for him as soon as possible. That same afternoon, some of the expected people arrived with a mule team loaded with wheat. And they thought it was a prophecy. What was told by this priest (nephew or grandson of Master Ibáñez, who was a fellow disciple of O. V. Father from the grammar school) can be confirmed by other young priests...”[219]

219 RegCal 28, p.466-468.

It is likely that these were not just supplies for his own house, but something related to his office as General bailiff of the barony of Peralta, since the amount of supplies suggested by the mules seems to exceed the needs of a single family, even a large one such as his. On the other hand, the age of fifteen is not compatible with attending the local school, because at that age he would have had to study Latin or art, as was often the case,[220] and in Peralta, as we will say later, there was no Latin school. The same anecdote becomes more truthful when applied to a small child whose grace and demeanor are later remembered with sympathy and even as more ingenious – a prophecy in this case - than those of a fifteen-year-old boy. It is therefore more accurate to emphasize the detail that the child came from school, and not in the specific age of fifteen.

220 Jerónimo Nadal, S.I., visited the Novitiate of Gandía in 1554 and in the list of candidates he included the following: “A. Capilla, Valencian, from Valencia, 14 years old, very witty and calm, bachelor of Arts, of very good talent” (cf. Epistolae P. H. Nadal, S.J. ab anno 1546 ad 1577, v. I (1546-1562) [Madrid 1898], Appendix, n.VI, p.758-761). This is the future bishop of Urgel, a great friend of Joseph Calasanz.

His first letters

So, there was a school of first letters in Peralta. The previous anecdote and the recollections of Father Joseph Marquet allude to this when he mentions the little Joseph Calasanz Gastón reciting the Miracles of Our Lady. This last pious detail could lead us to believe that the school in the parish was run by one of the many beneficiaries who served it.[221] The school was then for boys only and the two older brothers, John and Peter Calasanz, also went there, for it is recorded that both Peter, the father, and Peter, the son, could write,[222] and logically John would also be able to write. However, the mother and sister Hope say that they could not write,[223] and the other sisters probably did not know how to write either. Women who could read and write were rare, especially in rural areas.

221 Here is the community of beneficiaries of Peralta de la Sal, around the year 1566: “Rector m°. P. [mossen Pere] Gul. b. [beneficiat] of S. Domingo la torre. Mo Antoni Sala b. de la Concepció. Mo Joan Texidor b. de S. Joan. Mo Pere Sales b. den ribe and guimeret. Mo Pere Gasseu b. de Nra. Sra. de la Purificació. Mo Andreu Sellens b. de S. Michel den rufes. Mo Pere Texidor b. dels Angels pays as rector of Monmagastre. Mo Joan Renyina b. de S. M. dels Pastors. Mo Jaume Sallent b. de S. Michel den Piquer. M°. Antoni Gasseu clerge b. de S. Michel. Joan Balle non in sacris b. S. Antoni. Joan Santiberi b. de S. Cebriá et Vincentii. lo be. de S. Michel de Montaner vagué» (Arch. Epis. Urgel, Reg.36, years 1566-1606, f.178).

222 Of both there are signatures; the father, for example, signs in the marriage contracts of his daughter Hope: “I, Peter Calasans, sign the above told” (Doc. Merigó, RegCal 74, n.53. Photocopy in EcoCen 3-4 [1949] 30-31, plate XIII). And the son: “Mossen Peter Gul Priest and Peter Calasanz minor ferrero, inhabitants of the said place of Peralta de la Sal were witnesses of the above things told. In the original note of which are the signatures and subscriptions required by the law of the present kingdom.” (AEPZ, Peralta, 4)

223 In the Capitulaciones matrimoniales of Hope Calasanz (January 25, 1547), before the signature of the father, Peter Calasanz, the following person signs: “I, Michael de Ager, am witness of the above and I sign myself for John Carpi, father and son [the son was the groom] and Madalena Abela, Hope Calasanz [the bride] and María Gastona [her mother] who said they did not know how to write and for another witness [Michael Mola].” (Doc. Merigó, RegCal 74, n.53. Photocopy in EcoCen 3-4 [1949] 30-31, lamina XIII).

He also learned the catechism at school or in the parish. During these years of his childhood, the Council of Trent (1545-1563) took place, and in the XXIV session (November 11, 1563) it was prescribed that at least on Sundays and holidays, children in the parishes should be taught the basics of the faith.[224] In 1561, the Dominican friar Peter Martyr Coma had published a catechism in Catalan and in the following years the Bishop of Urgel, Msgr. Peter Castellet (1561-1571), distributed it throughout the diocese so that it could serve as a text for teaching children and be read publicly to the faithful in churches on feast days.[225]

224 “Iidem [episcopi] etiam saltem dominicis et aliis festivis diebus pueros in singulis parochiis fidei rudimenta et obedientiam erga Deum et parentes diligenter ab iis, ad quos spectabit, doceri curabunt” (Sess. 24, Dec. de Refor., c.4).

225 The catechism was entitled: ‘Doctrina cristiana utilissima per a tots los fels cristians’. In 1566 the same author published another work, entitled ‘Directorium curatorum’ and dedicated it to Bishop Castellet, of whom he said in the ‘Epistola nuncupatoria’ of the introduction: “ha enviats per tota la diocesis llibres en llengua cathalana de la Doctrina per a que los minyons fossen ensenyats y se lligen publicament en les Esglesies de son bisbat tots los dies de festa” (cf. Cat 227 [1980] 2 1-22).

There was no Latin school in Peralta. On November 25, 1592, Doctor Calasanz wrote from Rome to the parish priest of his village, Father Joseph Texidor, referring to the letter he had written to him on September 29: “It seemed very right to me that you have chosen a teacher to teach Latin in this village, which will make it easier for parents to have their children learn the letters, which is one of the greatest legacies they can leave them.”[226] In fact, “the council and the people” of Peralta had ‘conduhido’ (hired) as a teacher “Antony Rauleda licenciate, natural of Castigaleu”, a village of the county of Ribagorza, north of Benabarre.[227] When he finished elementary school, Joseph Calasanz Gastón had to leave Peralta at his parents’ request in order to continue his studies. He was grateful for this and later realized - in his Roman age - that this was the best inheritance they had left him.

226 C.4.

227 (October 18, 1592). “Conduction de ferrero. Eadem die et loco..., llamado, convocado y ayuntado el concejo y universalidad del dicho lugar de Peralta y congregado y ayuntado por mandamiento y llamamiento y de la forma y manera en el precedente acto de conducción del maestro contenida y expresada. (The act of reference: hiring as teacher of Antony Rauleda bachelor native of Castigaleu being present the following council and universality...)” (Doc. Merigó, n.l95).

Before the student left the village, two or three of his sisters had left the parental home: The eldest, Maria, married Peter Ferrer in 1561 and continued to live in Peralta; Johanna married John Blanch, “alias Agostí”, around 1565 and moved to Benabarre, where her husband was from; and probably in the same years, between 1561 and 1565, Magdalene also married Antony John Pastor, a native of Peralta, and remained in the village.[228] Together with her parents were John and Peter, Hope and Elizabeth.

228 Cf. J. POCH, Three testaments..., p.448-449.

The school of Estadilla

When it came to choosing a grammar or Latin school in relative proximity to Peralta, there were many options. The convents of the friars maintained them for the aspirants of their Order, and also accepted outsiders under certain conditions. The Trinitarians had houses in Lérida (founded in 1201), Balaguer (1300), Monzón (1282), Fraga (1549), Barbastro (1559) and also in Estadilla (1540).[229] It is known that some of them had grammar schools, as in Monzón, Lérida and Estadilla.[230] There was also a grammar school in Benabarre, run by one of the beneficiaries of the collegiate church, and in 1610 a Dominican college called Linares was founded near the town, just as the Descalced Carmelites would found a monastery with a grammar school in Tamarite around 1594.[231]

229 Cf. PI. MARCHIONI, Note sulla storia delle origini dell’Ordine della SS. Trinità (Rome 1973), p.227-237. In this work it is said that Estadilla was founded in 1550, as also in Fr. S. CALVO, Resumen de las prerrogativas del Orden de la Sma. Trinidad, Redención de Cautivos y de los Varones ilustres que han florecido en él (Pamplona 1791) p.618. What is certain, however, is that it was founded “around the year 1540, because in the year 1541 a cap. prov. was celebrated in... Zaragoza, and in said Chapter the convent of Estadilla was admitted.... with the following decree: “Item statuimus quod domus Sti. Bartholomei de Estadilla sit unita Ordini et Religioni SSmae. Trinitatis” (L. REYNES, Chronica de la Provincia de Aragón del Orden de la SS. Trinidad. vol IV, ch. 15. ms-copy in the Arch. S. Carlo. Rome).

230 Peter Cerbuna y del Negro, bishop of Tarazona and founder of the University of Saragossa, studied in Monzón. The one in Lérida was converted in 1574 into a College of higher studies for Trinitarians, annexed to the University, as had been the one in Alcalá de Henares in 1525, the first of those attached to the Complutense University (cf. L. REYNES, oc., vol. IV, chap. 2).

231 Both Benabarre and Tamarite are mentioned by J. B. LABAÑA, Itinerario del Reino de Aragón, in J. GARCÍA MERCADAL, Viajes de extranjeros por España y Portugal, II, p.223-224 and 229.

The then Bayle of Peralta did not hesitate to choose the school of Estadilla, the head of the barony of Castro, for his son. Today, there are some ruins in the upper part of the village that are said to have belonged to the old convent of the Trinitarians. However, such an identification does not seem very acceptable because, firstly, the large hall with its pointed arches and ashlar walls looks more like a medieval castle or palace than a convent of friars built in the mid-16th century. Moreover, according to one chronicler, “this convent was always very small throughout this fourth century (16th century) we are talking about”, and even for this reason its closure was ordered twice, in 1567 and 1590, but this did not happen.[232] Also there are indications that the castle of the Lords of Castro was located in the upper part of the town, exactly where the ruins in question are located,[233] while the Trinitarian monastery is said to have been located outside the town.[234]

232 Cf. L. REYNES, o.c., ch.19.

233 “Estadilla was one of the strongest places in the time of the Reconquest and in the Middle Ages, for which reason it was the residence of its lords, the Barons of Castro, whose palace they had in the castle that occupied the highest part of the town. Today it is destroyed...” (G. GARCÍA CIPRÉS, Linajes de Aragón, v.III, p.277). On the site of the supposed convent, a public building has been erected during the years in which this work was written, inside of which the great gothic hall mentioned above has been restored.

234 “The Ven. Fr. Antony Sanz was born in Valencia and... retired to our convent of Estadilla in Aragón in the diocese of Lérida, which at that time was located on a hill half an hour away from the aforementioned town and consecrated to St. Bartholomew...” (Fr. S. CALVO, o.c., p.291-292). The author follows saying that Sanz died in 1670, while the truth is that he attended, as Minister of Estadilla, to the Prov. Chapters of 1580, 1583, 1586 and 1589, dying in the latter year, as L. REYNES (o.c., chap. 37) proves. Then, when he says “at that time”, he refers to those years. The inaccuracies in which Fr. S. Calvo frequently incurs allow us to think that he is also exaggerating when he says that the convent was “half an hour” from Estadilla. Perhaps it is “half a league” and that it was settled on the hill near the town and then changed residence.

The small size of the convent we have just heard about leads us to believe that it is impossible to accommodate boarders. Therefore - and in our case - little Joseph Calasanz would live in the house of a relative or friend of his parents, which does not seem so unlikely if we think of the relations that his father, as Bayle of Peralta, would have with the people of Estadilla, the head of the barony of Castro.[235]

235 Still today in Estadilla a certain tradition points out the house called “Sardi” as the one inhabited by the student Joseph Calasanz and in one of its rooms a commemorative plaque was placed on August 25, 1916.

It is not far-fetched to assume that the grammar school of Estadilla and the others maintained by the Trinitarians in Monzón, Barbastro, Fraga, Balaguer and Lérida followed the curriculum of the minor university schools, especially that of the Estudi General of Lérida, to which they were in some way subordinate geographically, and more generally to the entire territory of the Crown of Aragon.

At these universities, the study of grammar was divided into three courses: Beginners, Juniors and Seniors. Students were usually between ten and fourteen years old. The basic text was Nebrija. Grammatical principles and syntax were studied in the beginners’ and juniors’ classes, and prosody and rhetoric in the seniors’ classes. The Latin authors were usually Louis Vives (Dialogues), Terence (revised), Cicero, Julius Caesar, Sallust, Livy, Tacitus, Virgil, Horace, Martial.

The lost poet

The first sketch of the biography - the ‘Breve Notizia’ of September 1648 - alludes to these pre-university studies of the Saint, saying that “after having studied grammar and rhetoric in verse and prose with much profit, he was sent to the University of Lérida...”[236] Father Cavada wrote about his journey through Barbastro, Peralta and Benabarre in 1677 much later, in a letter dated August 5, 1690, to Father Armini, then General of the Order:

236 Cf. BAU, RV, p.11.

“I also remember that the Vicar of Benabarre, a very good friend of D. Joseph [de Calasanz y Bardají, Lord of Ramastué and Estall], had a book like a Roman Ritual, a manuscript with various and very elegant Spanish poems that the said Ven. Father [Founder] had written during his studies in Lérida, Valencia, Huesca (Osca), etc. something exquisite, about the Sacrament, the mystery of the Trinity and other sacred themes, etc..., and one could at least make a copy to publish it in due course.”[237]

237 RegCal 28, p.469. Direct translation of the original, misquoted in Rass 26-27 (1957) 56.

And elsewhere, Father Cavada again recalled these poems, saying in Spanish: “Except that the Father Provincial was not able to obtain from the said Vicar a quarto folio book containing various poems on the Divine, as elegant as learned, by the said Father, in which he said that he had written them during his studies at the Universities of Lérida, Valencia, etc...”[238]

238 Crónica de esta nuestra Provincia de Sardeña, cit. in EGC, II, p.26.

Everything indicates that some of these poems were written by the saint in Estadilla, because there he studied rhetoric “with much profit in verse and prose”, as Catalucci says, and among the themes chosen was the mystery of the Trinity, which easily recalls the spiritual influence of the Trinitarians. Cavada also adds an “etc.” to the universities mentioned. It is probably a book in which the student Calasanz wrote his youthful verses during his career, as he came into contact with rhetoric and poetics. And we must deeply regret that Father Cavada was so anxious to send the hybrid branches of a supposed family tree to Rome and did not have the patience to make a copy of those poems “a lo divino (divine style), as elegant as learned”, which would have inspired so many generations of Piarists. So, was a poet lost?

“The santet”

The three years in Estadilla - probably between the ages of ten and fourteen - must have been very important for his life. The adolescent was no longer a child. For the first time, he lived outside the warmth of his home. It was a premature but definitive emancipation. And there is no doubt that the Trinitarian religious left their spiritual mark in those years, without excluding possible future relationships in Lérida, Valencia and Alcalá de Henares, where these religious maintained university schools for their own religious students, and it was precisely in Lérida, Valencia and Alcalá that Calasanz completed his university studies.

One of the most solemn moments of these years was his First Communion. And with it, the boy began to practise the sacraments of penance and the Eucharist. Of the two themes of his poems that are explicitly mentioned, one refers to the Blessed Sacrament.

It is not surprising that in the slow process of weaving his biography as a saint, news, anecdotes and details about his spiritual life accumulate. Fortunately, in each of the first stages of his life, there was someone who left us some memories of his life together. Father Joseph Marquet spoke to us about elementary school in Peralta. From that time in Estadilla, Father Michael Jimenez Barber shared the trustworthy testimony of another student and friend of the student Calasanz:

“About the education of Fr. Joseph in his childhood I can only say what I have heard from old and elderly people in that country, such as the aforementioned Antony Calasanz [“son of a brother of Fr. Joseph’s grandfather” - he said before -] and Msgr. Francis de Ager, confidant and minister of the Holy Office, who was a classmate of Father Joseph, with whom he studied as a child in Estadilla, that is, he was called ‘santet’ by everyone, which means ‘the little saint’, and he added that he never went to class without praying first, and he did so every day, although his classmates mocked him.”[239]

239 ProcIn, p.212-213. From this text it was known that he studied in Estadilla, but the tradition spoke of a local school with some ‘domine’, professor of Latin, as it happened in Peralta in 1592. In 1949 Fr. Bau still spoke of the ‘domine’ of Estadilla (BAU, BC, p.83), but in 1963 he already mentions the Trinitarians (BAU, RV, p.33). Certainly, there is no documentary evidence that Calasanz was a student of those religious, but everything suggests that he was.

The detail that he remembered the nickname that his classmates gave him, precisely in Catalan - el santet -, a common language in those villages, is a guarantee not only of the truth of the nickname itself, but above all of what they wanted it to mean. That the boy from Peralta had something that the others did not. He was not bothered by the nickname, nor did he feel restrained because his religious customs provoked the mild mockery of his companions. Although probably not all of them, as more than one of them went on to be a religious or priest.

In fact, when Calasanz visited the Monastery of Montserrat much later - in 1585-86 - accompaniing the Bishop of Lérida and Apostolic Visitator Don Caspar John de la Figuera, he found among the monks Friar Diego de Marquina, twenty-eight years old and a religious for twelve years, a native of Estadilla.[240] Since they were the same age, it is very likely that they attended the same Trinitarian school together, as they both later embarked on an ecclesiastical career. We could also assume that the priest Joseph Marquet, a fellow pupil of Calasanz at Peralta elementary school, who was the same age, also attended the grammar school in Estadilla, as he was unable to learn Latin in his village. And we could assume the same of other of his contemporary priests and compatriots who were later beneficiaries in Peralta, since the patrons of these benefices were usually from Peralta and they were given to their own relatives.[241] And above all, those who were destined for the ecclesiastical path had to attend classes in grammar and Latin, and therefore it is logical that those from Peralta went to Estadilla until 1592, when “a teacher of Latin was appointed.”

240 Cf. J. POCH, El Fundador de las Escuelas Pías en la Historia Eclesiástica de la Corona de Aragón: AnCal 20(1968) 409, n.201.

241 The community of beneficiaries of Peralta or part of it in 1600 was the following: “The Rvd. Community of the venerable Rector and Beneficiaries of the Church of Peralta de la Sal, M°. Joseph Texidor, M°. Michael Salas mayor, M°. Joan Altemir, M°. Caspar Salas, M°. Jayme Huguet, M°. Michael Salas menor y M°. Thomas Teres was gathered in the usual place....” (Quoted in A. VIDAL, De re calasanctiana: RevCal 150 [1925] 409-410). The surnames of this list of beneficiaries and those of the list in n.221 of this same Chapter should be compared with the following lists of participants in councils of Peralta: (in 1566) “Et primo nos Peter Calasanz bayle, Anthon Sala de la Pila y Peter Pallarés jurors of the said place of Peralta de la Sal, Phelipe Sala, Joan Eximeno, Joan Gil, Anthon Nofre, Martín Altemir, Michael Morella, Mathew de Viu, Peter Sala, Anthon Gomez, Anthon Sala, Joan Ferruz, Andrew Pastor, Joan Rañina, Joan Uguet, Peter Pilzano, París de Salas, Joan Porquet, Anthon Gastón, Joan de Viu, Peter Gastón, Anthon Mele, Jayme Altemir, Ramón Gil, Monserrate Sala, Francis Leonar, Arnau Santiveri and Raymond Comas farmers neighbors and inhabitants of that place...” (RevCal 147 [1925] 180). And in 1592: “Et primo nos Anthon Sala major, Joan Gil jurors, Nicolau Albano, Anthoni Joan Pastor, Joan Uguet, Peter Altemir, Peter Forton, Joan Sala de la Fuente, Anthoni Naval, mre. Barthomeu del Fort tecedor, Peter Chicot, Joan Ferrus, Cosme Sala, Michael Sala, Josepe Texidor, Josepe Rayna, Martín Arasanz, Anthoni Adena, Peter Ranina, París Sala, Barthomeu Yglesia, Peter Leunart, Arnau Santiben, Josepe Meler, Peter Çaidy and Anthoni Gacent all neighbors and inhabitants of Peralta...” (Doc. Merigó, RegCal 74, n.195). With both lists, in addition, a reduced census of the contemporaries of Joseph Calasanz in his own town is reconstructed, with whom he and his family had to deal and live with.

The early priestly vocation

From all that has been said about Joseph Calasanz Gastón’s childhood, it can be concluded that he was a good and pious boy. Moreover, what his classmate said about his piety in Estadilla could also apply generally to his entire childhood, as another witness reported about those years:

“Father Joseph’s childhood was God-fearing and with signs of no small sanctity. He attended devotions very frequently and exhorted the children of his age to the fear of God and Christian piety.”[242]

242 Br. Lawrence Ferrari in Inf. Proc. (cf. BAU, RV, p.34).

Therefore, it does not seem premature to assume that his priestly vocation matured in this favourable environment. His personal attitude of piety, the influence of his religious educators and his companions, who later became priests, suggest this. It is documented that in 1571, when the boy was thirteen and a half years old, his parents already knew that he wanted to become a priest. In fact, his father made a will on March 8th of the same year, and “in one of the clauses,” according to Father Jericó, “he charges and commands his son and heir, who bears the same name as his father, Peter, not only to provide him [Joseph] with the decency befitting his quality, and to give him all that he needs, but also, trusting (he adds) that he will become a cleric, to give him a sufficient patrimony to ascend to holy orders, if he has not already a benefice.”[243]

243 J POCH, Aportación documental biográfico-calasancia: AnCal 22 (1969) 266. “Of this will - Jericó states - and of two others that Don Peter himself granted fourteen years later [1585 and 1586], and which are originals in San Estevan de Litera, I have a copy” (ibid.), now disappeared.

This statement in the will does not agree with the traditional idea that his father was against Joseph’s priestly vocation because he wanted to dedicate him to the militia. It was believed that both his father and his brother Peter had held honourable military offices, true to the supposedly glorious family tradition, and that little Joseph should follow in their footsteps.[244]

244 Cf. text quoted in n.52 of c.2: ARMINI, Vita, p.13; TALENTI, Vita, p.6. Both biographers rely on previous testimonies, as Berro: “Our Joseph’s father wanted at this time to employ him in the militia as him, and it was ancient greatness of their House. Our Joseph thought to escape this by going to the studies in the most illustrious Universities of Spain.” (BERRO, 1, p.55).

There is some truth in this tradition, but it has nothing to do with the militia and does not relate to this historical moment, when there was no reason to justify paternal resistance. At this point, the first-born John had probably already died in adulthood, and the father wanted to have things settled and made a will in which he appointed Peter as heir, with the estate and the family name secure. The youngest son can therefore pursue his clerical vocation in peace, supported by the financial help of his brother if his parents have died.

Five years later, in the marriage contracts of the aforementioned Peter dated February 20, 1576, the parents again confirmed the eldest as universal heir and again reserved the appropriate patrimony for the youngest son Joseph, who had already received the ecclesiastical tonsure a year earlier (April 17, 1575).[245] And neither in 1571 nor in 1576 is there any indication of Don Peter’s “aversion to the plans of his son, who openly proclaimed his vocation to the ecclesiastical state”, as Father Jericó believed even after reading both documents.[246]

245 ...”and further reserving the said donors [his parents], that from the said goods of the present donation they may give to the said Josepe Calasanz and Ysabel Calasanz their children in patrimony [for Josepe] and in dowries [for Ysabel] all that the said donors will be entitled to and well seen will be in accordance with the possibilities of their house and goods and custom of the said place of Peralta among such persons of their state and condition” (RegCal, 13, 6-8).

246 Cf. J. POCH, l.c.

With these testamentary exceptions, Peter Calasanz (father) conformed to local and regional customs, which imposed on the heirs the obligation to support and provide for the youngest sons’ vocations until they could fend for themselves once they had received the major orders.[247] So, there were no disagreements between the Bayle of Peralta, Don Peter Calasanz, and his son Joseph. On the contrary, the father “trusted” that his son would become a clergyman. And the boy probably left Estadilla that same year, 1571, at the end of the course, in the middle of summer, and returned to his village to spend the vacations.

247 In 1614 “John Sallent, farmer, resident in the place of Peralta de la Sal”, disposes in his will: “I also leave my grandson Jayme Sallent to be raised and maintained in my house, giving him what is necessary, clothing and footwear, and when he reaches the age of fourteen - Joseph Calasanz reached fourteen in 1571 -, to say if he wants to be a clergyman, and if he does, in that case I want and command my heir below to maintain him in his studies, giving him what is honestly necessary, clothing and footwear, until he reaches the age of 24...” (cf. J. POCH, Tres testamentos..., p.485). In 1557, Monserrat Calasanz de El Grado (supposed by Merigó and Bau, older brother of the Saint’s father) ordered in his will to his universal heir that “he be obliged to have and maintain my son Martín in his studies and give him what is necessary until the age of 25 years and give him sufficient patrimony to take orders” (Doc. Merigó, I.c., n. 133). In the marriage contracts of Hope, sister of the Saint, in 1574, the in-laws provide that their son (brother of the groom and future priest) “M°. Martín Carpi has in the house of the said bridegroom a chamber with his bed all the days of his natural life” (ibid., n.53).

Banditry in the county of Ribagorza

From the time he was born until he left Spain (1557-1592), Joseph Calasanz lived in the long reign of Philip II (1556-1598). And until Peralta would arrive the late echoes of the wanderings of the “Spanish Tercios” across the roads of Europe, and the ships and galleons of our Armada across all the seas of the world. It was precisely in this summer of 1571 that the naval forces of the Holy League - Spain, Venice and Rome - concentrated in Sicily to confront the Turks in the waters of Lepanto with more than 250 ships and 25,000 men.

This and similar news kept the Spanish people on tenterhooks, hoping for victories and fearing possible defeats. And as the great imperial adventure began with Charles V, there was hardly any time to rest. Battle after battle, defeats and victories in old Europe, mixed with the conquests of the New World or the new discoveries of islands in unknown and as yet unnamed seas, filled the Spaniards remaining on the peninsula with satisfaction… and fear. And the child, the young man and the adult Joseph Calasanz could not remain indifferent.

But alongside the glory of this empire, where the sun never set, there were also the everyday miseries that seemed to have no solution. And one of these, like an endemic, incurable plague, was banditry. It was not an ordinary phenomenon. Although its origins are lost in the night of the centuries and its constant presence can be observed throughout the Mediterranean,[248] it was particularly virulent in the Crown of Aragón in the second half of the sixteenth century.[249] The future priest Joseph Calasanz will experience moments of fear during the months of his stay in Urgel, distributing harquebuses to the Canons, one of which he will keep for defense against the bandits. And a few years earlier, when he lived for a time in Montserrat, he learned of their misdeeds in the same monastery and heard the shots of their blunderbusses echoing in the caves of the mountain.

248 Cf. F. BRAUDEL, El Mediterráneo y el mundo mediterráneo en la época de Felipe II (México 1976, 2), t.II, p.123-125.

249 Cf. S. GARCÍA MARTÍNEZ, Bandolerismo, piratería y control de moriscos en Valencia durante el reinado de Felipe II (Valencia 1977); ID., Bandolers, corsaris i Moriscos (Valencia 1980); J. REGLA, El bandolerisme catalá al temps del barroc (Barcelona 1962); G. COLAS-J. A. SALAS, Aragón en el siglo XVI. Alteraciones sociales y conflictos políticos (Zaragoza 1982).

But not only that. Since his childhood, he was used to hear about the cases and things of the “bandoleros”. And these were not bedtime stories. They talked about them with specific names of villages and people. After a few years of relative calm, “banditry... reappeared with greater force in the sixties. For more than ten years, the entire north was constantly plagued by gangs, without the authorities being able to bring the situation under control until 1572. Once again, Ribagorza, the region of La Litera - to which Peralta de la Sal belongs - and Barbastro were the areas where banditry was strongest. We know,” wrote Philip II, “that in the town of Monçón and its castle, as well as in Tamarite and other places in the area, many bandits gather and go out from there to rob the travelers and commit other crimes worthy of attention.” For his part, Don John de Gurrea reported on the situation in the county in a report to the Court: “The county of Ribagorza is the place where real and cruel offenses are committed and where the lackeys roam freely... [and] if the county is free of criminals, then the whole country [the Kingdom of Aragón] is free, and especially the lands of Monçón, Balbastro and Tamarite, because they are closer to it.”[250]

250 Cf. G. COLAS-J. A. SALAS, o.c., p.163.

Threats, bribery and fear forced the neighbours of these towns to welcome the bandits, leading to complaints from the authorities and inevitable bloody clashes, such as in April 1561 in Binaced, ten kilometres south of Monzón. The bandit Amendaño had entrenched himself there with thirty-five criminals sentenced to death. Lorenzo Juan, a landowner from Fonz, a neighbouring town of Peralta, went there accompanied by more than a hundred men and in the confrontation Amendaño died with twenty-five of his own and another twenty from Lorenzo’s side.[251]

251 Ibid., p.164.

The very serious situation prompted Philip II to write on June 20, 1561 to the municipal councils of Barbastro, Monzón, Sariñena, Tamarite, the towns of the House of Castro and the County of Ribagorza, as well as to the Justice of Aragón, so that they could join forces against the common enemy, banditry.[252] At this time, Peter Calasanz, the saint’s father, was the General Bailiff of the entire barony of Peralta; moreover, it was precisely at this time of greater virulence of banditry, which extends over the decade of the sixties to 1572, that he was at the head of the Local and General Bailiwick of Peralta,[253] and he must have dealt with banditry issues many times in council, all the more so if we remember that the hill passes of “Calasanz and the Coll de Gabassa” were particularly dangerous.[254] The Calasanz-Gastón family from Peralta had to pass through the Coll (hill pass) de Gabassa on their way to Benabarre. One of their daughters, Johanna, married to Peter John Blanch, had lived there since at least 1565.[255]

252 Ibid.

253 Cf. J. POCH, Aportación documental biográfico-calasancia..., p.266; ID., Aportación documental a la historia de la Universidad de Huesca...: AnCal 15 (1966) 236, n.189.

254 Cf. G. COLAs-J. A. SALAS, o.c., p.170 and 186.

255 Cf. J. POCH, Tres testamentos..., p.449, n.7.

One of the factors that influenced the persistence of banditry in the area was the habitual absence of the Lords, both the Counts of Ribagorza and Dukes of Villahermosa and the Barons of La Laguna, lords of the House of Castro, who had their normal residence in their palaces in Zaragoza.[256] For this reason, “in the decade of the sixties, Philip II reminded the Baron of La Laguna of his promise to reside in the places of the House of Castro “to prevent bandits and people with bad habits from wandering through these places.”[257]

256 “The Most Illustrious Sir Don Alonso de Gurrea y Aragón, Count of Ribagorza, domiciled in the city of Zaragoza,...” (June 28, 1544) (cf. J. LÓPEZ NAVÍO, Testamento de Micer John Calasanz (Zaragoza 1966) p.17; “I, Don Martín Despés, Baron of La Laguna and Lord of the House of Castro, domiciled in the city of Zaragoza...” (December 19, 1592) (Arch. Prot. Zaragoza, D. Fecet, 1592, f.1129).

257 Cf. G. COLAS-J. A. SALAS, o.c., p.184.

Against this insurmountable plague, the King also appealed to the Holy See several times and obtained from Gregory XIII the abolition of the right of asylum in the Crown of Aragon for bandits and thieves who sought refuge in holy places,[258] as well as harsh penalties against all kinds of provocateurs, protectors and participants in banditry, whether they were princes, marquises, counts, barons and other holders of titles or any secular lords.[259] But the possible consequences of such papal condemnations caused conscience unease and serious remorse among many people, especially in Aragón, so that the Diputación had to appeal to the King and plead for the abolition of the Papal Constitution because of “the damage that the censures of the motu proprio of the ‘bandoleros’ have caused in the souls of many people of this kingdom, who do not obey it as His Majesty commands, nor have the strength to keep it, because there are so many of them and they roam the mountains in bands, and the danger and scruples of many others who have to do with them without being able to escape it, from which great inconveniences and disturbances result, and there will be still greater ones in the Courts.”[260]

258 A first decree for Catalonia, Roussillon and Cerdagne was issued on October 1, 1572 (cf. Bullarium Romanum, t.VIII [Naples 1883], p.19-21); in the same terms, almost literal, another was issued for Aragon and Valencia on June 23, 1573 (cf. ibid., p.49-50).

259 There were two other pontifical Decrees or Constitutions against the ´banderías´ (factions) or their supporters, both addressed to Aragon, Valencia, Catalonia, Roussillon and Cerdagne: the first (May 15, 1573) condemned both the duel and the ‘bandos’ (gangs) (cf. ibid., p.45-48); the second (February 15, 1577) referred only to the ´banderias´ and in terms almost literally identical to the previous one (cf. ibid., p.169-171).

260 Cf. G. COLAS-J. A. SALAS, o.c., p.172-173.

But in all this there was already the political and social aspect of banditry, which further complicated the problem and to which we shall return later.

Chapter 4

In Lérida: arts and laws

It would be a vain presumption to call the latest assumptions about some aspects of the biography of St. Joseph Calasanz definitive. The lack of documentation does not allow us to clarify once and for all certain controversial issues, including the entire period of his studies, especially his chronological distribution. This is not an easy problem to solve, as demonstrated by the various attempts proposed by researchers in recent times. Compare, for example, the various schemes presented by Father Bau, from his ‘Critical Biography’ of 1949 to the revision of the same in 1963,[261] and then compare them with the scheme proposed by Father Poch in 1966 and his own corrections up to 1980.[262] The contributions from the archives and the subsequent revisions of the university years in Lérida, which are due to Father Poch, have clarified the panorama and definitively settled some questions. But the last word has not yet been spoken.

261 Cf. BAU, BC, p.92-93; ID., La carrera universitaria de S. Joseph de Calasanz: Ruta 27 (1963) 26-30; BAU, RV, p.42.

262 Cf. J. POCH, Aportación documental a la historia de la Universidad de Huesca, durante la segunda mitad del siglo XVI: AnCal 15(1966)240-241, plate 1; ID., Calassanç a l’Estudi General de Lleida: Cat 174(1975)1-8; ID., Les ordenacions sagrades de l’universitari Josep Calassanç: Cat 231(1980)3-8, Spanish translation in AnCal 50(1983)257-271.

An uncertain tradition

As in other biographical aspects, the first written document that gives us clues about Calasanz’s university studies is the ‘Breve Notizia’ of September 1648, which states: “After studying with great advantage the rhetorical grammar in verse and prose, he was sent to the universities of Lérida, Valencia and Alcalá and obtained a doctorate in Sacred Theology, in Civil and Canon Law.”[263] This is the essence of the tradition that has been maintained over the centuries in two aspects: in the name of the three universities of Lérida, Valencia and Alcalá - even in that order - and in what refers to the two doctorates in Theology and in both Laws. Nevertheless, there is no lack of authors or early witnesses to the Process who add or remove some universities or even vary the number of doctoral degrees, thus maintaining the imprecision that persists to this day.

263 BAU, RV, p.11.

The panegyric fervour would explain the oratorical exaggerations of the two funeral orations delivered in Rome a few weeks after the Saint’s death: The ‘Breve Notizia’ explicitly served as a guide for the first of them, that of the Discalced Carmelite Father Jacinth of St. Vincent. However, he was of the opinion that two doctorates were not enough and awarded him another one in Philosophy.[264] The second ecclesiastical speaker, the Piarist and future general, Father Camillo Scassellati, also considered the three universities to be too few and left them undefined, giving the impression that there were more.[265] Most contemporaries, however, adhered to the trinity of Lérida, Valencia and Alcalá or confirmed it in their manuscripts, such as Berro[266], Fedele[267], Bianchi[268], Chiara[269]; and the three leading Italian biographers Armini[270], Talenti[271] and Tosetti[272] did the same in print.

264 “He went to the Universities of Lerida, Valencia and Alcalá d’Enares, where he was soon promoted to the degree and the Doctorate of Philosophy, Theology, Civil and Canon Law.” (Fr. GIACINT0 DI S. VINCENZO, Oratio in funere [Warsaw 1649] s.p.).

265 “in celeberrimas ea tempestate totius Hispaniae Academias proficiscitur” (C. SCASSELLATI, Oratio in funere [Roma 1651]).

266 “Joseph’s father wanted at this time to employ him in the military as he did, because it was the ancient greatness of his house. Our Joseph thought to escape this by going to the studies of the most distinguished Universities of Spain, and he went to these: Lerida for the Civil and Canonical Laws in which having made great profit he was doctorated with the greatest honor and then for the Sacred Theology in that of Valencia and Alcalá d’Henares, in which after the due studies he was also doctorated.” (BERRO I p.55).

267 Cf. BAU, BC, p.108.

268 “After finishing his studies in the humanities, he soon went to the universities of Lerida, Valencia and Alcalá d’Henares.” (G. BIANCHI, Vita del Ven. Servo di Dio Gioseppe Calasantio della Madre di Dio, ms: RegCal 91, p.7).

269 Cf. C. CHIARA, Vita del Ven. P. Giuseppe della Madre di Dio, ms.: RegCal 83, f. 10r.

270 Cf ARMINI, Vita, p.13,19.

271 Cf. TALENTI, Vita, p.8-13.

272 Cf. TOSETTI, Compendio (Firenze 1927) 9-11.

There were some who only mentioned Lérida and alluded to others without naming them[273], or conversely, mentioned Valencia and Alcalá and did not mention Lérida[274]. Others added Salamanca[275] or Perpignan[276] to the traditional three. But the trinomial of Lérida, Valencia and Alcalá prevailed, no doubt thanks to the weight of the three biographers mentioned, whose works translated into Spanish[277] were for centuries the most widely read and appreciated biographies in Spain - as well as in Italy - especially among the Piarists, until the ‘Critical Biography’ by Father Bau in 1949, which remains faithful to tradition on this point[278].

273 MUSSESTI, Vita del Ven. P. Giuseppe della Madre di Dio, ms: RegCal 85, p.5.

274 Cf. E. DE SOTO REAL, Vida del Bienaventurado P. y Ven. Siervo de Dios Joseph Calasanz de la Madre de Dios (Madrid 1675), p.13.

275 Lorenzo Ferrari (Cf. BAU, BC, p.94); J. F. BISCHETTI, Vita, ms: RegCal 15,81.

276 Cf. F. M. MAGGI, De Vitae gestis Ven. Dei Servi P. Josephi a Matre Dei Aragonensis (Naples 1680) p.5; D. MARCHESI, Vita del Ven. Giuseppe Calasanzio della Madre di Dio, ms: RegCal 90, f.5. It is curious that in the Articles for the interrogation of the witnesses of the Beatification process (1651-53) it was asked: “Tertio desideratur, quod iuvenis factus [Calasanz] Universitates Perpinianensem, Valentinensem et Complutensem frequentavit et in utroque jure ac in Sacra Theologia magisterium accepit” (Procln, p. 16). They were written by Fr. Berro, Postulator of the Cause, who in his Annotazioni cites Lérida, Valencia and Alcalá and does not mention Perpignan (cf. n.6 above).

277 Armini’s (1710) was translated by Fr. Antony Ginés of St. Medardo, with the pseudonym DR. PEDRO AQUENZA, Vida del Ven. Siervo de Christo P. Joseph de la Madre de Dios (Madrid 1726); the Compendio of Fr. Talenti (1735) was translated by Fr. Antony Caxón de Cristo, Compendio histórico-chronológico de la vida, virtudes y milagros del B. P. Joseph de Calasanz (Madrid 1748); Talenti’s Vita large (1753) was translated and revised by the canon of Marseilles TIMON DAVID, Vie de S. Joseph Calasanz (Marseilles 1884), translated in turn into Spanish by Fr. D. FIERRO GASCA, Vida de San José de Calasanz (Zaragoza 1905); Tosetti’s Compendio (1767) was translated by Fr. J. JERICÓ, Compendio histórico de la vida de San Joseph Calasanz de la Madre de Dios (Valencia 1768).

278 Cf. BAU, BC, p.94-110.

In 1957, Father Picanyol questioned the presence of Calasanz in Alcalá and presented as “sensational news” his stay at the University of Huesca, based on a letter - which we already know - from Father Cavada, in which he mentions Lérida, Valencia and Osca (Huesca)[279]. In his last biography, Father Bau deleted not only Alcalá, but also Valencia, and removed the young cleric from the university classes, so that he had to complete his entire theological studies in Barbastro alone in order to take exams at the University of Huesca[280].

279 Cf. Rass 26-27 (1957) 55-56 and text of n.237 of the previous chapter.

280 Cf. BAU, RV, p.35-43, 321-324, n.42.

The problem therefore raises two controversial aspects, namely: at which universities he studied and in which years he attended their classrooms. Another complementary aspect of the issue, namely where and how many doctorates he obtained, is left for later.

An acceptable outline

Why so many universities? Could he not study everything at one? Yes, he could. And in Lérida, just a few kilometres from his home, he could have studied grammar and rhetoric, humanities and philosophy, law and theology. And we must admit that we do not know the final and definitive reasons why our student had to make so many changes, although we will try to give explanations. Nevertheless, we could cite examples of sixteenth-century personalities who travelled not only to some of their own nation’s universities, but even to others abroad. Suffice it to cite St. Ignatius of Loyola, who began studying Latin at the age of thirty-two and at thirty-four embarked on a journey to the universities of Alcalá de Henares, Salamanca, Paris, Bologna and Venice[281]. And Don Peter Cerbuna y del Negro (1538-1597), a native of Fonz, near Peralta, founder of the University of Zaragoza and Bishop of Tarazona, who studied grammar with the Trinitarians in Monzón and later art, philosophy and theology at the universities of Huesca, Valencia, Salamanca and Lérida[282].

281 Cf. R. GARCÍA-VILLOSLADA, San Ignacio de Loyola. Nueva Biografía (BAC Madrid 1986), p.270, 294-295, 398-402.

282 Cf. M. JIMÉNEZ CATALÁN-J. SINUÉS y URBIOLA, Historia de la Real y Pontificia Universidad de Zaragoza (Zaragoza 1923) t.I, p.121-122.

In our case, there does not seem to be sufficient reason to reject the tradition of the three universities of Lérida, Valencia and Alcalá, nor to accept Salamanca, Perpignan and Huesca. The latter three, as we have seen, are only mentioned by some and not by those who are usually the sources for Calasanzian biography. Nor do they find confirmation in other news, testimonies or documents. Lérida and Valencia enjoy greater documentary certainty: Lérida through the statements referring to Calasanz’s personal achievements at this university and through the documents relating to his ordinations; Valencia through the multiple testimonies of the incident with the lady in love. And the chronological parenthesis that follows between the flight from Valencia and the subsequent events related to the death of his brother, together with the normal demands of the theological career, is reconciled with the stay in Alcalá, supported by the traditional nominal connection with the other two cities of the university triad. Let us leave the explanation of the facts to the appropriate time.

At the three universities mentioned above, searches were made more than once to find the name of Joseph Calasanz Gastón in the matriculation books and other similar records. In vain[283]. But that is no reason to deny his presence in these centres, because the same happens with other personalities of our national history[284]. The certainty that Joseph Calasanz was a Doctor of Theology presupposes that he studied at some university, even if his name is not recorded in the official books. And the logical thing to do is to admit the name of the universities that the documented tradition has handed down to us.

283 On Alcalá and Valencia cf. BAU, RV, p.41-43; 321-324; Rass 26-27 (1957) 54-55; AnCal 15 (1966) 198, n.123. Nor has Fr. J. Poch had better luck in his search in the papers of the University of Lérida.

284 And the list is not short. Along with the geniuses Cervantes and Lope de Vega, there are John Ginés de Sepúlveda, John de Ávila, Card. Caspar de Quiroga, Cristóbal de Rojas y Sandoval, Bartolomé de Carranza, Ignacio de Loyola, Jerónimo Zurita, Francisco López de Gómara, Ambrosio de Morales, etc. And these only with respect to the Complutense (Alcalá) (cf. J. URRIZA, La preclara Facultad de Artes y Filosofía de la Univ. de AlcaIá de Henares en su siglo de oro 1509-1621, CSIC [Madrid 1924], p.238-241, 257-258).

It is more complicated to propose a chronological scheme of his entire career, into which personal and family events must be inserted in order to fill the years adequately. Without claiming to give a definitive explanation and sticking to the dates that we will cite in due course, it seems to us that the trajectory of all Calasanz’s studies could have been as follows:

- 3 courses of Grammar in Estadilla: 1568-69 to 1570-71.

- 3 courses in Arts and Philosophy in Lérida: 1571-72 to 1573-74.

- 4 courses in Law in Lérida: 1574-75 to 1577-78.

- 1st. Year of Theology in Valencia: 1578-79 (he is 21 years old).

- 2nd. Year of Theology in Alcalá: 1579-80 (his brother dies).

- In his house in Peralta, a course: 1580-81 (illness).

- 3rd. Year of Theology in Lérida: 1581-82.

- 4th. Year of Theology in Lérida: 1582-83.

He was ordained a priest in mid-December 1583 and in February 1584 he was already employed in the curia of the Bishop of Barbastro. He had completed his university studies, although he had not yet obtained his Doctorate. So let us recall the various stages of his long university career one after the other.

At the Faculty of Arts and Philosophy in Lérida

At the age of fourteen, Joseph Calasanz left Peralta again in mid-October 1571. The course begins the day after St. Luke’s. He stayed at home with his parents, his sisters Hope and Elizabeth and his older brother Peter. He heads south to Lérida, which is about ten or twelve leagues away, about 60 km today. For the first time, he leaves the lands of Castro and crosses the borders of the Kingdom of Aragón to enter Catalonia.

Accustomed to the hills and dry land of his homeland, he must have been astonished by the vast green and fertile plains around Lérida. King James II showed the same sense of admiration when, in the founding documents of 1300, he justified the choice of this city as the seat of the first and only University in his entire kingdom of the Crown of Aragón. He praised it as “an enclosed orchard of fertility and fecundity and a sealed fountain of delights”, and he considered it the most suitable location as it was “almost the intermediate place of his lands and his kingdoms”[285].

285 “…ad civitatem Ilerdae velut hortum fertilitatis et fecunditatis conclusum ac fontem deliciarum signatum, qui quasi quoddam intermedium terrarum ac regnorum nostrorum existit, oculos nostrae considerationis super hoc vigiles duximus dirigendos” (founding letter of James II, dated September 1, 1300, cit. in A. VIDAL, El Canciller y el Rector en el Estudio General de Lérida: La Academia Calasancia, 765 [1922], 521)

With admirable precision, almost notarial, the Fleming Henry Cock, “apostolic notary and archer of the Guard of the Royal Corps”, who accompanied Philip II through the lands of Aragón, Catalonia and Valencia in 1585, wrote this paragraph about the General Studium of Lérida:

“It has a very famous Academy in which there are four professors of Theology, three in Canon Law and three in Civil Law; three in Medicine; two who read Arts and two who teach grammar to the younger students. All professorships are limited to two years and are reassigned after this period through a selection process. The rector, to whom the entire Academy reports, is appointed by election. He must be Catalan for one year, Aragonese for one year and Valencian for one year, as these nations have agreed in this way. There are two colleges in the city: one was founded by Archdeacon Pons from Barcelona, the other is called ‘of the Conception’ and was founded by Bishop Puig from Lérida, of good memory”[286].

286 E, COCK, Anales del año 1585. Viajes de extranjeros por España y Portugal, ed. J. GARCÍA MERCADAL (Aguilar, Madrid 1952) I, p.1342.

In all universities, especially the so-called “aprobadas” (recognised) ones, i.e. those that mutually recognised studies and degrees, it was customary to require three years ‘in grammaticalibus’ or minor schools. These years could be completed at the same university or outside, in which case a prior exam was required to be admitted to the Faculty of Arts. And that was what Calasanz had to do because he had studied grammar in Estadilla.

At the age of fourteen, he probably already had enough criteria to realise that it had been a good decision to study grammar and Latin in Estadilla, since these minor subjects at the University of Lérida were in a deplorable and endemic state of decline, both physically and culturally. Charles V, from Monzón had already decreed the radical abolition of the grammar professorships in Lérida on July 18, 1528, ‘tamquam a notorio inutiles, infructuosas et quasi nullius efficaciae et momenti’, until a later amendment. Bishop Antonio Augustín Albanell, Visitator and reformer of that university, had tried in vain to rouse it from its depression in 1570. In 1574, Professor Bartolomé Sampsó lamented the studies in more general terms, “whose ruin and misery fill him with great sorrow”. The licentiate Burgués wrote in 1581 that “the grammarians move on to the study of the Arts without first examining their competence; they disobey the rector and make fun of the beadle; that out of sixty students taking the course, not even ten are able to follow it and then rebuke the teachers...” He also complains about the material condition of the school and compares the grammar classrooms to a “fisherman’s cave and worse, because it is falling down and they do not take care of it” and “the king’s income would not be enough to repair the study of grammar.” For this reason, the Jesuits took over the management of the university schools of grammar in 1605[287].

287 Cf. R. GAYÁ MASSOT, Los jesuitas en la Universidad de Lérida: Miscelánea de trabajos sobre el Estudio General de Lérida, vol. III (Lérida 1949-54) p.35-36.

Similarly, all universities required three years for the Bachelor of Arts degree, which was necessary for entry to the faculties of higher studies, especially Law and Theology, as the Faculty of Arts had a propaedeutic character, similar to today’s pre-university studies. The core subjects were philosophy, namely ‘summulas’ in the first year, major logic in the second year and natural philosophy in the third year[288].

288 Cf. M. ANDREW, Las facultades de Teología españolas hasta 1575. Cátedras diversas: Anthologica Annua 2 (1954) 123-178; F. MARTÍN HERNÁNDEZ, La formación clerical en los Colegios universitarios españoles (1371-1563) (Vitoria 1961) p.162 C. AJO Y SAINZ DE ZÚÑIGA, Historia de las Universidades Hispánicas (CSIC, Madrid-Alcalá 1957-58) vol. II: El siglo de oro universitario, p.33-34; F. JORDÁN GALLEGO, La enseñanza de la metafísica en la Universidad de Valencia durante el s. XVI: Analecta Sacra Tarrac. 45 (1972) 149; J. POCH, Calassanç a l’Estudi General de Lleida: Cat 174 (1975) 1.

Coincidentally, a seemingly insignificant piece of information has survived that places Calasanz in this period of his university studies. On September 19, 1573, during the summer vacations, he stayed in the neighbouring town of Gabasa in the house of the Ager family, who were very close friends of his family, together with another friend and student like him, Martin de Carpi, from the town of Alcampel. The owner of the house, Don Michael de Ager, bought two estates and had them both sign as witnesses in the notarial deeds. The person who found this document in 1750 was Don Antony de Ager y Ferrer, a direct descendant of the buyer, who, when reporting the find, said “The deeds date from 1573, September 19, which corresponds to the time when [Calasanz] was studying philosophy and had not yet entered the course of that year. The notary was John Ferrer, infançon of the city of Benabarre, and he brings as witnesses the great and honourable Martín de Carpi, of Alcampel, Master of Arts, and Joseph Calasanz, student, native of Peralta de la Sal. Done in Gavassa”[289].

289 Cf J POCH. Aportación documental biográfico-calassancia: AnCal 22 (1969) 279-280.

Next to the academic title Master of Arts, which Martin de Carpi holds, Joseph Calasanz can only write “student”, and logically he should have written “Bachelor of Arts” if he had been, but he was not yet. And he had already attended two courses at the General Studium of Lérida (1571-72, 1572-73). He must have received his bachelor’s degree at the end of the following academic year (1573-1574). And as soon as he had obtained his bachelor’s degree in Arts, he enrolled in the Faculty of Law. He was seventeen years old.

Student of Laws

If the venerable General Studium of Lérida excelled in anything since its foundation, it was in Laws. The statutes required at least four years for a bachelor’s degree, seven years for a doctorate in Civil Law and five years for Canon Law, but they could be completed simultaneously. The biographical tradition, which dates back to the early ‘Breve notizia’ of 1648, awarded Calasanz the title of doctor in both Laws, together with that of Theology and even Philosophy. But neither the latter nor the double legal title “U.J.D.” (‘Utriusque Juris Doctor’), appears in any document. And it would be hard to explain why Joseph Calasanz, in the long struggle for the canonical dignity or on any other occasion, never cited his degrees in Philosophy and certainly not the two Law degrees, if he possessed them, as he cited that of “Master in Sacred Theology” or Doctor in Theology[290].

290 Cf G. SÁNTHA, De canonicatu barbastrensi a S. Josepho Calasanctio obtento: EphCal 6 (1957) 147-148; ID., Quinque instrumenta...: EphCal 6 (1959) 223-225.

It is very likely that he studied Law for four years, beginning in the academic year 1574-1575 and ending in 1577-1578, and it is also likely that he completed these studies without the title of bachelor, for the same reasons that we exclude the title of doctor. It is normal for such titles to appear in the documents, either that of U.J.D. or the simpler one of U.J.B. (‘Utriusque Juris Bacchalaureus’), when they are present. And the abundance of documents in which Calasanz is mentioned is so great that it would be inexplicable if the acronym U.J.B. would not be used, not even once, while those referring to his bachelor’s degree in Theology (S.T.B.) appear[291].

291 Cf. J. POCH, Aportación docum. a la historia de la Univ. de Huesca...: AnCal 15 (1966) 223, n.168; EphCal 2 (1932) 57, n.2 and 3; EphCal 4(1911)119-120.

In any case, degree or no degree, there is no shortage of testimony to his expertise in Canon Law[292], and it is likely that this was one of the reasons why he was readily accepted as a “familiar” and confidant of the bishops of Barbastro, Lérida and Urgel from the time of his ordination until his departure for Rome. And his talent as a jurist was particularly evident as legislator of the Order he later founded and as its head during his very long years as Superior General. But let us return to his youth.

292 M. Jimenez Barber declared in 1651: “I know that Fr. Joseph was Vicar General of the Bishopric of Urgel, his diocese, where in addition to the excellence of his valor, particularly in Canon Law, he showed himself to be prudent and dexterous in very difficult negotiations.” (Procln, p.214-215)

It is also a coincidence that his name appears in this period of his Law studies with the simple addition of “student”, and in similar circumstances to his time as a Philosophy student. In this case, he was in his town and on September 9, 1577, he signed with his signature as a witness a “Public deed concerning the imposition of a census, etc. in favor of the venerable Community of the Rector and beneficiaries of the parish church of Peralta de la Sal...” And it ends: “To the above matters the honorable Josepe Calasanz and Joan Sala, students residing in the said town of Peralta de la Sal, were present, called as witnesses and have surrendered. The original note contains the signatures and signs required by the law of the present Kingdom of Aragón”[293].

293 Cf. J. POCH, Aportación doc. a la historia de la Univ. de Huesca...: AnCal 15 (1966) 197, n.122

Among his fellow students in the Law classrooms is Antony de Gallart y de Mongay, who was born in Valencia in 1559. From 1577 he studied Law in Lérida, and it is not unlikely that he also studied Arts for three years (1574-1577). On October 3, 1584[294], he obtained his bachelor’s degree in Canon Law. During the academic year 1577-78, Calasanz and Gallart studied together at the same Law Faculty. And they were already companions at the same University for another three years if Gallart studied Arts there. When Calasanz returned to Lérida to finish his last two years of Theology (1581-83), Gallart was still there and they met again in Urgel.

294 Cf. J. POCH, Don Antonio de Gallart y de Mongay, bachiller en Derecho Canónico por el Estudio General de Lérida: Ilerda 27 (1963); ID., Otro título de doctor en leyes por el Estudio General de Lérida: D. Antonio de Gallart y de Mongay: Ilerda 36 (1975).

The enigmatic title of “Prior”

Michael Jiménez Barber was a penitentiary canon of the Cathedral of Lérida who, on July 20, 1651, at the age of thirty-eight, declared in the beatification Process something more than the simple news that Father Joseph Calasanz had studied at the University of Lérida. He gave a few brushstrokes to the image of the university student, similar to those he had given to the student of grammar in Estadilla. For these last indications, he cited the testimony of one of the Saint’s classmates, Mr. Francis de Ager. With regard to the time in Lérida, he was no less careful and presented the testimony of another classmate and priest, Rev. Mathew García. Here is the full text of his memoirs:

”... when he was a student at the University of Lérida in his youth, Rev. Mathew García, a priest and his classmate at Lérida, the same age as Fr. Joseph, told me that he, Mathew, was very restless and often involved in matters for which he later got into trouble; so he turned to Fr. Joseph, who with his advice and help got him out of trouble, and he used to say that he was the Holy Spirit to him, as he had no one but him in his difficulties; and he also added to me that all the youth of our country of Aragón had elected him Prior of the Nation (per Priore della natione) and he was a help to all and was esteemed by all as a man of all virtue and goodness, and this, as I say, in his youth, in the Studium of Lérida”[295].

295 ProcIn, p.213-214.

The declarant’s main intention is to emphasise Father Joseph’s moral qualities and his gift for giving advice, and even a certain shade of spiritual director. If in Estadilla he had the nickname “el santet”, here in Lérida there are people who call him “his Holy Spirit”. But Matthew García is not an isolated case, because he recognises not only the personal gifts of his advisor, but also that “he was a help to everyone and was appreciated by all as a man of great virtue and goodness.” And as proof of this public recognition, the people of Aragón elected him Prior of their nation. But what did the Canon from Lérida mean by this title?

The great Italian biographers, who shaped the hagiographical tradition, interpreted the title according to the moralising context of the procedural statement, saying that ‘the Aragonese elected him their prince, according to the custom of that university’[296]. Strangely enough, Armini’s Spanish translator was not very convinced by this version as early as 1726 and proposed his own:

296 The Aragonese “elected him for their Prince, according to the custom of that University” (ARMINI, Vita, p.15); “the Aragonese students soon elected him in their Prince as is the custom of that University.” (TALENTI, Vita, p.9); “the young Aragonese elected him their Prince, as there is custom among the students” (TOSETTI, Compendio, p.9).

“Calasanz won the hearts and affection of his fellow students in the city of Lérida, and especially of the Aragonese, so much so that he was elected its Rector and head by agreement with those who had a vote there, according to the ancient custom and statute that was observed there”[297].

297 P. AQUENZA, Vida del Ven. Siervo de Christo Padre Joseph de la Madre de Dios, Fénix Aragonés (Madrid 1726), p.15. He cites, like Armini, the procedural testimony of Barber.

This version was completely different from Armini’s, and although it repeated the same documentary source, namely Jiménez Barber’s statement, it is obvious that he was duly informed of what this title could mean in the historical context of the University of Lérida, and he spoke of the Rector, the statute and those who had the vote to elect him.

But no one paid attention to this historical precision, because both the subsequent Italian biographers[298] and their respective Spanish translators and other hagiographers continued to repeat the title of Prince without giving further explanations of its meaning or attributing to it the attributions of guardian of order and guardian of good manners[299]. At the end of the 19th century, a certain relationship with the Rector re-emerged, making the so-called ‘Prince of Studies’ a kind of delegate of the Rector in the field of public order or morality[300]. And almost by inertia, the honorific term Prince persisted in Calasanzian hagiographies until the middle of the XX century.

298 Particularly Talenti and Tosetti.

299 J. JERICÓ, for example, who translated Tosetti, left the sentence intact: “the young Aragonese chose him for their Prince, as was the custom among the students” (cf. Compendio de la Vida [Valencia 1768] p.11). Timon David, recasting Talenti’s work, said: “those who were of the same province, elected in general meeting the one they called Prince, in charge of watching over the order of those of the same country, to put an end to differences and to watch over their conduct and the customs of all” (o.c., p.10).

300 After quoting at length a long page of the traditional Tosetti, it is said that “the students formed like certain colonies that lived in certain neighborhoods where only the Rector of the University exercised extraordinary authority and the ‘Prince of Studies’ exercised ordinary and delegated authority... [who] was to restrain the students in the fulfillment of their duties; he was to watch over their moral and Christian conduct...” (cf. Escolapios insignes [Madrid 1899] I, p.23-24).

Rector of the University of Lérida?

Undoubtedly, it seemed inadmissible that a simple student could be appointed Rector of the University. Nevertheless, Father Ginés, Armini’s translator, seems to have already known the statutes. And indeed, at the time of its foundation, James II had decided that the Rector of the General Studium of Lérida should be a student of Law, elected by the students themselves and serving for one year. Trusting that the students would come from various European countries, it was initially decided that the office would rotate in twelve shifts formed by the various nations of the Crown of Aragon, other kingdoms of Spain and Italy, France, Germany, England, Scotland, etc. But it was a utopia. Lérida never became like Paris, Oxford or Bologna, nor could it compete with Salamanca or Alcalá de Henares. And although it was the only university of the Crown of Aragón for a long time, its Rectors alternated between Catalans and Aragonese. From the middle of the 14th century, the Valencians complained of being marginalised, but it was not until the third decade of the following century that justice was done to them. Escolano writes: “In 1427, he [the secular magistrate of the city of Valencia] tried to introduce the Valencians to the rectorship of the University of Lérida, which until then had been divided between Aragonese and Catalans, the first of us to receive it being Nicholas Monsoriu, a knight with one of the most famous surnames in this city”[301]. Since then, the ternary rhythm between Catalans, Aragonese and Valencians has been maintained without interruption.

301 G. ESCOLANO, cit. in F. ORTÍ y FIGUEROLA, Memorias históricas de la fundación y progressos de la insigne universidad de Valencia (Madrid 1730) p.17-18. Cf. also V. DE LA FUENTE, Historia de las Universidades, colegios y demás establecimientos de enseñanza en España (Madrid 1884) t.I, p.228; R. GAYÁ MASSOT, Cancilleres y Rectores del Estudio General de Lérida (Lérida 1951) p.49-50; BAU, BC, p.96-97

According to the founding statute, the election was held in the church of St. Martin on February 1st and those elected took office the next day, the Feast of the Purification[302]. But from 1544 onwards, the election took place on April 1st and the inauguration on May 1st [303]. The Law students were therefore the privileged ones, as only they could elect and be elected rectors. Each of the three “nations” (Catalans, Aragonese and Valencians) elected two councillors or commissioners and these six in turn elected the Rector from the nation in turn[304]. Another important detail: the extensive list of known Rectors proves that, according to the law, only doctors or bachelors could be elected[305].

302 “Jubemus quod annuatim in vigilia Purificationis B. Mariae rector, qui pro tempore fuerit, teneatur universitatem scolarium in utroque jure dumtaxat studentium evocare in ecclesia Beati Martini.... teneantur rectorem concorditer eligere ex seipsis” (VILLANUEVA, Viaje literario, t.XVI, p.211)

303 In a report dated February 3, 1582, it says: “Statuimus et ordinarnus quod electio Rectoris fiat quolibet anno die prima mensis aprilis et rursus prima die mensis maii proxime sequentis possessio accipiet in loco consueto” (J. LLADONOSA PUJOL, La antigua parroquia de San Martín de Lérida [Lérida 1944] p.91, n.3). Gayá Massot believes that the change began in 1544 (cf. R. GAYÁ MASSOT, Cancilleres y Rectores del Estudio General de Lérida [Lérida 1951] p.51).

304 A document dated May 22, 1573, while Calasanz was already studying Law in Lérida, says: “Constat etiam in dicta universitate [Lérida] super electione rectoris fuisse statutum ut rectoris electio fiat videlicet per sex consiliariis, eius nationis ad quam pro eo anno rectoris electio spectabit, etc. Instantes privationem Egidii Gironça et Joannis Leonardi consiliariorum ex tunc dictae Universitatis pro natione Aragonensi, etc.” (cf. J. POCH, El Fundador de las Escuelas Pías en la Historia Eclesiástica de la Corona de Aragón: AnCal 20 [1968] 268, n.39).

305 Cf. R. GAYÁ MASSOT, oc.; A. HERNÁNDEZ PALMÉS, Matriculatio legistarum Universitatis Generalis Studii Ilerdensis (1607-1624). Miscelánea de trabajos sobre el Estudio General de Lérida (Lérida 1950) vol.II, p.71-184.

In the light of this data, it explains why Father Ginés of Saint Medard, or Dr. Aquenza, when translating Armini, believed he was correctly interpreting the procedural statement presented by Jiménez Barber: The Law student Joseph Calasanz was elected Rector of the University by those who were entitled to vote according to the statutes. This seemed to be the most logical version of that “prior of his nation”, because given the alternating turns and the fact that he had studied Law, he could have been elected Rector pro Aragonentium natione, as it was said[306].

306 Cf. A. HERNÁNDEZ PALMÉS, oc.

The Catalan researcher Father Antonio Vidal comes to the same conclusion, even mentioning “the date of the election, which for us”,” as he writes, “was February 1, 1575, and the assumption of the rectorate on the following day, the feast of the Purification of Our Lady. But contrary to all legal provisions, Father Vidal replaced the concept of “nations” with that of “diocese”, which would have made Calasanz elected by the Catalans and not by the “nation” of Aragón, as the person who gave us the news, the Canon from Lérida Jiménez Barber, had said. Here is his conclusion: “The year 1575, as any reader can work out, corresponded to the time when it was the turn of the students of the Catalan dioceses, and on the first of February of that year, the holy Founder of the Pious Schools was elected Rector of the General Studium”[307].

307 Cf. A. VIDAL, Fecha probable del Rectorado de San Jose de Calasanz en la Universidad de Lérida: La Academia Calasancia 764 (1922) 478-480. The transposition of concepts is strange, even because in that same context he speaks of nationalities and nations quoting, in addition, a Catalan text that says of the councilors “quiscun per la sua nació, aragonesa, catalana y valenciana.” The dioceses had nothing to do here. Moreover, according to Gayá Massot, he could not have been elected on February 1, but on April 1 (cf. n.303 above).

In any case, he would have been elected in the years in which the rotation coincided with the “nation” of Aragon, as Bau admitted[308]. The four-year period in which Calasanz studied Law extends from 1574-75 to 1577-78, as we have already assumed[309]. During this period, it was the turn of the Aragonese rectors in 1573-74 and 1576-77, from May to May in each case. But in these courses, he was not yet a Bachelor of Laws, an essential requirement to become rector. In any case, he was able to obtain the baccalaureate at the end of the academic year 1577-78, after four academic years as a law student. It should be added that the Rector was elected by the compromisers or council members of the three “nations”, and not only by those of the respective nation. Therefore, the hypothesis of the rectorate does not fit with the statements of Jiménez Barber, who said: “The entire youth of our land of Aragón had elected him prior of the nation”. It must be concluded, therefore, that he was not the Rector of the General Studium of Lérida[310].

308 Cf. BAU, BC, p.97. However, in his later work, when “revising” the first one, he limited himself to repeating that he was “Prior of those of his Aragonese nation”, without further explanation (cf. BAU, RV, p.37).

309 If at the age of 21 he was studying theology in Valencia, according to a declaration before a notary (cf. BAU, BC, p.104), and he completed his studies in September 1578, logically he spent the academic year 1578-79 in Valencia.

310 Cf. R. GAYÁ MASSOT, San José de Calasanz no fue Rector del Estudio de Lérida: Ciudad 9 (1957). This thesis is also shared by the specialists in the subject PP. J. POCH (Cuatro cartas inéditas de D. Ramón Gayá Massot: Ilerda 37 [1976] 300, n.8) and L. PICANYOL (Rass 26-27 [1957] 53).

The hypothesis that he had been elected Advisor to the Rector would be more consistent with the testimonies presented, because each of the three “nations” (Aragon, Catalonia and Valencia) elected by vote two advisors from among the legists, and from these six they chose the Rector[311]. They then continued to advise him and defended - in a way - the interests of his own “nation”.” However, it seems that the advisors (Consellers), like the Rector, also had to be Bachelors of Law[312]. This would be an objection to the candidacy of Calasanz, who, as soon as he had the degree - if he had it - left Lérida to study theology in Valencia.

311 Cf. n.304 above.

312 “The counselors always appear to have a Bachelor’s degree in a branch of Law. It is understandable that both the Rector and his Councilors are appointed from among the graduates” (J. POCH, personal letter of April 30, 1963).

Prior of the College of the Assumption?

To the reasons given against the possible candidacy of the Law student Joseph Calasanz for the appointment of Rector or Conseller of the General Studium of Lérida, we must add another of great weight. The whole question is based on the procedural testimony of Father Michael Jiménez Barber, who in turn refers to what he was told by Father Mathew García, a priest of the same age and a fellow student of Calasanz in the classrooms of Lérida. As a penitentiary Canon of the Seo of Lérida, Father Michael must have been very familiar with the academic structures of the University, because we can assume that he graduated there. The cathedral Chapter had certain connections with the General Studium, whose chancellor was one of the Canons. And the same must be said of Father Mathew García, because he was a student. Neither of them could use the word “prior” to refer to the rector or one of his councilors. And both were well aware of the legal provisions governing the appointment of these positions. On the other hand, it was much more intelligible to the members of the Roman tribunal before which Barber testified to say that Father Joseph Calasanz had been “rector of the University” or “Councilor of the Rector” than to use the word “Prior,” which might sound like something to do with a monastery or a confraternity. So, when he said “Prior”, it is logical to assume that it was an accurate term, even if he was left without a suitable explanation. But this title was completely foreign to the academic vocabulary of Lérida.

However, there was a university college called the College of the Assumption or Dominic Pons, after the name of the person who founded it around 1372. It was the first University college in Spain associated with a General Studium and the oldest precedent of what were called “council seminaries” after the Council of Trent, as its students had to be clerics. The founder originally envisaged twelve scholars, but later reduced the number to nine and so it remained until it was moved to Cervera, when the suppressed University of Lérida was founded in that city by order of Philip V.

The founder also determined who should choose or present the candidates for the scholarship, naming nine persons or entities, one for each candidacy. Five of them should be relatives of the founder and were to be choosen preferably members of the family; after persons from Benabarre, where Domingo Pons was hailing; and in the absence of these people, those who were from the county of Ribagorza. The other four patrons were the Bishop and Chapter of Lérida for one scholarship and the Paheres and prominent men of the same city for another; they were free to choose as long as the candidates were clerics, suitable for study and poor. This last condition was considerable, and in order to avoid abuses, it was stipulated in the statutes that a student whose income did not reach 30 pounds was considered poor[313].

313 For these and other pertinent news, cf. R. GAYÁ MASSOT, Apostillas monográficas al Colegio de Domingo Pons: Ilerda 4 (1945) 7-17; V. BELTRÁN DE HEREDIA, Domingo Pons (1330-1417), fundador del Colegio de la Asunción en Lérida: Hispania Sacra 9 (1956) 281-318. For the Statutes and their later reforms cf. J. MATEU IBARS, Statuta Domus Collegii S. Mariae Civitatis Ilerdae (Lérida 1973).

The director, rector or headmaster of this college was officially called “prior” and was elected by the collegians themselves, following the example of the Spanish College of St. Clement of Bologna[314], like so many others in Spain in later times. The statutes of the founder stated that the election of the “prior” should take place every year at the beginning of January or at another time if necessary. The person elected was to come from the guild of collegians themselves or ‘from outside’ if there was no one suitable among them, as he had to be twenty-five years old and exemplary in life and morals. The founding statute added that the elected prior should be included in the number of nine scholars if he was not one of them[315], but in a reform of 1430 this rule was corrected and he was excluded from the number[316].

314 “As for the internal regime [of the Colleges], we copy from Bologna the democratization, which greatly favors the life of the student theologian, even if it also offers its disadvantages. In St. Clement’s [of Bologna, the College created by Cardinal Albornoz] the Rector is elected from among the collegians themselves, and this is always done by vote.... The Rector with the Councillors - four in Bologna, three ordinarily in Spain - resolves the serious business of the house, takes care of the discipline of the doors, imposes punishments and the Rector, above all, must always be obeyed “in licitis et honestis”, extending his jurisdiction to all the collegiates, whom he judges within the College in any cause whatsoever, criminal, civil or mixed” (F. MARTÍN HERNÁNDEZ, La formación clerical en los Colegios universitarios españoles, p.74).

315 “ante omnia in eius electione fienda missa de Sancto Spiritu devote celebretur in capela in principio mensis Januarii vel alio tempore ubi necessitas elligendi Priorem inmineat, qua celebrata studentes collegiati qui tamen XIV annurn etatis adimpleverint secundum Deum et eorum conscientiam ad electionem omni amore...procedant.... eligendo de gremio unum ex ipsis aut aliunde si ibidem reperiri ad hoc idonei non possint quem credent suficientem moribus et vita decoratum et XXV annum habentem et talem ex se ipsis electum sub numero novem studentium includere intendimus” (J. MATEU IBARS, o.c., p.59-60).

316 “intelligimus quod si contigerit ipsum [priorem] extra dictum collegium elligi in numero novem studentium minime computetur” (ibid., p.66).

In view of these dates, it is reasonable to hypothesize that the student Joseph Calasanz was elected prior of the College of the Assumption or Dominic Pons or ‘Col-legi Vell’, but not during his first period (1571-78), while he was studying Arts and Law, as he was not yet twenty-five years old, but in the second (1581-83), starting in September 1582, when he was twenty-five years old. As we shall see later, Calasanz was most probably never a scholar of the Pons College, and if he was appointed Prior, it was only because he fulfilled the conditions proposed in the event that ‘one from outside’ should be chosen, that is, he had to be twenty-five years old and have certain exemplary qualities that correspond perfectly with the encomiums of Michael Jiménez Barber from the mouth of Mateo García. Most of them came from Ribagorza, as required by the statutes of the founder, who was from Benabarre and thus from the same “land” and “nation” of Aragón as Calasanz, whose village, moreover, although was not, strictly speaking, part of the county of Ribagorza, was part of the region of Ribagorza. And we already know the cohesive power of these proximities or nearness in pluriregional or “international” environments.

In addition, the testimony comes from Mathew García, “priest”, which leads us to believe that he was a “clergyman” when he went to his “holy spirit” And in the absence of documents, there is nothing to prevent us from assuming that he was one of the fellows of the Pons College who intervened in the vote to elect Calasanz as “Prior” of the same.

The student atmosphere of Lérida

Father Joseph also sometimes remembered his younger days, and not only Matew García. At the age of eighty-two, Calasanz remembered the noisy, turbulent, lively and disruptive atmosphere of the University of Lérida. And as with his companion Mathew then, he felt moved to give advice now, in April 1639, albeit with much more experience than in the years of his distant youth.

“Your brother Joachim, - he wrote to Father Fedele, who resided in Naples - is so hot-tempered that on his way back from school he quarrelled again with some schoolboys and with a knife that fell into his hands, with other companions, wounded one in the back and they say he is seriously ill..., I have advised him to go to Naples... and if he does not leave Rome and they catch him, it would be difficult to free him, because ‘est solitus delinquere’ [he habitually commits crimes].”

And in June he wrote again to Father Fedele:

“As for your brother Joachim, Y.R., let him go to confession and receive communion every Sunday, for if he does this with devotion, his youthful tempers will be extinguished, otherwise he will find someone who may hurt him without being able to go to confession. And God usually allows such things to those who are courageous, as was seen so many times in my day”[317].

317 C.3071 and 3091

So many times! he says. There must have been many, no doubt, but not only in his time, but at all times. And Lérida was no exception. What happened on the university campus also happened on every other campus in Spain and Europe, from Heidelberg to Paris and from Oxford to Salamanca or Bologna, in the centuries of the Middle Ages or in those of the Renaissance and Baroque[318]. But there is no doubt that the system of governance of the General Studium of Lérida led to greater abuses and unrest than elsewhere, because the Rector and his advisors were students who, however responsible they were, did not cease to feel the zeal and passion of the youth. And we should not downplay the effective power of the Rector by thinking that he was just a figurehead. Although the real lord and master of the General Studium was the ‘Pahería’ or municipality, since it was they who “conducía” (hired), paid the professors and was responsible for the expenses, the Rector and his council enjoyed by law full powers in the internal academic regime and jurisdiction over professors and students in the “university domain”, i.e. they decided on matters of the school forum, the academic behaviour of one or the other, timetables, the provision of chairs, etc., and everything to do with public order, with the possibility of imprisonment within their jurisdiction.

318 It is interesting to note that in the times that we are describing there is a certain general opinion that spontaneously relates the concept of university with that of ‘delinquent students’. The Viceroy of Aragón was against the definitive establishment of a University in Zaragoza, and in 1581 he wrote a plea to Philip II, in which he said: “In a land where the laws are so short and even contrary to punish delinquents, it cannot be convenient to have such people, favored not only by the universal laws, but by the particular laws that have the Studiums and especially where the nature of men is so inclined and disposed to commit crimes and so there would be infinite those that would be committed in the city of Zaragoza if it had a University for the students who would attend it. ..., the University will be a house of refuge for all the delinquents where all those of the earth will be received and even from where they will go out to commit other crimes. Being as the students are free, young and spirited people, those who want to avenge their injuries or harm others will have very handy equipment to have people apt to do so” (cf. M. JIMÉNEZ CATALÁN - J. SINUÉS y URBIOLA, Historia de la Real y Pontificia Universidad de Zaragoza, t. III, p.55-56).

The quest for command and honour made itself felt in the politics of elections, creating factions with the resulting threats and bribes that were exacerbated by the fact that they were held annually. Added to this was another source of conflict: the authority of the Bishop or Chapter, who defending their rights as ecclesiastical jurisdictions over their clergy, often clashed with the omnipotent power of the Rector of the General Studium. And it should be noted that many students, in order to enjoy the privileges of the clergy, especially the Forum, received the tonsure - they were called “crowned” - without any vocation or intention of attaining the priesthood. It is therefore not surprising that the extensive ‘Libres de crims’ (books of crimes) in the city archives include many delinquents who were legally members of the clergy. In 1443, the Paheres wrote to the bishop “complaining that many subjects in the city were committing all kinds of excesses and frivolities under the protection of ecclesiastical immunity and its privileges”[319].

319 J. LLADONOSA PUJOL, La zona universitaria de Lérida: Miscelánea de trabajos sobre el Estudio General de Lérida, vol. II (Lérida 1950) p.19. Read the beginning of said letter: “To your Reverend Lorship and Paternity we notify that in this City many with the hope that they will have crown (tonsure) will be favored and defended if they commit tumults and fights or other offenses and crimes as every day manifestly is seen; as when some of the said crowned (tonsured) malefactors are found and are apprehended by the royal officials, immediately by reason of the crown, with a writing of your honorable official or his lieutenant, they are requested and forcibly submitted to their trial. And after three or four days, without penalty or punishment, they go openly through the city, from which great inconveniences follow…” (ibid., p.48, n.21).

To further complicate the situation of immunity, there was the confraternity ‘San Salvador de la Seo’, which was founded in 1318, a few years after the foundation of the General Studium, and to which clergy of all degrees and hierarchies belonged: cardinals, archbishops, bishops, canons, dignitaries and all kinds of clergy of the city and diocese of Lérida. The confreres of San Salvador have always enjoyed the privilege of being released from the episcopal prisons three days after their entry, except for exceptional crimes, when the Prior and the councilors of the Confraternity asked the ecclesiastical official to do so on bail[320]. And to this Confraternity, of course, they tried - and succeeded - in registering even those who had only the “crown” as clerics.

320 Curiously, this privilege was violated in 1546 by Dr. Bernard Calasanz, Vicar General and Official of Lérida by Bishop Fernando de Loazes, who kept in prison the confrere Mossen John Riera, Beneficiary of San Andrew de Lérida. The prior and counselors of the Confraternity invoked the privilege and proposed bail, but Dr. Calasanz did not yield (cf. J. ALTISENT, Llibre apellat Speculum Prioris: Analecta Sacra Tarrac. I [1925] 359-360). Undoubtedly, Canon Michael Jiménez Barber must have known about this Confraternity, but it is not likely that he was thinking of its Prior when he applied this title to the student Joseph Calasanz, since given its members it seems that the direction, which was biennial, fell to persons of greater dignity and not to simple students. The aforementioned article revolves around what can be considered the statutes of the confraternity, the full text of which is published.

It is a notorious case that Calasanz undoubtedly knew about when he was seventeen years old, because he was a layman, although given the date - September 3 - it is very likely that he was on vacation in Peralta. It was about nothing less than the Rector of the University, and it was the Chapter that communicated it to King Philip II to demand protection and defense of ecclesiastical rights and immunities. It states:

“Holy Catholic Real Majesty. On Friday, the 3rd of this month, at two of clock in the morning, the official of the Bishop, our prelate [D. Antony Augustine Albanell], arrested one John Baptist Boil [Valencian] and brought him as a cleric to the episcopal prison. Because this cleric or student had been elected Rector for that year [1574-1575] and the same bishop, as Your Majesty’s Visitator, suspended him, the city of Lérida is said to have taken out its banner and flag at the same time and, together with Çaportella, who now serves here as ‘Veguer’, they assembled many people with various weapons and other instruments against the said prelate, shouting and yelling loudly, so that the Bishop, frightened by their threats, gave them the prisoner to restrain and appease their rage. As this diocese adjoins Gascony, and in view of the times we are living in, and of such facts, from which much mischief might arise, we thought it proper to warn your Majesty. We ask you, as the defender of the Church that God has made you to be, and as the one that the Holy Council of Trent has charged you with, to contribute with your royal hand to eradicate this great evil in these times and in this dangerous place. So that the Church and its immunity and freedom, as well as the rule and prestige of a Prelate as equal, just, and holy as ours, may be restored... From Lérida, Sept. 10, 1574”[321].

321 J. VILLANUEVA, Viaje literario, vol. 17, p.285-286.

In this case, the Veguer led the insurgents to defend the imprisoned rector, but on May 1, 1544, the newly elected rector, Francis de Loris, set out with a group of fifteen students to defend their own rights and killed the Veguer in the small square ‘Peu del Romeu’, next to the wall of the Jewish quarter[322]. At that time, our student was not yet born, but the event reflects the contemporary atmosphere, as well as the well-known case of 1608, in which the victim was another Rector, who in turn defended the rights of the General Studium. In the book of deaths of the parish of San John we read this note, which translates into Spanish as:

322 Cf. R. GAYÁ MASSOT, Cancilleres y Rectores del Estudio Gen. de Lérida, p.51.

“On September 20, 1608, died Dr. Mateo Martí, native of Tamarite del Campo, Rector of the University of Lérida, who was suddenly killed by a shotgun while defending the Studium; he was given the last rites and carried through the city with great pomp, with the maces mourning and the vice-rector and the beadles mourning ‘ad futuram rei memoriam’. His body was laid out in La Seo”[323].

323 E. RIBERA, Figuras del Estudio Gen. de Lérida en el Archivo parroquial de S. John Bta: Miscelánea de trabajos..., vol. I, p.69.

The reason for this was that some soldiers arrested two students on the pretext that they were carrying their swords unsheathed. When they were taken to prison, the Rector intervened and demanded that they be released as they were under his jurisdiction due to the privileges of being students. But a soldier shot the Rector, who suddenly dropped dead while shouting, “Jesus, confession”[324]. The event occurred in 1608, but this dramatic end must have happened several times, as the eighty-year-old Calasanz still recalled in 1639: “...he will find someone who will perhaps wound him, ‘without being able to confess’,… as was so often seen in my time.”

324 Fr. Poch’s deference, without citation. Father A. Vidal insinuates the source in the Municipal Archives of Barcelona, Dietari, without further details, dated October 3, 1608, when the Vice Rector of the Study and three Councilors went to Barcelona to report the murder (cf. La Academia Calasancia, 764 [1922] 480).

“What is gone forever”

In 1707, the first Bourbon king, Philip V, among so many outrages against their opponents, the supporters of the Hapsburgs, unleashed his fury on Lérida by destroying the famous and four times secular University of Lérida, which he transferred to Cervera, and “turned its magnificent Cathedral, admired by all artists, into a garrison by desecrating the stupendous Seo, the most remarkable Romanesque-Gothic monument in Catalonia, in the most shameful way”[325]. Fortunately, today it is awakening from its deathly slumber after a slow but massive restoration work and can once again be admired in all its splendour. The grandiose cloister is perhaps unique in Europe for its extraordinary dimensions, especially for the stretch of double arches that opens up as a fabulous vantage point over the city and the Segre.

325 J. ALTISENT, o.c., p.361.

The entire hill is deserted, criss-crossed in all directions by old and new walls and there is no trace of the buildings, streets and squares that once covered it, with the exception of La Zuda or the Royal Palace and the Seo. The university district on the western slope of the city has not been lucky either; only the venerable church of San Martín still stands. It was the parish church that was “the spiritual centre of the Schools for so many centuries. Solemn celebrations and religious functions were held under its Romanesque nave: Election of the rector, anniversaries, opening and closing of studies, etc.”[326]

326 J LLADONOSA, o.c., p.30

From the foundation of the General Studium in 1300, it was understood the need to have the students in a delimited area of the city. On the one hand to isolate them from the noise of the streets and keep them away from the industrial and commercial districts, and on the other hand to facilitate the control of public order by limiting the radius of movement of university students, given their natural tendency to rush and street fights. In fact, “when reading the crime trials, one realises that for every crime committed by students, it was relatively easy for those in charge of justice to look for the delinquents in the houses and dormitories of the Azuda, San Andrés or San Martín”[327].

327 Ib., p.12.

From 1300 until the disappearance of the university, the size of the school grounds hardly changed. It included the entire walled citadel of today and the adjacent area to the west, which roughly corresponded to the space between the church of San Martín, Plaza de Cervantes and Plaza del Seminario, connecting these three points with the Ronda de San Martín, Calle de Boteros, Galera, Caballeros and Compañía. At the centre of this area was the General Studium building with the Major Schools or Faculties and the Grammar schools, which formed a complex located between Murcia, Cuarteles, San Martín streets and Plaza del Depósito, the centre being the street now known as Calle de la Universidad[328].

328 The aforementioned article by J. Lladonosa sets out with a lot of details and abundant documentation the complete plan of the entire university area.

However, the most famous was the upper quarter of the Azuda, where the students made their extraordinary dominance felt. Read this expressive paragraph by Lladonosa: “Most of the scuffles between students and Pahería officials that can be read in the trials of the crimes occurred with regularity in the neighbourhood of the Azuda and this circumstance is explained by the immunity they enjoyed in this neighbourhood and because they could help each other more easily given the prevailing solidarity among the students in an area where most of the houses were inhabited by them. The large number of houses of ecclesiastical personnel also favoured them, since most of the beneficiaries of la Seo were generally students of Law or Canons Schools”[329].

329 Ibid., p.19.

And here the monumentality of this vanished neighbourhood becomes clear, whose main artery, starting from the University building, penetrated the perimeter wall up to the staircase that gave access to the Portico of the Apostles, the central entrance to the cloister of the cathedral: “It would be the main street of the upper town and undoubtedly the most monumental of all Lérida. In an ascending line and on the right were the houses of the ‘Cartoixa’, the archdeaconries of Ribagorza and Benasque and the palace of the ‘Ardiaca’ or mayor archdeacon. On the left, the College of the Assumption, the Sacristy and Chamber of La Seo gave the magnificent street an urban perspective. Harmoniously nestled between pointed arches of the Romanesque Gothic of the XIII century, pointed arched and rectangular windows of the purest floral Gothic, doors with maestatic voussoirs and embroidery, coats of arms and heraldry in the houses of the notables, niches with titular images in the houses of the chaplaincies; barbicans, crenellated towers and remains of Saracenic and perhaps older buildings. A whole poem in stone, the work of the most diverse cultures, would serve as a golden frame for the marvellous portico of the Apostles with its triple vault, elaborate carvings and polychromy in gold, azure and golden yellow. And if we add to this the other buildings around the old cathedral, the bishop’s palace, the mansions of Moncada, Requesens, Cardona, the Chancellery of Studies, etc., we will be convinced that Lérida, with its parish of the Azuda, has lost the best, the greatest and the most splendid of its past splendor. Only the old and mutilated Seo remains as an eternal testimony of what has disappeared forever[330].

330 Ibid., p.28-29.

And in this street, leading up and down the beautiful monumental hill, Joseph de Calasanz spent his youth clean of quarrels and picaresque adventures.

First tonsure and family weddings

In the middle of the school year 1574-1575, during the first year of his law studies, at the age of seventeen and a half, he took his first serious and decisive step towards the priesthood by asking his own bishop of Urgel for his first tonsure, with which he was received into the diocesan clergy. The bishop, Reverend John Dimas Loris, gave his consent. In mid-April, Calasanz left Lérida by the royal road along the Segre towards Balaguer, the old capital of the county of Urgel, crossed the great Gothic bridge with seven arches, which still stands, and climbed the hill on which the 14th century sanctuary of Christ of Almatá stands. The current temple was built at the end of the 18th century after the previous one was destroyed in 1787. The venerable titular cross perished in the flames of the iconoclasm of 1936 and only one foot of the original remained, which is perfectly embedded in the new image[331].

331 Cf. P. SANAHUJA, Historia de la Ciutat de Balaguer (Ed. Seráfica, Barcelona 1965).

On Sunday, April 17, 1575, the aforementioned bishop John Dimas Loris conferred the ecclesiastical tonsure in this sanctuary on thirty-six candidates, all from the diocese of Urgel and belonging to the secular clergy, with the exception of two Trinitarians. Perhaps the town of Balaguer was chosen because many candidates came from the region, as eighteen were from Balaguer and at least six others from parishes in the diocese, such as Peralta de la Sal, which was represented by Joseph Calasanz in 33rd place of the large list[332]. Four years earlier, on March 8, 1571, his father had referred to him in his will: “Trusting that he will become a cleric, he shall receive a sufficient fortune to ascend to holy orders if he has not then received a benefice”[333]. He was already a cleric. He wore the white tonsure on his head, with the inner joy of novelty and the hope of the future priesthood. And he went down the river Segre and returned to Lérida.

332 The tonsure booklet and those of the minor and major orders Calasanz took them with him to Rome and kept them until his death. Today they are precious relics. They are edited in their original Latin text in J. POCH, Las órdenes sagradas del universitario Joseph Calasanz: AnCal 50 (1983) 269-271. The list of tonsured and the corresponding Act in Arch. Episc. Urgel, reg. 33 (1575-1579) f.35v-36v. The paragraph referring to Calasanz was published by P. PUJOL I TUBAU, Sant Josep de Calassanç, Oficial del Capitol d’Urgel (Barcelona 1921) p.82. And it says: “Josephum Calasans, filium legitimum et naturalem Petri Calasans, ‘fabri fe’... et Marie Gastona conjugum, loci Peralte de la [Sal, Ur]gellensis dioecesis.” In that same list there is another surname, which by homonymy I am pleased to recall: “Matheum Giner, filium legitimum et naturalem Joannis Giner, agricolae, et Speransiae, conjugum civitatis Balagarii.”

333 Cf. J. POCH, Tres testamentos...: AnCal 40(1978) 446.

It had been a long year since her sister Hope had married John Carpi Abella from the nearby town of Alcampel. The marriage contract was signed on January 25, 1574. It is very likely that Joseph was not present, as he is not named among those present or among the signatories. They give their consent to the marriage, in addition to Hope, “Maese Peter Calasanz and Mary Gastón, her parents, and Peter Gastón and Maese Peter John Augustín, his brother and uncle”, i.e. the first, her mother’s brother, and the second, the husband of her sister Joan, who was married in Benabarre.

From the part of the groom, his parents and “M°. [Mosen] Martín Carpi, his brother”, later called “Reverend M°. Martín Carpi”. They sign the capitulations M°. Martín Carpi and Peter Calasans and additionally “the honorable Michael de Ager, merchant of the town of Gavasa”, who says: “I, Michael de Ager, am witness to the above and I sign for John Carpi, father and son, and Madalene Abela, Hope Calasans and Mary Gastón, who said they could not write, and for another witness.” And in an attached receipt for payment, he signs again, together with his son: “ts [testigos - witnesses] the honorable Michael de Ager and Michael de Ager son, student, from the village of Gavassa”[334].

334 Cf. Doc. Merigó: RegCal 74, n° 53.

A few months earlier, they were present in the house of the Ager de Gabasa and signed a deed of sale of the “merchant” Don Michael, as witnesses “the great and honorable Martin de Carpi, of Alcampel, Master of Arts and Joseph Calasanz, student, native of Peralta de la Sal”, precisely on September 19, 1573[335]. This shows the close friendship - and later kinship - between the Calasanz of Peralta, the Carpi of Alcampel and the Ager of Gabasa. Moreover, there was undoubtedly a special relationship between the three young students and perhaps fellow students in Lérida, as all three were priests[336].

335 Cf. J. POCH, Aportación docum. biográfico-calasancia: AnCal 22 (1969) 279-280.

336 Being Calasanz, already a priest, in the Episcopal Curia of Urgel, he intervenes as Procurator of the honorable Michael de Ager, Patron of a Benefice, so that be granted “to Michael de Ager, son of this one; and the said Patron was father of John and Michael” (ibid., p.278). Already this John writes Calasanz on January 12, 1588, communicating to him the collation of this benefice (cf. EGC, II, e. 1). Regarding Martin Carpi, we read a document dated October 9, 1596 in which his mother “Madalena Abella widow of the q° John Carpi”, declares herself “universal heiress that I am of all the goods..., that were and belonged to the q° Marti Carpi, my son, canon that was of the Collegiate Church of the town of Tamarite de Litera...” (Doc. Merigó: RegCal 74, n.220).

The happiness in Carpi-Calasanz’s new house in Alcampel was short-lived, as his wife Hope died, probably in childbirth, leaving behind a daughter named Catharine[337]. The widower John Carpi remarried to Mary Segarra, but they had no children, so Catharine Carpi Calasanz was the universal heir to all the estates of the House of Carpi in Alcampel[338].

337 It is not known exactly the year of his death. Poch proposes 1575 and 1576 (cf. J. POCH, Tres testamentos..., p.441 and 451) and Picanyol 1578 (cf. Rass 26-27 [1957] 54).

338 John Carpi appears already married to Maria Segarra in a deed of sale dated January 18, 1580 (cf. Doc. Merigó: RegCal 74, n°.55). On September 7, 1597, marriage contracts were signed between James Giró “mancebo”, his parents and a brother on one side and “Madalena Abella widow, John Carpi son of said Madalena Abella and María Segarra spouses and Catharina Carpi maiden daughter of said John Carpi and Sperança Calasans q° his first wife from the place of Campell, on the other side.... “ and “bring the said Catharina Carpi maiden in aid..., and the said John Carpi her father and Maria Segarra spouses and her grandmother Madalena Abella give her and make her a donation propter nuptias of all their movable goods and places...” (ibid., no.65).

So, Hope’s wedding took place in January 1574, Joseph’s first tonsure in April 1575 and the wedding of Peter, the heir, in February 1576. The wedding and the capitulations took place on the 20th of the month in Peralta. On the groom’s side appeared his parents “and Mosen Matheo Calasanz from the town of Juseo and John de Lujuanes from Pla de Castellón and Peter Gastón in Peralta, relatives and kinsmen of the said Peter Calasanz”; and on the bride’s side, who was Jerónima Paúl Coll from the town of Juseu, appeared her brother John Paúl (her parents had died) and, among other relatives, Mosén Michael Paúl, Mosén Peter Coll, who with the aforementioned Mathew Calasanz are the three priests present, who are most likely uncles of the bride and groom. We do not know if the young clergyman Joseph Calasanz was present[339].

339 Rev. Mateo Calasanz de Juseu gives us the basis to adduce this reference: “Die 26-7-1579 per dominum Vicarium Generalem Denia [of Lérida] fuit concessa licentia Petro Calasanz filio Antonii Calasanz et Margaritae Aler oppidi de Juseu recipiendi Primam clericalem tonsuram a Rmo. Dom. Urgeli episcopo” (J. POCH, The Founder of the Pious Schools..., p.303, n.83). If he is given the dimissorial letters in Lérida, it is logical to suppose that he studied in that University and he was, therefore, a fellow disciple of Joseph Calasanz. He could also be related to him and his father Antony Calasanz was the same one of whom the canon Michael Jiménez Barber said: “our family ... was united with the house Calasanz in the third degree of affinity, that is Antony Calasanz nobleman ... son of a brother of the grandfather of Fr. Joseph for what the same Father told me” (Procln, p.21O). This Antony would therefore be a first cousin of Peter Calasanz, father of the Saint.

These capitulations are tantamount to a will or an appointment of the testator or universal heir in the person of the eldest son of the contracting party. Therefore, “the said Peter Calasanz, junior, and the said Peter Calasanz and Mary Gastón, as his parents, bring in and order all the goods of the said Peter Calasanz and Mary Gastón in favour of and in consideration of the present marriage and the perfect and irrevocable pure gift said between the living....” But in addition to the reservations they make for themselves, they give the right to each of the living children, whom they name individually, omitting Hope, who had died by this time. They say: “they transfer from the said goods of the present gift to the said Peter Calasanz, son by his marriage, to Josepe Calasanz, Mary Calasanz, Johanna Calasanz, Magdalene Calasanz and Elizabeth Calasanz, their children, to each of them five gold coins ‘dineros jaqueses’ for movables and in lieu of these and others five gold coins ‘dineros jaqueses’ each for lands and in lieu of these....”

Of all the children, only Joseph and Isabel remain unmarried, and therefore they make one more reservation: “And the said donors reserve that of the said goods of the present donation they may give to the said Josepe Calasanz and Elizabeth Calasanz, their children, in inheritance and dowry, all that may appear and be seen good to the said donors in accordance with the possibilities of their house and goods and the customs of the said place of Peralta among similar people of their rank and condition”[340].

340 Cf. J. POCH, Referencias genealógico-calasancias en la prov, de Huesca: AnCal 5 (1961) 143-146. There are certain corrections of the text in view of the original of the archive (RegCal 13,6-8).

By this time, the youngest son of the house, Joseph, had already been an ordained clergyman for almost a year and his inheritance was once again secured by these capitulations. And the last unmarried daughter, Elizabeth, probably married a gentleman with the surname Seix from the town of Arén in the same year, 1576, where he lived until his death in 1591[341].

341 Cf. ARMINI, Vita, p.9; L. GRACIA, Arén (Zaragoza 1973), p.135; J. POCH, Tres testamentos..., p.452, n.10.

Only Peter and his wife Jerónima Paúl lived in the Calasanz-Gastóns’ house in Peralta, together with their elderly parents. All the daughters had left the house to start their own families: Maria and Magdalena lived in Peralta, Johanna in Benabarre, Hope had already died in Alcampel, where her daughter Catalina stayed behind, and the last one, Elisabeth, went to Arén. And the other son, Joseph, was still studying in Lérida.

The residence of the university cleric

The seminaries that the Council of Trent had prescribed just a few years earlier did not yet exist, nor were the student clerics obliged to live together in suitable colleges. In Lérida, however, in addition to the convents in which their own candidates for the priesthood who attended the General Studium were trained, there were two colleges for the clerical students who were taught at the University. These were the College of the Assumption or the College of Domingo Pons or Collegi Vell, the oldest of its kind in Spain, founded in 1372, which we have already discussed, and the College of the Immaculate Conception, founded in 1556 by the bishop of Lérida, the Most Reverend Michael Despuig. The question naturally arises as to whether our student from Peralta could have stayed in one of these two centres.

As for the possibility of residency at Assumption College, some initially accepted this probability[342]. But a careful examination of the statutes seems to limit even this possibility, primarily because of the strict requirement that candidates, even relatives of the founder himself, had to be truly poor, the same founding statutes specifying that this meant those with less than thirty pounds as income[343]. And the family of the Bayle and the blacksmith of Peralta certainly did not live in such poverty. Moreover, we have the father’s concern for a “sufficient fortune” for little Joseph, “in the hope that he will become a clergyman”, noted in his will of 1571 and again in 1576, already with tonsure, in the marriage contracts of the heir. He could therefore not be considered poor[344].

342 Cf. L. PICANYOL, Rass 26-27 (1957) 52; J. POCH, San Jose de Calasanz y seis obispos españoles: RevCal 12 (1957) 106-107.

343 “Non praesumant clericum quemcumque eciamque de parentela habentem pacifice in annualibus reditibus triginta libras importatis nominare et praesentare” (J. MATEU IBARS, o.c., p.42). Because of this characteristic the college was also called Collegium pauperum studentium civitatis Ilerdae (ibid., p. 101).

344 This conclusion is also reached by Gayá Massot and Fr. Poch (cf. J. POCH, Cuatro cartas ineditas de D. R. Gayá Massot: Ilerda 37 [1976] 302).

In the Purísima College, too, the first condition for admission was the poverty of the scholars, as in the College of Asunción. These two Colleges of Lérida and, in general, all the colleges that later emerged at other Spanish universities were charitable foundations intended to support and promote the gifted poor with an ecclesiastical vocation[345]. Places were generally very limited, in line with the foundation’s not very generous endowment. Domingo Pons initially proposed 12 scholarships, but then had to reduce them to nine. And Bishop Despuig founded his college for only 12 students. In addition to the reduced number, the number of applicants was also fixed. In the College of Pons, almost all of them had to come from the county of Ribagorza. For the College of the Purísima, three were chosen from the diocese of Lérida, three from Barcelona, three from Urgel, two from Elna (Perpignan) and one from the founder’s family[346]. But although Calasanz could have been included in one group or another, as he was a tonsured clergyman, the strict requirement of family poverty almost categorically ruled out his possibility of inclusion.

345 Cf. F. MARTÍN HERNÁNDEZ, La formación clerical..., p.89-94.

346 Cf. C. PÉREZ PÉREZ, Cartas con motivo de la fundación del Colegio de la Inmaculada desde 1557 a 1560: VIII Congreso de Historia de la Corona de Aragón, III, I, p.169.

So where did the student clerics without a scholarship live because they did not consider themselves poor? If the lay students had to live in pensions, so of course did the clergy, some of whom - it must not be forgotten - were “crowned” to take advantage of the immunities, privileges and even benefices of the clergy without having a clear vocation to the priesthood. Moreover, “most of the beneficiaries of La Seo were usually students of the Law and Canon Schools” and had their own houses in the University area. These, as well as the houses of some Canons and other clergy, served as “hostels” or paid boarding houses for students in general and clerics in particular[347].

347 Cf. J. LLADONOSA, La zona universitaria de Lérida, p.19 and 28.

Among the high clergy of the diocese of Lérida there were Canons and other ecclesiastical dignitaries with the surname Calasanz[348], probably relatives of the Peralta family, who were able to accommodate the student and later cleric Joseph Calasanz in their homes or in those of other well-known clergymen[349].

348 Cf. J. POCH, El Fundador de las Escuelas Pias..., p.304-306, n.84; 390-391; J. LÓPEZ NAVÍO, Testamento de Micer Juan Calasanz, p.26-27.

349 Gayá Massot and Poch adopt this hypothesis (cf. J. POCH, Cuatro cartas inéditas..., p.3O2).

Accustomed to today’s idea of what a “seminarian” is, it is difficult for us to understand the situation in which our student clergyman lived. Perhaps it becomes more accessible to us when we remember that his classmate Mateo Garcia was a cleric like him. He explained that “he was a very rebellious man and often got himself into things for which he then got into trouble, and that he turned to Joseph, who got him out of trouble with his advice and help, and he used to say that he was the Holy Spirit to him, as he had no one but him in his troubles”[350].

350 ProcIn, p.213-214; cf. BAU, BC. p.88.

This cleric probably had no other “spiritual guide” than Calasanz. We do not know what his “hardships” or his misdeeds were, but if we read the statutes of the College of the Assumption, proposed by its founder around 1372 and reformed several times until 1567, we find some details that are still in force and that reflect the “spiritual atmosphere” in which its clerics lived: the founder stipulates that the collegians must go to confession twice a year, on St. Michael’s or St. Luke’s Day and at Easter, and they must present the confessional testimony to the prior. In the reform of 1553, the norm is retained, only the dates are extended so that they can confess for the first time from St. Michael’s Day to St. Luke’s Day and for the second time from Ash Wednesday to the Sunday after Easter[351]. Those who blaspheme God, the Virgin Mary or the saints or who injure a member of the College with a sword, stick or similar, or simply strike them with their hand are punished with excommunication. Those who play dice, or provoke quarrels, or riots are also excommunicated and threatened with expulsion. Those who go out or in through the windows, especially at night, so that in the reform of 1553 it is added that the doors must not be opened once they are closed at night, and that iron bars must be placed on all windows to prevent scandal and harmful amusements[352]. The same penalties of excommunication and expulsion were imposed on those accused of rape, sodomy, adultery and concubinage[353] or who simply introduced suspicious women into the college. The reform of 1553 also punished those who, although they knew this, did not report the entry of such women, and also excommunicated those who gave hugs or “lewd” kisses to women of any kind in the college[354]. None of these statutes are abolished or amended in the reform of 1567, which indicates that they were not purely hypothetical cases or that they were outside the realm of possibility.

351 Cf. J. MATEU IBARS, Statuta Domus Collegii..., p.55 and 93.

352 Ib., p.46-47 and 85.

353 “qui sacrarum monialium aut virginum defloraciones aut vicia contra naturam vel adulteria perpetraverint, vel qui publice concubinam detinuerint...” (ibid., p.47).

354 Item, quia ad adulterium et fornicationem devenitur per preparatoria, illa amputantes, excomun. sententiam ferimus in eos qui in collegio mulieribus ibi quomodocumque venientibus venereos amplexus vel oscula prebuerint” (ibid., p.92).

The reform of the General Studium

The times when the General Studium of Lérida was the only one for the entire Crown of Aragon, according to the will of its founder James II, were long gone. The privileges that granted its exclusivity only lasted fifty years. In 1350 the General Studium of Perpignan was founded and in 1354 that of Huesca. In the following century, those of Gerona (1446), Barcelona (1450) and Mallorca (1483) were open. And in the 16th century, the universities of Valencia (1500), Zaragoza (1542-1583) and Tarragona (1572-1588) were established. Each new university meant a reduction in influence and clientele, which affected the vitality and prestige of the old and pioneering Studium of Lérida. At the end of the 16th century, there were nine Universities in the geographical area of the Crown of Aragón, where the University of Lérida alone had been founded in 1300. It was logical that competition would make itself felt, especially with the emergence of universities in the large cities, the capitals of each of the kingdoms of the confederation (Barcelona, Valencia and Zaragoza), with which Lérida could not compete in terms of importance and population density[355].

355 Lérida had 1,109 “fires” in 1553 (5,545 inhabitants) (cf. J. IGLESIES, El fogatge de 1553, I, p.67); Barcelona, 6,432 (32,160 inhab.) (ib., p.27); at the end of the century, Zaragoza had 4,954 (24,770 inhab.) and Valencia 12,327 (61,635 inhab.) (cf. A. BLÁZQUEZ, Geografía Española del s. XVI: Boletín de la R. Soc. Geográfica, 51 [1909] 246).

Added to this was the irresistible attraction that the two famous universities of Salamanca and Alcalá de Henares exerted not only in Spain but also throughout Europe, thanks to their undisputed and consolidated fame, to which the adaptation to the new currents of the Renaissance and humanism had undoubtedly contributed. The emigration of students from all over Aragón to the two famous universities of Castile continued unabated, especially since Philip II, in his pragmatic decree of November 22, 1559, “forbade “any native of his kingdoms to study outside them.” Cervantes wrote about Salamanca: “Here too there is a mass of Aragonese, Valencians and Catalans...”[356]

356 Cited in C. AJO Y SAINZ DE ZÚÑIGA, o.c., p.246, n.805.

However, the real crisis in Lérida began in the middle of the 15th century. “The definitive decline of the Studium of Lérida... the vertical collapse caused by the wars of Catalonia against John II... the capitulation of Lérida to the troops of John II (July 6, 1464) divides the history of the study in two. Ruined and full of terrible misery, the Studium of Lérida lost its best clientele from the three confederate kingdoms... All eyes are now on the University of Salamanca”[357]. This academic emigration began during the reign of Ferdinand the Catholic and continued to increase with the foundation of the well-known universities of Alcalá in Castile and Valencia and Zaragoza within the Crown of Aragon.

357 R. GAYÁ MASSOT, Influencia de la Univ. de Salamanca en la de Lérida: Anal. Sacra Tarrac. 31 (1958) 103.

Some statistics over a period of forty years can give us a concrete idea of the vitality of these universities. The University of Salamanca is the leader, as in 1546 it had 5,150 students, which rose to 6,778 in the academic year 1584-85[358]. The University of Alcalá had “more than two thousand students” in 1548[359]. That of Valencia had “two or three thousand students” in 1564, when it was offered to the Jesuits, who rejected it[360]. “The University of Zaragoza had “a large number of students in 1583, for there are 200 in Theology, 60 in Canons and Laws, 10 in Medicine, 250 Arts students and more than 800 Grammarians”[361]. In the same document of 1583, reference is made to the University of Huesca and the Aragonese who studied in Lérida and Castile: “In Huesca, the students of Grammar and all faculties never reach 400, in Law there are ten or twelve and in the middle of the year none; in Lérida the Aragonese students do not even reach 50 and in Salamanca and Alcalá there are not even 40”[362].

358 Cf. C. AJO Y SAINZ DE ZÚÑIGA, o.c., p.247.

359 Ib., p.3O7.

360 A. ASTRAIN, Historia de la Compañía de Jesús en su Asistencia de España, vol. II (Madrid 1905), p.222, n. 1. The number is given by Fr. Cordeses, Provincial of Aragón, who was in favor of accepting it.

361 M. JIMENEZ CATALÁN-J. SINUÉS Y URBIOLA, o.c., vol. III, p.88.

362 Ib.p.86; It is an “Alegato de la Ciudad de Zaragoza, en 1583, al Rey Felipe II” (Plea of the City of Saragossa, in 1583, to King Philip II). It should be noted that precisely in that year 1583, among those 50 Aragonese who studied in Lérida, was Joseph Calasanz.

As for Lérida, there were about 60 grammar students in 1581[363]. And in the eighteen years between 1607 and 1624, 560 legists were enrolled, with an annual average of 25 students. Of these, 297 were Catalans, 35 Valencians, 30 from Roussillon-Cerdagne, 26 Aragonese, 12 Mallorcans, 5 from other regions and 155 whose origins are unknown[364]. Although the dates are after the time of the student Joseph Calasanz, they are sufficiently significant, especially if we take into account that these were legistas (Law students), who always made up the largest contingent of students in Lérida, and that at this time the relevant reforms had been carried out to give new impetus to the General Studium.

363 In a report of 1581 by the licentiate Burgués we read: “of sixty students [of grammar] who go out to the course...” (cf. R. GAYÁ MASSOT, Los jesuitas en la Universidad de Lérida: Miscelánea de trabajos..., vol. III [Lérida 1949-1954], p.36).

364 Cf. A. HERNÁNDEZ PALMÉS, Matriculatio legistarum..., p.79.

The person who showed the most interest in this reform and revitalization was King Philip II, who, when promulgating the new statutes on 27 July 1575, unequivocally expressed his ardent wish that the University of Lérida should stand out among all the universities in Spain and honour its glorious history, since so many famous doctors had emerged from its classrooms, who had served the Kings with the utmost integrity, knowledge and prestige[365].

365 “Nos Philippus Rex... Vehementer optamus omnes Hispaniarum achademias esse quam auctissimas et florentissimas, sed in primis Ilerdensem ex qua tantum numerum doctorum hominum prodisse scivimus: qui et nobis et clarissimis nostris progenitoribus in regnorum nostrorum gubernatione summa integritate et doctrina ac laude inservierunt” (cf. C. AJO Y SAINZ DE ZÚÑIGA, o.c., p.593).

In the same year that the King ascended the throne (1556), Don Michael Despuig was elected Bishop of Lérida. At that time, according to Josep Lladonosa, “studies were in full decadence and the teaching disciplines were outdated. Due to the increasing predominance of the Huguenots in the south of France, many Catholic students from Gascony and Languedoc came to Lérida, and when they realised the poverty of the classrooms and the low reputation of their teachers, they left”[366].

366 J. LLADONOSA, Humanisme i reformes a l’Estudi General de Lérida durant el segle XVI: VIII Congreso de Historia de la Corona de Aragón. III. La Corona de Aragón en el siglo XVI. II, p.90. John Reglá also agrees that “the university of Lérida entered a process of decadence from the middle of the 16th century.... The main problems raised seem to have been the following: excessive leniency in the exams, the passionate exacerbation of the students and the conflicts caused by the appointment of professorships.” (J. REGLÁ, Els virreis de Catalunya, [Ed. Vicens-Vives, Barcelona 19703], p.71).

This deplorable situation prompted the Pahería or Municipality of Lérida to take the initiative to reform the General Studium. On May 18, 1557, they wrote to the Princess and General Governor, Isabella of Austria, recalling the ancient glory and undeniable merits of the General Studium and at the same time lamenting its current dejection, for which they requested the appointment of Bishop Michael Despuig as a Visitator and reformer, as they were fully convinced that he would provide the appropriate remedy[367]. And indeed, at the end of his Visitation, Despuig published nine reform statutes, which he presented to the Rector Jeroni Morell and his council on June 3, 1559. In it, he proposed the following measures: Prohibition of dangerous doctrines; printing of conclusions and their revision; regulation of the graduation of baccalaureates, weekly conclussions and councils and the dress of students; prohibition of all kinds of weapons in the possession of students on pain of imprisonment, a very delicate matter in all times; seniority and precedence in the choice of class hours and titles of baccalaureates[368]. But the early death of the reformer, which occurred five months later (November 21, 1559), left his statutes as a dead letter.

367 Cf. C. PÉREZ PÉREZ, o.c., p.170-171.

368 Cf. P. SANAHUJA, La universidad de Lérida y los franciscanos: Archivo Íbero Americano 7 (1947) 208.

His successor, the Reverend Antonio Agustín Albanell (1561-1576), took part in the third and final convocation of the Council of Trent (1562-1563) and, as soon as he returned to his diocese, was appointed Visitator of the General Studium by Philip II at the request of the Chancellor of the University and the Syndic of the city (April 8, 1564). In the letter of appointment, the King expressed his wish “ to put in order and maintain such an important and ancient University, since many of our provinces, countries and councils are governed by the children who come from it”[369].

369 Cf. full text in J. POCH, Calassanç a l’Estudi General de Lérida: Cat 174 (1975) 7.

This bishop devoted an entire decade (1565-1575) to inspecting and reforming the University, although his activity and zeal as a reformer affected the entire diocese at the same time, as he wanted to vigorously implement the reforms of Trent from the outset and even organised a diocesan synod. For this reason, he clashed violently with the Chapter and the Pahería. The Canons accused him of being an absolutist and the Pahería complained about his lack of respect for the customs and traditions of the city. The tensions forced him to leave the city for a long time and seek refuge in Monzón. There was also no lack of disagreements and tumultuous scenes in the confrontation with the University, as in the already remembered case of the imprisonment of Rector Boil and the subsequent revolt of the city against the bishop in September 1574[370].

370 Cf. text corresponding to n.321 of this chapter

The new statutes - clearly influenced by Salamanca - were promulgated and approved by Philip II on July 27, 1575. The most important points of the reform regulated the awarding of Chairs (to be awarded every three years) for doctors, and “catedrillas” (minor Chairs) (to be awarded every two years) for baccalaureates, all of which had to be awarded competitively. The candidates had to give a public lecture and the students had to cast their deciding vote. There were also strict rules on teacher absences and substitutions, and it was stipulated that professors should abandon the old-fashioned method of dictating lessons and use all available time to interpret and explain the lessons”[371].

371 The Statutes of Bishop Albanell were published by Villanueva (cf. Viaje literario, XVI, doc.X, p.240-246). In them Gayá Massot sees “the most authentic source where the Salamanca influence could be illuminated” (cf. R. GAYÁ MASSOT, Influencia de la Univ. de Salamanca en la de Lérida, p.115). See also ID., Provisión de cátedras en el Estudio Gen. de Lérida: Anal. Sacra Tarrac. 30 (1958) 40; J. LLADONOSA, Humanisme i reformes..., p.91-93; C. AJO y SAINZ DE ZÚÑIGA, o.c., p.312-313.

The reforms were not accepted peacefully within the university, so that both Philip II and the Viceroy of Catalonia, Don Fernando de Toledo, had to press for their compliance[372].

372 Cf. two letters from Philip II to the Rector and Council of the Univ. dated April 14, 1576 and November 14, 1576 in J. LLADONOSA, o.c., p.101-103, and two others from the Viceroy in J. POCH, o.c.. p.3-4.

As already mentioned, Joseph Calasanz joined the classes of the General Studium of Lérida in the autumn of 1571 and left in the summer of 1578. Consequently, during this period he experienced the concerns caused by the reform of the statutes of Bishop Antonio Agustín Albanell, and he also adapted to their demands, for example by participating with his vote in all the provisions of Chairs in the Faculty of Law, from the promulgation of the reform (July 27, 1575) until his departure from Lérida.

The first encounters with the Jesuits

Since his return from Trent, the respected bishop Don Antonio Agustín had endeavoured to implement the conciliar reform in his diocese and, as we have already seen, had clashed with the Chapter of Canons and the Pahería. The reform of the statutes of the University was also part of his reform efforts and plans, although the initiative did not come from him. And in this spiritual atmosphere of conciliar renewal, the Jesuits drew attention to their popular missions, especially in the large cities. They gathered the people to the sound of bells and preached in the squares and temples following the scheme of the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius.

In Lent 1575, Fathers Ayala and Montpalau from the College of Barcelona were called to Lérida. It was the first popular mission to be preached in the city of the Segre. To emphasise the extraordinary fruits of this mission, the chroniclers of this time give us a miserable - and undoubtedly exaggerated - description of the depravity of morals and the deplorable state of Christian life:

“Virtue was so banished and trampled underfoot that the good were mocked and despised; banditry had reached such a pitch that no one was safe even in his own house; extortion and usury were at their height; oaths, curses and blasphemies had so seized hearts that they hardly spoke without them; ignorance of the mysteries of our holy faith was so great that men, many with grey hair, ignored them; the clergy lived so dissolutely that they did not consider it an affront to have the mistress at home with their children”[373].

373 Cf. R. GAYÁ MASSOT, Los jesuitas en la Univ. de Lérida, p.11.

The effect of this mission was extraordinary, both among the common people and among the clergy and students. It was, as the chroniclers say, “the salvation of the country.” The following year, Father Joseph de Ayala was called to preach again during Lent, “with which the fruit of the missions grew and increased even more.” In the successive Lenten seasons from 1577 to 1580, Father Peter Prado, a man of great eloquence and “great austerity” who deserved to be called “the apostle of Lérida”, was called to preach in the parish of San John[374].

374 Ib., p.11-12; A. ASTRAIN, Historia de la Compañía de Jesús en la Asistencia de España, vol. III, 2 (Madrid 1925) p.231.

Let us remember that Joseph Calasanz received his first tonsure on April 17, 1575, at the end of the first Lent that was preached in Lérida. And it is not adventurous to assume that he followed and profit the Lenten sermons from 1575 to 1578. In his old age, he sometimes recalled his first encounters with the Jesuits when he was still a “young boy” (giovanetto) and explicitly confessed the esteem and admiration he had always felt for them. His fondest memories of his youth undoubtedly include these Lenten days in Lérida. Here is a precious letter, dated August 14, 1641, when he was eighty-four years old:

“Your Reverence can give me no greater consolation than to give satisfaction and pleasure to the Fathers of the Society, as you have done in the case of the young musician who wished to enter your Reverence’s class. Therefore, Y.R., please preserve the due respect and service to the said Fathers to whom I have always appreciated them as Fathers sent by God into the world to enlighten it with a teaching and an example as effective as can be clearly seen today, especially those who still remember the old relaxation. And with special affection I ask the Lord to strengthen the spirit and zeal of the Fathers of the Society, so that in this second century they may redouble the fruits of the first century and continue to spread the holy Catholic faith. And to the Fathers of that our convent, tell them to show at every opportunity the reverence that is due to them and that I wish for these Fathers”[375].

375 CS, II, c.539. On December 13, 1642, he wrote to those in Poland: “Warn ours to try with all care not to give any displeasure to the Jesuit Fathers, whom I have respected with great humility and affection since I was a young boy, and I wish ours to do the same” (ibid., c.599).

In another letter dated November 5, 1644, he recommends the same feelings of affection and honour for the Jesuits, whom he says he has known for eighty years[376]. And if the calculation is correct, we would go back to the early age of seven, when he had not yet left Peralta. It is not easy to guess where and how he might have met the Jesuits around the year 1564. It could be that from Zaragoza, where they had founded a house in 1555, or from Barcelona, whose foundation dates back to 1545[377], some fathers had gone to missionize in some of the large towns near Peralta, such as Barbastro, Monzón, Benabarre, and Joseph went there with someone from his family. On the other hand, it is not unlikely that he said seventy years instead of eighty, which would bring us almost exactly to the year 1575, the year of the first Jesuit mission in Lérida. In any case, there is no doubt that in the years 1575-78 he had the opportunity to get to know them and to measure their enormous influence on the reform of Christian society.

376 “I beg you as much as I can to keep loving the Jesuit Fathers and honour them in every occasion because they are worthy of such homage as I have always known for the last 80 years.” (C.4232).

377 Cf. R. GARCÍA-VILLOSLADA, San Ignacio de Loyola. Nueva Biografía (BAC, Madrid 1986) p1027.

And despite the bitterness they caused him in his old age, he continued to admire and appreciate them deeply.

Chapter 5

Theology and ordinations

The academic year 1577-78 came to an end and the cleric Joseph Calasanz returned to Peralta as usual to spend his summer vacation with his parents. He had completed his fourth year of Law studies, probably without graduating. At the beginning of September, he would be twenty-one years old.

During those long, hot days, when by nightfall the sounds in the blacksmith shop had died down and it was time for family conversations, Joseph explained more than once his plans for the coming school year. There would be changes. He did not want to continue with Law School, meaning he would forgo the supplemental courses for doctorate for the time being, because in reality, the four courses he had taken were the basics of the degree. So, it was not a matter of interruption, but of urgency: he was still determined to become a priest and therefore had to start theology. It was no surprise to his family; everyone knew that this was his vocation, at least since he was thirteen years old.

The most difficult thing to explain was why he wanted to go to Valencia. Was not there a theology faculty in Lérida? So why would he go so far away? And the fact is that he explained it so well that he convinced everyone. And at the beginning of October, he set off for the city on the river Turia. The course began with the feast of St. Luke.

The Valencia that Calasanz knew

In December 1585, after the `Cortes Generales’ of Monzón, Philip II began his journey to Valencia. His notary and archer of the royal guard, Henry Cock, described in detail the itinerary, which practically followed the descending line of the Cinca river from Monzón to Mequinenza and from there, the Ebro River to Tortosa, from where he reached Valencia via the old ‘Via Augusta’ of the coast.[378] It was the shortest and easiest route. And it was probably the same route that Joseph Calasanz had taken seven years earlier, with the addition of the stretch from Peralta to Monzón, bordering the river Sosa. The King spent the night in the castle of Mequinenza and then continued his journey by boat on the Ebro to Tortosa, while most of his companions traveled by land, as was customary. From Tortosa, the royal road passed through Ulldecona and, crossing the river Cenia, entered the Kingdom of Valencia. In Vinaroz, Calasanz experienced the unprecedented sensation of seeing the wonder of the Mediterranean Sea for the first time.

378 Cf. E. COCK, Anales del año ochenta y cinco; J. GARCÍA MERCADAL, Viajes de extranjeros por España y Portugal (Aguilar, Madrid 1952) vol. I, p.1374-1399; J. VILLUGA, Repertorio de todos los caminos de España (Medina del Campo 1546) without p.

Coming from the north, the obligatory entrance to Valencia was the Serranos Gate, grandiose, monumental, framed by the Gothic towers of the late fourteenth century. In a way, it was the symbolic face of the great city. Cock wrote: “Valencia is very famous in our time and is by far the most important of all the [cities] in the Tarraconense province.”[379] In reality, with a population of 60,000, it was the third largest city in Spain, surpassed only by Granada and Seville.[380] It retained its walled enclosure with four large main gates in the four cardinal directions, of which those of Serranos and Cuart are still preserved today. Cock mentions five bridges over the Turia,[381] of which the two most imposing and solidly built were the Serranos and the Trinity, with their ten pointed arches. The interior of the city maintained its medieval structure, with narrow streets and occasionally an important artery such as Calle Caballeros, where numerous mansions or palaces of the aristocracy were located. The most famous buildings, then as now, were La Seo with its very tall Micalet Tower, the Lonja de Mercaderes and the Palace of the Generalitat. Still it was possible to admire the Royal Palace by the river, outside the walls.[382]

379 Ibid., p. 1403

380 Here are some statistics from the end of the 16th century of the seven most populated cities: Seville, 18,000 households; Granada, 13,757; Valencia, 12,327; Toledo, 10,935; Valladolid, 8,112; Madrid, 7,500; Barcelona, 6,432 (cf. A. BLÁNQUEZ, Geografía Española del s. XVI: Boletín de la Real Sociedad Geográfica, 51 [1909] 246).

381 Cf. E. COCK, o.c., p.1408.

382 For more details cf. M. SANCHÍS GUARNER, Aspecte urbá de Valéncia al s. XVI: VIII Congreso de Historia de la Corona de Aragón, III, I.

Of course, there was no basilica of the patron saint of Valencia, whose image had been venerated since 1489 in a tiny chapel outside the cathedral, opposite today’s Plaza de la Virgen. From 1494 she was called Our Lady ´dels Inocents e Desamparats´.[383] The priest Joseph Calasanz, a theology student, had to see and venerate her there many times.

383 Cf. E. M. APARICIO OLMOS, Santa María de los Inocentes y Desamparados, de su iconografia original y sus presupuestos históricos, Univ. Literaria de Valencia (Valencia 1967).

The university at that time

If Valencia as a city was the third largest in Spain, its University was in no way inferior, which together with Alcalá and Salamanca[384] was considered one of the most prestigious on the peninsula. The “Studi General”, founded at the turn of the century, shaped a didactic system characterized by a strong municipal imprint that consolidated until it became one of the most important teaching centers of the sixteenth century, rivaling Salamanca and Alcalá and even surpassing them in some subjects such as medicine. In the territory of the Crown of Aragon, it was much more important than Huesca, Zaragoza, Lérida and Barcelona.[385]

384 The famous Dutch philologist Andrew Schott, Jesuit, studied theology in Valencia in the years 1587-92 and left written in his work of 4 vols, Hispania illustrata, this praise of Valencia and its University: “Quae Urbs Edetanorum Provinciae citerioris Hispaniae ad internum mare sita, praestantium ferax est ingeniorum, quae et acumine et facundia caeteris non concedant atque etiam latina eloquentia superent. Sic etiam Academia inter quatuor Hispaniae Principes post Complutensem, ubi Theologia viget, Salmanticensem ac Conimbricensem, unde Juri Consulti fere existunt” (cit. in C. AJO Y SAINZ DE ZÚÑIGA, Historia de las Universidades Hispánicas, vol. II, p.26S, n.866).

385 S. GARCÍA MARTÍNEZ, Los estudios clásicos en Valencia durante el s. XVI: VIII Congreso de Historia de la Corona de Aragón, III, II, p.119-120.

If it was at the forefront in Medicine,[386] its reputation was no less great in the Faculty of Arts and Philosophy, which also surpassed, it seems, the two famous Castilian universities.[387] And this extraordinary flowering of classical culture reached its peak at the very time that Calasanz was living in Valencia.[388] What’s more, there are those who believe that the period from 1566 to 1580 was, in general, precisely the time “when the University experienced its greatest years of splendour.”[389] It is admirable that it already reached this level in the first century of its existence. And one of the reasons for its constant improvement was undoubtedly the frequent renovation of its statutes. Those that came closest to the period we have described were those of 1561, 1563, 1569 and 1581,[390] without forgetting the brief visitation-reform in 1570, carried out by the Chancellor of the University and Archbishop of Valencia, John de Ribera.

386 Palanca Pons also considers the Faculty of Medicine of Valencia, then, as “the best in Spain” (cf. A. PALANCA PONS, Historia de la Universidad [de Valencia] durante los reinados de Carlos I y Felipe II (1515-1588): ibid., p. 199).

387 “It would be unfair not to recognize the extraordinary flourishing of relevant thinkers that define and totally explain the splendor of the Faculty of Arts of Valencia, far superior to what we observe in the Faculties of Arts of Salamanca and Alcalá in the 16th century” (F. J. GALLEGO SALVADORES, La enseñanza de la metafísica en la Univ. de Valencia durante el s. XVI: Analecta Sacra Tarrac. 45 [1972] 158). Menéndez y Pelayo praises the University of Barcelona in the 16th century, recognizing, however, that “it did not snatch from Lérida the monopoly of legal studies, which it had held since the time of James II, nor from Valencia, the true Athens of the Crown of Aragon, the palm that it had always held in Humanities, Philosophy and Medicine” (quoted in J. REGLÁ, Els virreis de Catalunya, Ed. Vicens Vives [Barcelona 19703] p.73).

388 “The increase in the number of Latin Chairs during the second half of the century can be seen in the four Chairs of oratory endowed in the decades of the sixties and seventies, which mark the apogee of Ciceronian Latin at the University. In 1581 they were reorganized, and the number of classrooms of grammar and rhetoric was fixed at seven” (S. GARCÍA MARTÍNEZ, o.c, p.125).

389 F. MIRALLES VIVES, La Facultad de Artes entre 1600-1611: provisión de Cátedras y graduados en la Univ. de Valencia: Saitabi, 32 (1982) 48.

390 Cf. A. GALLEGO BARNES, La Constitución de 1561. Contribución a la Historia del Estudi General de Valencia: Estudis, 1 (1973); A. FELIPO ORTS, Las Constituciones de la Universidad de Valencia de 1563: Escritos del Vedat 13 (1983).

Some statistics complete the picture of what the University of Valencia meant as a cultural attraction for students from the different kingdoms of Spain. These are figures relating only to graduates, both bachelors and doctors or Masters of Arts, which are logically far lower than the total number of students, many of whom did not graduate or only attended the university premises during a specific course, as in the case of Joseph Calasanz in 1578-79. Furthermore, the large number of students from Castile is striking, considering that Alcalá and Salamanca were in Castilian territory.

In the thirty-five years between 1526 and 1561,[391] 1,074 academic degrees were awarded, of which 601 were in Arts, 215 in Medicine, 107 in Civil Law, 79 in Canon Law and 72 in Theology. Broken down by “nations”, there were 436 graduates from Valencia, 400 from Castile and León, 88 from Aragón, 67 from Catalonia and 83 from other countries of origin.[392] Another statistic, which relates exclusively to the Faculty of Philosophy, lists 211 graduates for the period 1540-1549; 527 for 1566-1580; 583 for 1600-1611 and 287 for 1621-1631. And specifically for the period 1600-1611, he distributes the 583 graduates as follows: 345 from Valencia; 78 from Castile; 52 from Aragón; 34 from the Balearic Islands and 47 from other countries.[393]

391 In reality, it is only thirty-one years, since data from the years 1557-1560 are missing.

392 Cf. J. GALLEGO-A. FELIPO, Grados concedidos por la Univ. de Valencia durante la primera mitad del s. XVI: Anal. Sacra Tarrac. 51-52 (1978-79) 377-378. It is a pity that there is no other similar study, referring to the second half of the century.

393 Cf. F. MIRALLES VIVES, o.c., p. 48.

This influx of students from all over Spain to the University of Valencia allows us to understand that it was not unusual for Joseph Calasanz to leave the university halls of Lérida, which were turbulent, sparsely attended and not very prestigious, especially in Theology, to study in Valencia.

The Faculty of Theology

Not without a certain justifiable pride, Ortí y Figuerola wrote in 1730 in his History of the University of Valencia, comparing the Faculty of Theology with that of Alcalá: “The learned Fr. Melchior de la Çerda said in the ‘Descripción de la Insigne Universidad de Alcalá’ that from the number of Theological Chairs, which are six, one could deduce that of the other faculties. We could show it much better in this university [of Valencia], in which there are ten Theological Chairs, and moreover there were already nine in 1598, when this wise Jesuit wrote.”[394] The analyst Cock, who travelled through Valencia in 1585, stated: “There are eight Chairs that read Theology.”[395] In a Jesuit memorandum to the Viceroy of Valencia, circa 1569, we read “that there are more Chairs of Theology in this Studium [General of Valencia] than in any other university, as is evident to all...”; and further, “it is clear that if there are seven Chairs of Theology in the Studium, one after the other...”[396] And it was precisely this number that was established in the Constitutions of 1561 with the following subjects: two Chairs for Sacred Scripture, one for the Old Testament and the other for the New Testament; two Chairs for the doctrine of St. Thomas; two others for the Master of the Sentences or Peter Lombard and one for Durando on the four books of the Sentences.[397] The Constitutions of 1563, however, added another Chair to the two Chairs of St. Thomas and specified the questions that each of the three professors had to present in each of the four years of theology required for the Bachelor’s degree. From this Decree, we can know in detail the specific questions of the Summa of St. Thomas that Calasanz was able to study during his first theology course in 1578-79 at the University of Valencia.[398]

394 F. ORTÍ y FIGUEROLA, Memorias históricas de la fundación y progreso de la insigne Univ. de Valencia (Madrid 1730) p.107.

395 E. COCK, oc., p.1407.

396 Cited in R. ROBRES LLUCH, San Juan de Ribera (Barcelona 1960) p.136.

397 Const. of 1561, n.133, cf. J. GALLEGO SALVADORES, La Facultad de Teología de la Univ. de Valencia durante la primera mitad del s. XVI: Escritos del Vedat, 5 (1975) 123. To these chairs must be added two more of Hebrew, complementary and indispensable for the study of the Old Testament (cf. A. PALANCA PONS, oc., p. 188).

398 “se statueix... hi haja tres lisons de Sant Thomas y que la primera... començe lo curs y lixga la primera part de aquella dins un any del principi finsa la qüestió cinquanta “De Angelis.” Y en aquell mateix any un altre dels lectors de Sant Thomas començe la Secunda Secundae en lo mateix any comensant y legint fins a la qüestió setanta set “De Justitia et Jure.” Y altre legirá en lo mateix any la tercera part, de la primera questió fins a la xixantena dels “Sacramentis.”” (Art. XX of the 1563 Const.) (A. FELIP0, Las Constituciones de la Univ. de Valencia de 1563: Escritos del Vedat 13 [1983] 246).

They were not exaggerating when they claimed that the University of Valencia had more theological Chairs in the second half of the 16th century than the famous ones in Salamanca and Alcalá. In Salamanca, in fact, there were six permanent Chairs: the one for Prima and Vespers, dedicated to the Master of Sentences; one for Sacred Scripture; one for St. Thomas, one for Scotus and one for the Nominals, to which were added the special courses or “catedrillas” (small Chairs) for Dogmatics or Sacred Scripture for students seeking the Baccalaureate or Doctorate.[399]

399 M. ANDREW, Las facultades de Teología españolas hasta 1575. Cátedras diversas: Anthologica Annua 2 (1954) 147-149.

In Alcalá there was a Chair for biblical studies and three major Chairs for Theology, one for each of the three major theological schools, St. Thomas, Scotus and Nominalism. There were also three other smaller Chairs or duplicates of the three schools. But of all of them, the main Chair for Nominalism, called de Biel, was dedicated to the Master of Sentences from 1573 and the secondary Chair for Scotus was abolished in 1550, so that there were only six Chairs in the second half of the century.[400] If we compare the Chairs of theology at the three universities of Salamanca, Alcalá and Valencia at the end of the 16th century, it becomes clear that Thomism predominated at the latter university, especially if we add that professors of Arts were obliged to read the texts of Aristotle with the commentaries of St. Thomas in their lectures from 1548 onwards.[401] This is important in order to discover the roots of Thomism in the theological mentality of the Founder of the Pious Schools.

400 Cf. ibid., p.150-151; V. BELTRÁN DE HEREDIA, La teología en la Univ. de Alcalá: Rev. Esp. de Teol. 5 (1945) 501-527.

401 Cf. J. GALLEGO SALVADORES, La enseñanza de la metafísica..., p.165.

This prevalence of Thomism in the classrooms of theology and philosophy, with the consequent introduction of the “Summa” and the commentaries on Aristotle of the Angelicus Doctor, gives us an idea of the change that took place at the University of Valencia, especially in the teaching of Theology, which fits in with the contemporary reform movement of other Spanish universities. “The movement is taking place almost simultaneously in all branches of theological knowledge, in several university centres: Alcalá, Valladolid, Valencia, Baeza, Gandía... and in a large group of theologians. It is therefore not the work of Francis de Vitoria and the University of Salamanca alone, as is so often claimed. Vitoria and Salamanca have claimed too much of the credit for Spain’s theological renewal.”[402]

402 M. ANDREW, La teología española en el siglo XVI (BAC, Madrid 1977) vol. II, p.348.

The Jesuits and the university

In the university Constitutions of 1563, regulations were issued against students attending lectures outside the Estudi General classrooms during the professors’ teaching hours, and also against the professors who gave such lectures. For some time, the university students left their classrooms to listen to other professors in the Franciscan, Augustinian and Carmelite monasteries, as was the case in Salamanca in the Dominican monastery of St. Stephen.[403]

403 Cf. R. ROBRES LLUCH, o.c., p.131.

In 1544, the Jesuits founded the College of St. Paul in Valencia, the first in Spain. The building - today’s “Louis Vives” Institute - was practically completed in 1564. And in 1567, with the city’s permission, they opened public theology schools for their own students and for those from outside. This initiative was certainly promoted by Father Gil González Dávila, who had been appointed Visitator by St. Francis de Borja, General of the Society of Jesus. In August 1567, Father Gil wrote to the Provincial of Aragón: “I am very displeased with the theological schools of Valencia. They seem to interpret Terence rather than teach theology and explain St. Thomas.”[404] This critical judgement was directed against the university because of its distinctly humanistic character, which reflected the times. But perhaps it was also unfair, because no other Spanish university placed as much emphasis on Thomistic chairs as Valencia, as we have just seen by comparing it with the leading universities of Salamanca and Alcalá. Nevertheless, in accordance with his judgement and to avoid the inconveniences mentioned, Father Gil appointed “two good teachers of theology, Father John de Ribera and Father Peter Ruiz, who were to begin their classes on the day of Saint Luke, October 18, 1561... These theology classes greatly increased the merit of the Society in Valencia.”[405] And the university students had another school to attend theology classes as they left the ´General Studium´ classrooms.

404 Cf. A. ASTRAIN, Historia de la Compañía de Jesús en su Asistencia de España (Madrid 1902-1925) vol. I, p.262. The author clarifies in a footnote: “He speaks of the university schools, since ours did not yet have theology classes.”

405 Ib., p.263.

The reaction came very soon. in 1569, a new statute renewed the decrees of 1563 against those who read theology in public outside the University, declaring them unfit to occupy Chairs in it; and students who heard such lessons in the classes in which the professors of the University held theirs were also excluded from obtaining academic degrees.[406] And a drama began.

406 Cf. R. ROBRES LLUCH, o.c., p.133-134.

The students of San Paul and other religious convents formulated official protests and called on the liberty to select professors and classes. In a way, it was a campaign for the freedom of teaching.[407] The Jesuits also made an appearance with a long letter to the Viceroy of Valencia or the Vice-Chancellor of Aragón, invoking on the one hand their papal privileges to give public instruction and confer academic degrees on locals and foreigners, even in towns where there was a University. On the other hand, the statutes could hardly be observed, as lectures were held at the University throughout the day, from morning to evening, and neither the Jesuits nor other religious could read in their homes during the hours when there was no reading at the University. For this reason, the Jesuits had “scheduled their two lessons at times that were less detrimental to the Studium.” In any case, at the same time they tried to find a peaceful solution by proposing various initiatives, such as the concession of two Chairs of theology at the same University without any stipend.[408] However, there is not a single word in the memorandum citing the low academic level of university classes as the reason for the students’ absence. They cite no reasons other than the free choice of professors and the convenience of hearing different opinions.

407 In one of the students’ memoranda it was said: “By justice the said students have liberum arbitrium, faculty and election in the lessons that they hear and can hear. And of that person of whom they have the best concept. And they cannot and should not need to have to hear in the University e General Studi, if outside of it there are lessons that are more convenient for them in their monasteries or elsewhere, as well as because it is also in their interest that there be multiplied lecturers and multiplied lessons in the same faculty...” (ibid., p. 134, n.67).

408 Cf. ibid., p.134-137.

Professors and jurors of the city formed a common front, especially against the Jesuits of St. Paul, to defend the prestige of the General Studium, which they considered undervalued. The recently arrived Archbishop of Valencia, John de Ribera, intervened in this dispute and further complicated the conflict.

Patriarch Ribera and the university

On March 20, 1569, the new archbishop made his official entry into Valencia. And from the very first moment, he clearly showed his great esteem for the Jesuits and their College.[409] As the archbishop was the chancellor of the University, the city’s professors and jurors rightly feared that he would firmly side with the Jesuits, who were said to “want to exclude the Masters and take control of the University.” And according to Robres Lluch, it is likely that this was the patriarch’s idea, at least in relation to the Faculty of Theology, which was at the centre of the dispute.[410]

409 Three days after his arrival, Fr. Santander, Rector of the College of St. Paul, wrote to Father General, Francis de Borja: “The archbishop came three days ago... and according to the great love he has for the Society... he told me that the main consolation he had when they made him accept this position was to know that there was in Valencia a college of the Society.” Another Jesuit writes to the same holy General in September of the same year: “The archbishop... is a very great friend of the rector [Fr. Santander] and very fond of the Society.” And Francis de Borja himself writes to the Patriarch on October 29, 1569: “Father Santander writes to me about the mercy that he and his College always receive from Your Grace.” (cf. ibid., p.133, n.6).

410 Cf. ibid., p.133.

The Jurors of Valencia turned to Philip II, to defend the university Statutes, and the archbishop addressed the Council of Aragón with more moderation and diplomacy in January 1570, complaining that “the Jurors of Valencia, favouring their University, want to prevent it from being heard in some religious houses (where theology is read with greater benefit to the faculty and virtue), which would do much harm to the students ... that it seemed to me to warn your Lordship, for I am told that they are going to His Majesty about this matter...”[411]

411 Cf. ibid., p.140.

The archbishop’s appeal had an effect, as a royal decree signed by Philip II on March 31, 1570 instructed Ribera to make a Visitation of reform to the University in order to settle the dispute. It was therefore not about a thorough reform of the statutes and constitutions, as the University was not considered to be in decline and in need of profound change, but the reason for the Visitation was simply the well-known conflict over the competition for Chairs. And the reform Visitation must have taken place quickly, because by early September the King already had the Minutes of the visitation to the Studium in his hands, the contents of which are unknown because they have been lost,[412] but it can be assumed that they were in favour of the teaching freedom of the Jesuits and other religious.

412 Cf. ibid., p.141 and 189-190.

In fact, the Patriarch’s decisions met with fierce opposition from the professors of the General Studium, which prompted the young archbishop to react violently: on August 10, 1570, the Rector of the university, Peter Monzó, and the theology professors Lubiela, Mijavila and Cavaller, all priests, were arrested and locked up in the episcopal prison. Another convict was Blas Navarro, also a professor and future rector, who was released from prison because he had been commisioned by the Jurors to inform the King and the Supreme Council of Aragón.

The whole of Valencia was shocked. And the initial bewilderment was followed with incredible speed by riots and a declared campaign against the Patriarch. At dawn on the 11th, denigrating leaflets against the archbishop appeared in various places in the city, even on the door of his own palace, on the door of the Apostles of the Cathedral, on the door of the Jesuits, on the door of the Rector of the University... In one of the leaflets, the students railed violently against the archbishop, protesting against the imprisonment of the professors and citing as “supposed secret motives that drove the Patriarch to reform the University: the ambition of the Jesuits to obtain Chairs and the passion of the Chancellor [Ribera] against the learned Valencians [the imprisoned professors].”[413]

413 Cf. ibid., p.142-143.

These first student riots were followed by further denigrating accusations against the archbishop’s morals, which went beyond the city walls and spread throughout the diocese. And the archbishop reacted no less quickly, opening an inquisition trial on August 12th against his detractors and the alleged inspirers of the whole infamous conspiracy. There were more than fifty defendants.

There were doubts about the legality of such a trial, but finally Gregory XIII authorised it with a letter dated July 17, 1572. As a result, the professors whom the archbishop had wanted to eliminate returned to their chairs. in 1573, Blas Navarro was appointed rector and retained his Chair of Durando, Lubiela was given that of the New Testament, Mijavila that of the Master of Sentences and Monzón, the former Rector, that of the Old Testament. The attempt at reform wanted by Patriarch Ribera had practically failed, which indirectly served to prove his humility, his charity towards his opponents and his holiness, which in the end was recognised by all.

However, the conflict between the University and the Jesuits remained unresolved. Calasanz would arrive in Valencia in mid-October to begin the academic year 1578-79. On August 20, 1578, the General of the Society wrote to Father Ibáñez: “From the College of Valencia I learn that our students from outside are being harassed by the teachers of the University, telling them that they cannot listen to the lectures of our College with a clear conscience and that those who listen to them they do not want to graduate either. And that in order to remedy this, it would be necessary to show them our Bulls and privileges acquired for that purpose.”[414] And that this attitude was true is indicated by Mosén Cristóbal Gaçull, who on March 10, 1586, asked the Jurors of the City Council to grant him the academic degree and free him from the obstacle of having heard “some lectures in the ‘Collegi dels enyeguistes’ [Jesuits] and in some monasteries of the present city”[415] ten or eleven years earlier.” The University maintained its old statutes for more than a hundred years and the Jesuits continued to rely equally on their papal privileges of public schools and the awarding of academic degrees.

414 Cf. ibid., p.153, n.60. In the midst of the furor of the conflict the Jesuits had asked the Pope to confirm their previous privileges (of Paul IV and Pius IV) on conferring degrees in their colleges, even to external students, and Pius V confirmed them in a Brief of March 10, 1571, threatening with censure those who opposed them (cf. ibid., p.153).

415 Cf. ibid., p.171.

Alleged unrest at the university

Robres Lluch writes that after the storm of subversive posters and the inquisitorial trials, Patriarch Ribera “as Chancellor continued to affirm that the sacred sciences were in a deplorable state of decay in the Studium and that it was necessary not to repress the religious who taught theology competently in their colleges.”[416] The second assertion probably prompted him to exaggerate the first - no doubt because of the esteem in which the archbishop held the Jesuits. And given the intransigence of the University and the Jurors in upholding the statutes, it is not surprising that the dismissive attitude of the aggrieved parties was still alive, as was their interest in denouncing actual or perceived disturbances to the supreme authority.

416 Cf. ibid., p.170. The author does not adduce texts to prove these ideas of the Patriarch.

Indeed, in December 1583, Philip II wrote to the Jurors of Valencia: “To the Count of Aytona, our lieutenant [Viceroy] and captain-general in this kingdom, we write that he may cooperate with you and seek together the means that you deem appropriate to put a stop to the great disturbances that we know are prevalent in the Studium and University of this our city, as you will know better from...”[417] These disturbances are undoubtedly those contained in an anonymous memorandum that reached the hands of the King and, significantly, the General of the Jesuits.[418] In summary, the alleged grievances were: “favouritism in the provision of Chairs, serious absenteeism of professors, poor usefulness of the statutes, negligence of the Jurors in enforcing them, lack of vigilance towards the morals of the students and many public houses in the vicinity of the Studium.”[419]

417 Cf. F. MIRALLES VIVES, Nuevos documentos para la historia de la Universidad: los desórdenes de 1580-1590: Saitabi 35(1985)117-118.

418 Robres Lluch refers to this memorandum (o.c., p.171). He does not give its text, but the synthesis of its contents - which we quote later - coincides exactly with the “Memorandum sobre el Estudio” published in its entirety by F. Miralles Vives (o.c., p.118-119).

419 Cf. R. ROBRES LLUCH, o.c., p.171.

The first paragraph of the Memorandum is interesting: “In the Studio or University of Valencia there are very great and harmful disturbances for the common good of the kingdom and even of part of Castile and Aragón, from where they go to study.” (In those years Joseph Calasanz was there among the Aragonese.) And in the last paragraph we read this serious accusation: “Finally, the said University is such that neither good letters nor virtue nor education are learned there; on the contrary, to the great detriment of this Kingdom and even of other parts.”[420]

420 Cf. F. MIRALLES VIVES, o.c., p.118-119.

On May 16, 1584, the Jurors wrote to the monarch that, after discussing the matter with the jurists, the Chancellor (i.e. the Patriarch) and the professors of the university, they found that “they have informed your Majesty differently in many things contained in this memorandum than is the case. What ought to be reformed has already been done, as your Majesty will see from the enclosed memorandum.”[421] And in that memorandum they responded appropriately in 13 paragraphs to the accusations of the memorandum that the King had sent.

421 Ibid., p.120.

With regard to theology, one of the charges was that “they graduate as doctors with a very light examination to those who have heard four years without knowing generally what a mediocre student knows in other parts.”[422] And among other things, the jurors replied: “As for the examinations of doctors in Theology, the best and most rigorous examination held in all Spain is held at this university.”[423] And they described in detail the entire process of these examinations.

422 Ibid., p.119.

423 Ibid., p.123.

They responded to the last accusation with this paragraph, which we translate from the Valencian in which the entire memorandum is written:

“In the said University not only letters are learned, as experience shows, but also much virtue, for there are teachers who profess it and teach it to their students not only in words but also in deeds... And from experience it has been and is seen that in this University, as it is conducted to this day, many men of letters, virtue, and exemplary life have come forth, who have given splendour to other universities, cities, and kingdoms, and have been of great benefit, and have been regarded as leading and very important persons in their profession, letters, and virtue.”[424]

424 Ibid., p.124. Robres Lluch is unaware of this memorandum, which necessarily attenuates the bad inaccuracy produced by the reading of the one that provoked it.

Although these alleged grievances are denounced at the end of 1583, their general and ambiguous nature projects them into an immediate past that can easily extend to the academic year 1578-79, when Calasanz was studying Theology at the University at the age of twenty-one.

These complaints or accusations were followed by other similar ones, which finally triggered a new visitation reform carried out, after many vicissitudes, by Don Alonso Coloma, Valencian, canon of Seville, in 1598-1599. But twenty years had already passed since the theology student Joseph Calasanz Gastón had been in Valencia.

Calasanz in Valencia

From the first sketch of Calasanz’ biography with the ‘Breve Notizia’ of 1648 to the present day, there has been an unbroken tradition, supported by analysts, historians and biographers with their unpublished or printed works, that St. Joseph Calasanz studied Theology at the University of Valencia.[425] There is a first tradition, already recorded in writing in the aforementioned ‘Breve Notizia’, which names Valencia together with Lérida and Alcalá as the three Spanish universities at which the Holy Founder studied, without specifying what he studied at each university.

425 Cf. what is said in Ch. 4, n. 261 of this work.

This first tradition was later confirmed in more detail by Don Ascanio Simone - who had been a Piarist under the name Jerome of St. Agnes - in a declaration signed on October 6, 1659 before the notary Vincent Marco Perrone in Campi Salentina, in which he said

“Once I gave the venerable servant of God an account of conscience, and after we had discussed many things about the Spirit, he told me that at the age of twenty-one in Valencia, when he was studying Theology, he was incited to sin by a lady and that by the grace of the blessed God and his exalted Mother he escaped the snare that the devil had laid for him by leaving the woman who incited him to sin.”[426]

426 Cf. BAU, RV, p.40-41. Original Italian text in RegCal 28, 60.

The intimacy that lies in this confidence, the sobriety of the story and the notarial seriousness that confirms it are valid reasons for accepting the truth of the statement. However, the last great biographer, Father Bau, insisted on denying the presence of Calasanz in Valencia, against the evidence of the documentary testimonies, against the uninterrupted and unanimous tradition of three centuries and against his own opinion, which he had expressed earlier in his great work.[427] And probably the reason for his change of opinion was what he confessed of himself: “In Valencia somebody took the trouble to go through lists and papers, with an absolutely negative result.”[428]

427 Cf. BAU, BC, p.100-107. Bau’s fantasy overflows in the incredible interpretation he gives of D. Ascanio Simone’s statement (cf. BAU, RV, p.39-42; 321-324).

428 Cf. BAU, RV, p. 42. The meticulous, solidly documented and almost exhaustive studies made on the University of Valencia during the first half of the 16th century by Jordán Gallego Salvadores and Amparo Felipo, particularly the one entitled Grados concedidos por la Universidad de Valencia durante la primera mitad del s. XVI: Anal. Sacra Tarrac. 51-52 (1978-79) 323-380; 55-56 (1982-83) 7-105, leave open the door to the hope that something can still be found referring to the student Joseph de Calasanz, even if he did not pursue any academic degree. For this, we can expect another similar study, dedicated to ‘the second half of the 16th century

We have already established that silence in the official books is not an apodictic reason to deny the presence of certain students in university classrooms.[429] And specifically in relation to Valencia, we read - and translate - in Art. 1 of the Revised Constitutions of 1581:

429 Cf. ch. 4, n.24. If this argument were valid, it would have to be applied equally - in the case of Calasanz - to the other universities in which it is believed that he studied, that is, to the complete trio of Lérida-Valencia-Alcalá, and to any other possible one. But then, how could they have given him the unquestionable title of ‘Doctor of Theology’?

“First, since according to the Constitutions of the present University and General Studium of the present city of Valencia, students are obliged to enrol, and these Constitutions have not been observed in a manner suitable to prove this, it is therefore established and ordered that a book be kept, in the possession of the clerk of the hall, in which all shall be enrolled. And that only those be admitted to the examinations of the courses who are enrolled therein...”[430]

430 Cf. F. MIRALLES VIVES, o.c., p.115-116. The same can be seen in the General Estudi de Lérida, since in the Statutes reformed by the Rector F. Capdevila in 1579 we read: “nullus pro scholari habeatur et reputetur nisi in Libro Matriculae huius Universitatis fuerit adscriptus...” (cf. J. LLADONOSA, Humanisme i reformes a l’Estudi General de Lérida durant el s. XVI: VIII Congreso de Historia de la Corona de Aragón, III, II [Valencia 1973] p. 103).

According to the testimony of Don Ascanio Simone, Joseph Calasanz studied Theology in Valencia at the age of twenty-one, by early September 1578. His first theological course in Valencia therefore took place in 1578-79, two years before the above-mentioned Constitution.

In order to be able to start studying theology in Valencia, “it was necessary for the student to have studied Arts for three years and obtained the baccalaureate in it.”[431] Calasanz must have done this in the General Studium of Lérida, and he probably presented the certificate of recognition at the Chancellery of the University of Valencia. This recognition of previous studies was only granted between mutually “recognised” universities, such as Lérida, Alcalá and Salamanca, among others, in relation to Valencia.[432]

431 This was required by the Constitutions of 1561, art. 148 (cf. J. GALLEGO SALVADORES, La facultad de Teología en la Univ. de Valencia durante la primera mitad del s. XVI: Escritos del Vedat, 5 [1975] 97).

432 Here is the list of those recognized by Valencia: Rome, Bologna, Padua, Siena, Pisa, Perusa, Pavia, Naples, Ferrara, Turin, Louvain, Paris, Montpellier, Avignon, Bordeaux, Huesca, Lérida, Salamanca, Alcalá, Valladolid, Sigüenza, Toledo, Seville, Granada, Osuna and Coimbra (cf. A. PALANCA PONS, Historia de la Univ. durante los reinados de Carlos I y Felipe II (1515-1588): VIII Congreso de la Corona de Aragón, III, II, p.192). In the Constitutions or statutes of 1581 (art. 14) were added those of Barcelona and México (cf. F. MIRALLES VIVES, o.c., p.117).

During the academic year 1578-79, Andrew Tarazona was rector of the university,[433] and the following were professors in the Faculty of Theology: Michael John Lubiela (1551-79), John Blaise Navarro (1551-94), Joachim Mijavila (1551-86), Peter John Monzó (1574-89), Jacques Ferruz (1547-94), John Baptist Burgos (1558-82), Louis Istella (1566-84), Caspar Aldana (1576-93), Michael Bartolomew Salom (1569-98).[434] Of these, the first four are known to us as victims of the Inquisition trials promoted by Patriarch Ribera.

433 Cf. A. PALANCA PONS, o.c., p.187.

434 Ibid., p.203.

Calasanz, like others, was able to attend classes at the university and at the College of Saint Paul at the same time, all the more so because he did not have to graduate, as he only attended one course, it seems. In fact, the Jesuits said in a memorandum of 1569 that:

“... the students who hear in our college miss only two hours in the Studium, the rest they attend and hear there, so that they are not prevented from hearing one, two, three, four or five lectures there, without any other obligation for the theology course than one or two lectures, as is the case in all other universities...”[435] And since there were classes at the university “from morning till night, the college or the Religions, as they could neither read at a time that is read in the Studium, placed its two lectures at times less prejudicial to the Studium...”[436]

435 The Constitutions of the University of Valencia of 1561 prescribed, in effect, that: “Any student who wishes to have the time he studied Theology counted as a course for graduation from the present University, or to have a certificate of having attended the said Faculty, is obliged, during the four years of the Theology course, to hear each day a lesson from St. Thomas and one from the Four Books of Sentence of the Master or Durando, and during the last years a lesson from the Scripture each day. (cf. J. GALLEGO SALVADORES, La facultad de Teología en la Univ. de Valencia..., p.124).

436 Cf. R. ROBRES LLUCH, o.c., p.135.

And in view of the high esteem in which Calasanz held the Jesuits “since his youth”, it is logical to assume that he, like others of his companions, attended the two theology courses at St. Paul’s and defied the negative attitude of the professors of the Studium. Furthermore, the General of the Jesuits, who was very concerned about the good reputation of the College of Valencia, wrote to the rector Father Domenech in 1578:

“From the letters which Your Reverence has written to me, I have understood the good success of the theological studies in that college, and that only the reading of the Holy Scriptures was lacking..., I had appointed Father Baptist Ferrer to this office in Naples, but as the need of that college was present, I preferred it to the one here... Since Your Reverence knows what is conducive to peace with the University and the city, you will do what you consider more appropriate, whether students could come from outside or not.”[437]

437 Ibid., p.191.

The Visitator, Fr. Balthazar Alvarez, was also positive about the study of Theology, both in the College and in the University: “Here the studies are going well and are thus bearing fruit in the University because our students there have introduced good letters and the teachers there say that they read (teach) according to our notes.”[438] And Father Astrain, echoing the derogatory and personal judgment of another Visitator in 1567, commented: “The studies are not in the state in which Father Gil González Dávila had found them eleven years earlier.”[439]

438 Cf. A. ASTRAIN, o.c., III, p.89.

439 Ib., and n.404 of this chapter, with its corresponding text. It is not very evident that both this judgment and that of the previous Visitor refer to the University, as Father Astrain says expressly in the aforementioned n. 404. In both cases they seem to refer rather to the internal studies of the College.

It is interesting to note that the famous spiritual director of Saint Teresa, Father Balthazar Álvarez, began his visit to the College of Valencia in August 1578 and opened the Society’s professed house on March 25 of the following year.[440] Joseph Calasanz arrived in Valencia in October 1578 - at the age of twenty-one - and if he had visited the classrooms of the College of Saint Paul, he would certainly have known Father Balthazar Álvarez. But it would be an exaggeration to assume that he entrusted his “historical temptation” to him, although that cannot be ruled out.

440 Ibid., p.45-46.

The temptation of a lady

It is almost an obligatory question: Where did Calasanz live in Valencia? When he lived there, there were three colleges for theologians with scholarships. The first, founded in 1550 by St. Thomas of Villanova, was called the College of the Presentation of the Virgin and accepted ten students who were not only poor but also had to come from the diocese of Valencia. The second, called of the Assumption or “Na Monforta”, after the name of the founder, was founded in 1554 and could accept as many students as its income allowed, but they had to be from the founder’s family or from Valencia or the Kingdom of Valencia. The third, called de la Purificación, was founded in 1572 and was intended for the admission of relatives of the founder, Mosén Peter Rodríguez de la Vega. It seems that it never had a student. Given the conditions of admission, Joseph Calasanz could not have aspired to any of the three. The fourth in chronological order, more famous and better equipped, was Corpus Christi, founded by Patriarch Ribera and inaugurated in 1610, a far cry from the experience of the student from Peralta in the city of Valencia.[441]

441 On these Colleges of Valencia cf. R. ROBRES LLUCH, o.c., p.127-128; F. ORTÍ Y FIGUEROLA, o.c., p.69-74; A. PALANCA PONS, o.c., p.200-2O1; V. CÁRCEL ORTÍ, Notas sobre la formación sacerdotal en Valencia desde el s. XIII al XIX: Hispania Sacra, 27 (1974) 151-199.

Calasanz’s friendship with the Valencian Antony de Gallart y de Mongay, with whom he was in Lérida before going to Valencia, and with whom he met again in Lérida and later in the episcopal curia of Seo de Urgel, could make us think of a reception of Calasanz in the house of the Valencian’s relatives.[442] But there is no evidence of this.

442 Cf. J. POCH, Don Antonio de Gallart y de Mongay “bachiller en Derecho Canónico” por el Estudio General de Lérida: Ilerda, 27 (1963) 7-12. The hypothesis is proposed by Poch, Espiritualidad del clérigo José Calasanz, cursante de Teología en Valencia: PanEs 25-26 (1972) 282.

The sobriety of Father Ascanio Simone’s testimony does not allow us to speculate. But the account of the temptation printed in the ‘Breve Notizia’ adds new details:

“It happened that he had to perform the office of secretary to a very noble lady, who, observing his modesty and habits, became so infatuated with him that, having assigned her ladies to other duties, left alone in the bedroom and called our Calasanz, to whom she revealed his lascivious desires; but he, like another Joseph of Egypt, fled from that house to seek his confessor, and there resolved to enter the lady’s house no more, which he did.”[443]

443 Cf. BAU, RV, p.11.

One could assume that he lived in that house and that the office of secretary justified his presence and compensated for his expenses as a boarder. One could also assume that it was a well-paid job, but that he lived elsewhere. In any case, both witness statements do not deal with incidental details, but refer to the exemplary fact of the temptation being overcome. There was a third witness - Brother Lorenzo Ferrari - who confessed that he too had received the confidence of the Founder, saying:

“He once emphasised that we must beware of evil, and told me what had happened to a person whom he did not name, but I know it was he, because on another occasion he had revealed himself to one of our Fathers.[444] And even once he told me in confidence and for guidance. It so happened that when he was far away from here, in his native land, when he was a young man with a very advantageous job, of great interest and wealth in that place, a woman solicited him to do evil; and to escape the opportunity to sin, he left that place, heedless of the gain he gave up there.”[445]

444 It refers to Jerome of St Agnes, alias Ascanio Simone. And it is interesting to note that the declaration of Br. Ferrari is dated December 1652, while the notarial deposition of D. Ascanio is dated October 1659. Picanyol mistakenly wrote (cf. Rass 1 [1937] 58) that Fr. Silvester Bellei also made a similar declaration, preserved in the Arch. Gen., whose reference he does not indicate. But in this long statement (RegCal 14,62.6), nothing is said about it. Poch alludes to the cited testimony of Picanyol, accepting it well (cf. RevCal 12 [1957] 82, n.9).

445 Cf. BAU, BC, p.105.

He does not know where it happened, nor does the ‘Breve Notizia’, but the allusion to the other confident man, Ascanio Simone, implicitly locates the scene. Berro also alludes to the same witness in his memoirs and explicitly mentions Valencia, adding at the end of the story that “in order not to put himself in so much danger again, he too left the city.”[446] So, he not only leaves the lady and her house, but even the city of Valencia. According to traditional asceticism, flight is the best remedy in such cases. And the young Calasanz, twenty-one years old, was radical in this.

446 “Studying (as far as I remember having heard from one of our priests, who heard from the same mouth of our Father on the occasion of an exhortation, which he made to him in private) in Valencia he took honourable service as secretary with a noble and honoured Lady.... but our chaste student at the age of 21 or a little more... so as not to incur another time in such grave danger he also left the city” (BERRO I, p. 56-57) In this transcription we read ‘first’ instead of ‘one of ours’ and ‘24 instead of 21’, by mistake.

This temptation could have happened anywhere.[447] But it happened right in Valencia, whose women were admired by friends and strangers alike for their beauty, their clothes and... their lasciviousness.[448]

447 And Fr. Bau, deleting Valencia from the life of Calasanz, had to move the scene with the lady to another place and spoke of Barbastro, Jaca, Lérida... (cf. BAU, RV, p.39; ID., Estudió en la Universidad de Valencia San Joseph de Calasanz? Ruta 25 [1962] 16-19; ID., La Carrera Universitaria de San Joseph de Calasanz: Ruta 27 [1963] 26-30).

448 Here is a bouquet of praises: Alonso de Proaza, in the Cancionero General (1511), says of Valencia: “De damas lindas, hermosas / En el mundo muy loada” (cf. Valencia. Antología, Taurus [Madrid 1969], p.18 ); Cervantes, in Trabajos de Persiles y Segismunda: “beautiful and rich [Valencia] above all the cities, not only of Spain, but of all Europe; and they mainly praised the beauty of its women” (ibid., p.18); “to the eye the damas are the most beautiful and most luxurious and pleasant that can be seen” (A. DE LALAING, Primer viaje de Felipe el Hermoso a España en 1501: J. GARCÍA MERCADAL, Viajes de extranjeros por España y Portugal, I, p.477); “the women [of Valencia], although they are the most frolicsome and lascivious of Spain, are friends of good manners and with their spirit they have a certain beauty...” (E. COCK, o.c., in ib., p.1408); “the ladies are seen there [in Valencia] superbly dressed, adorned, painted, looking like goddesses” (B. YOLY, Viaje por España: ib., II, p.74); “The women [of Valencia], who are known to be, because of the climate, of a very amorous complexion” (ibid., p.75).

The ‘Breve Notizia’ goes into detail that the young man “fled from that house in search of his confessor and there decided...” The implication suggests that he had “his” confessor or spiritual director. And if he attended classes at St. Paul’s, it can be assumed that it was one of the Jesuits “his confessor” who advised him to flee Valencia and move to Alcalá, where he would find a Jesuit school of theology as well as the University. However, it is likely that the escape was not hasty and that the wisdom and common sense of the director and Calasanz decided to finish the course.

And before leaving Valencia, he walked through the ´Plaza de la Seo´ one last time to lovingly greet Our Lady, the Mother of the Innocent and Abandoned. And from the depths of his childhood memories, perhaps Berceo’s verses would come to the surface:

“Tu, Madre gloriosa, siempre seas laudada….

Líbranos del diablo, de la su çancaiada…

Tú nos guía, Sennora, enna derecha vida…

Guárdanos de mal colpe e de mala caída...”

“You, glorious mother, always be praised...

Deliver us from the devil, from his cunning...

You lead us, Our Lady, to a right life...

Keep us from evil and the evil fall...”

And perhaps he seemed to hear from Our Lady´s mouth:

“Yo cerca ti estando, tu non ayas pavor...”

“I am close to you, do not be afraid...”

In Alcalá de Henares

It is necessary to recall once again that the unanimous and uninterrupted tradition of historians and chroniclers, starting with the contemporaries and confidants of the Saint Founder, testifies that he completed his higher studies at the three universities of Lérida, Valencia and Alcalá.[449] It is true that there are other testimonies that confirm his presence in the university halls of Lérida and Valencia, while with regard to Alcalá we can only rely on the unanimity of the voices that tirelessly repeat the Lérida-Valencia-Alcalá trinomial. Even the unsuccessful attempt to find the name of Calasanz in the official registers of the Complutense University does not prevent us from admitting this written tradition. The same happens in the books of Lérida and Valencia. In addition, a long line of historical figures of our national culture studied in Alcalá, whose names also do not appear in the official books, as we have already mentioned.[450] So, there is no reason to deny the presence of the cleric from Peralta de la Sal at the University of Cisneros.

449 Cf. Chapter IV, n.261.

450 Cf. Chapter IV, n.283 and 284.

In the past, the academic year at all universities began on St. Luke’s Day (October 18th) and ended on St. John’s Day (June 24th). It is natural that the student Joseph Calasanz spent the four months of the official vacation at home when he was studying in nearby Lérida. But it is not so logical to assume that he returned to Peralta from distant Valencia in the summer of 1579. It could be that he was looking for paid employment during those empty months and found it in the house of that anonymous lady from whom he had to part after being tempted and even decided to leave Valencia. In reality, we cannot be sure whether he went to Alcalá de Henares, from Valencia or from Peralta de la Sal.

A Degree from the universities of Alcalá and Salamanca was one of the aspirations of every Spanish student of the Golden Age. The literature of the time and even the proverbs reflect a general mentality of glorification and mythical fame of the two prestigious Castilian universities. And Joseph Calasanz also directed his steps to Alcalá with enthusiasm.

The city was like a big village compared to the big city of Turia. But the university building was truly magnificent. The beautiful Plateresque façade, the work of the great Rodrigo Gil de Hontañón, was almost finished, as was the central Herrerian courtyard, called “trilingual”. The Paraninfo, with its Mudejar coffered ceiling and Plateresque tribune, remained from the original Cisnerian building. In the adjoining church of St. Ildefonse, he could admire the magnificent tomb of the cardinal-founder, one of the most precious jewels of Spanish Renaissance sculpture, and in the crypt of the Magisterial Church he venerated the relics of the two martyred brothers Justus and Pastor, whom he remembered many years later when he proposed them as role models to the children of his Pious Schools.

A late tradition speaks of the friendship between Joseph Calasanz and the future Cardinal Ascanio Colonna in the classrooms of Complutense, as valuable information to explain the reception of Calasanz, as soon as he arrived in Rome, in the princely palace of Colonna.[451] Father Bau adopted this tradition in his ‘Critical Biography’, saying that Colonna and Calasanz “studied Sacred Theology together in Alcalá in the three-year period from 1578 to 1580.”[452] However, the official books of the University of Alcalá record that Sir Ascanio Colonna asked to be awarded the degree of Bachelor of Arts in May 1577.[453] And at the beginning of 1578 he is registered in the University of Salamanca’s record as a “law student” and remains enrolled until the academic year 1581-82.[454] His stay in Alcala was therefore very short and he was unable to meet Calasanz, who was probably at this university during the 1579-80 course.

451 When in 1710 the Vita of Armini was published, there is still no mention of this fact (cf. o.c., p.16-19). But it already appears in Talenti’s Vita, in 1753: “ At that time there was for this purpose, among others, D. Ascanio Colonna, later Cardinal and Viceroy of Aragón, and soon made friendship with Joseph for the rare gifts that he saw in him.” (o.c, p.12).

452 Cf. BAU, BC, p.109. In his later Revision, he not only eliminated Valencia as the Center of studies of Calasanz, but also Alcalá, ignoring the unanimous testimonies that go from the Breve Notizia of 1648 to the Vita of Armini, of 1710 (cf. BAU, RV, p.39).

453 And he adduces as a reason that “he has heard three courses of Arts in three years, which are from Saint Luke of seventy-three to Saint Luke of seventy-six” and “in the said three years he heard many lessons in the Sapientia of Rome” (cf. R. M. DE HORNEDO, Lope en los Estudios de la Compañía de Jesús en Madrid: Razón y Fe, 108 [1935] 60-61, n. 14).

454 Cf. ibid. In these enrollment books there are anomalies, since the book of 1580-81 has disappeared and in the one of 1582-83 the sheet corresponding to the nobles, on which the Colonna should appear, is missing. In the one of 1583-84 he no longer appears among those enrolled. He himself assures that he studied theology and pontifical and imperial law in Salamanca. Cf. also for more data on this personage J. LÓPEZ NAVÍO, Ambiente histórico y social en que vivió San Jose de Calasanz: AnCal 26 (1971) 240-253. He quotes and provides data from the aforementioned study by Hornedo.

The University and its Colleges

As in Lérida and Valencia, the University in Alcalá also had its problems. For this reason, the Bishop of Cartagena, Mgr. Gómez Zapata, had ended his reform Visitation in 1578.[455]

455 Cf. C. AJO Y SAINZ DE ZÚÑIGA, Historia de las Universidades Hispánicas, II, D.298.

In the academic year 1579-80, when Calasanz was probably studying his second year of theology, there were the following professors: Dr. John Ruiz de Villarán held the Chair of Prima, Saint Thomas, in the years 1571-87. He was later appointed Bishop of Lugo. The Chair of Escoto was held by Dr. John Calderón from 1570 to April 1579 and from then until 1591 by Dr. Lawrence Asensio de Otadui, who was later Magistral Canon of Cuenca and successively Bishop of Lugo and Ávila. The third major Chair, which until 1573 was the Chair of Nominals or Gabriel Biel, became the Chair of Sentences and was occupied by Father Jerome de Almonacir O. P. from 1573 to November 1580, followed by Dr. Martin de Garnica, who held it from November 1580 to 1587. The Chair of Sacred Scripture was held by Dr. John Cantero from 1570 to November 1580, who was succeeded by the aforementioned Father Almonacid. The Old Testament was taught during the academic year 1579-80.

Of the three minor chairs, that of Scotus was abolished in 1550; that of St. Thomas was occupied by Father Thomas de Guzmán O. P. in 1577-87, and that of Durando was occupied by Dr. Martin de Garnica from March 1578 to February 1581.[456]

456 Cf. V. BELTRÁN DE HEREDIA, La teología en la Universidad de Alcalá: Rev.Esp. de Teol., 5 (1945) 501-527.

In order to be admitted to the second year of theology, the student Joseph Calasanz had to certify that he had already studied the first year at a “recognised” university, such as that of Valencia in relation to Alcalá. For this reason, before leaving the General Studium of Valencia, he had to obtain the corresponding certificate, which listed the studies he had completed and the professors who had taught him, and which was confirmed by two witnesses.[457]

457 For example, dated June 23, 1546, it is certified that Gonzalo Muñoz has studied two years of Theology under the teaching of John de Celaya and Jerome Pérez. And like this one, another ٥٢ certificates can be seen in J. GALLEGO-A. FELIPO, Grados concedidos por la Universidad de Valencia durante la primera mitad del s. XVI: Anal.Sac. Tarrac., 55-56 (1982-83) 79-83.

Like all universities, the University of Alcalá also had Major and Minor colleges for the residence of scholars. The essential requirements for admission were the same: they had to be clerics and poor.[458]

458 Cf. F. MARTIN HERNANDEZ, La formación clerical en los Colegios universitarios españoles, p.89-94.

And it was this last condition that probably prevented Calasanz from being admitted. If he was admitted, it was either to the Major College of St. Ildefonse or the Minor College of the Mother of God, as these were the only two for theologians at the time.[459] There were others for grammarians and others for philosophers, in addition to those of the Cistercians, Dominicans, Augustinians, Trinitarians, Mercedarians, Carmelites and Jesuits. However, the vast majority of students, both clerics and lay men, lived in boarding houses, as Joseph Calasanz must have done.

459 Cf. ibid., p.XLVIII; C. AJO Y SAINZ DE ZÚÑIGA, o.c., II, p.303.

The Jesuits and the University

It became customary for the Jesuits to introduce “two lessons of theology” for their own religious students in some of the more important colleges. We have already seen that this was the case in the College of Saint Paul in Valencia in 1567. In the same year they were also introduced in Plasencia,[460] in 1573 in the Imperial College of Madrid[461] and in 1586 also in Salamanca.[462]

460 Cf. B. ALCÁZAR, Chrono-Historia de la Compañía de Jesús en la Provincia de Toledo (Madrid 1710) vol. II, p.159.

461 Cf. R. M. DE HORNEDO, o.c, p.63, n.16.

462 Cf. J. BARRIENTOS GARCÍA, Pleito de la Compañía de Jesús con la Universidad de Salamanca (1586-1603): Studia Zamorensia, VIII (1986) 466. In all these cases it is spoken expressly about “two lessons of Theology”.

In the cities where there was no university, there were no particular difficulties. But in the cities where they did exist, there were sometimes serious conflicts when they opened the doors so that students attending the university could hear the classes. We have already seen the conflict that arose in Valencia in 1567 and which lasted practically a century.

Almost twenty years after the conflict in Valencia, a similar conflict began in Salamanca in the academic year 1586-87, which lasted seventeen years. As in Valencia, the rights and privileges of the Jesuits clashed with the Statutes of the University.[463]

463 In the very well-documented study cited in the previous note, we follow step by step the whole conflict, so similar to that of Valencia.

It seems that the first experience was in Alcalá, but mutual understanding and even mutual admiration ensured harmony and peace between the College and the University. Father Alcazar writes:

“...in the College of Alcalá our studies blossomed marvellously and grew to be imitated in the other religious families. There was no case in this University of classes or acts taking place outside the university until Father M. Deza [Father Master Alonso Deza] began to read in our College in 1559... Since then, private lectures were held every day... and public conclusions every eight days, led by Fr. Deza... The major Acts began with a general one for all the Arts in 1563, presided over by Father M. Gil González. Already in the year 64, Father M. Deza presided over another great act of theology for Br. Alonso de Montoya, to which the Lecturers and Doctors were also invited, who were admired no less for the novelty than for the great letters (knowledge) of ours, and praised the Society, whose example the other Religions began to follow by introducing Lessons and Acts in their Colleges.[464] In ours the vesper lesson was added in the year 65, with which Father John de Lobera made a beginning... until now [1568], when Father Gil González, who went to visit Aragón, took him to read theology in Valencia: and Father John Azor followed him in his Chair, reading from one to two, because it did not coincide with the University. Father M. Deza’s lesson was from ten to eleven o´clock and coincided with the university’s scripture lesson... In the year 67, Doctor Alonso de Mendoza, after entering the Chair of Scripture, since the university was depopulated at that time, to hear Fr. M. Deza in our house[465], went to the Court to complain, and obtained a determination from the Council that Fr. Deza should change the hour... [There were protests from the students, but...] our people, ‘so as not to upset the university’, negotiated with the students... and out of ‘kindness to the university’ changed Fr. Deza’s hour from seven to eight in the morning... and in spite of it was so uncomfortable, especially in winter, it was no less frequented by religious, theologians and students. So, the classroom had to be extended by another room, and even that was not enough because the whole corridor was filled with listeners. And because it was not yet dawn on some mornings, they all had their candles with them to light up.”[466]

464 Perhaps it was so in Alcalá, but in Valencia, the Statutes of 1563 already prohibited the university students from going out to hear lessons in the convents of the Franciscans and Augustinians, before the Jesuits opened their classrooms to the public in 1567 (cf. R. ROBRES LLUCH. o.c., 131). And in Salamanca, the university students also went to the Dominicans of Saint Stephen in the fifties (ibid.).

465 When in 1586 the conflict arose in Salamanca “there were already more than 150 theologian students who came to listen to the lessons of the College of the Society” and it was feared that “the school would be left without students” (cf. J. BARRIENTOS GARCÍA, o.c., p.467).

466 B. ALCÁZAR, oc., p.201-202.

We still consider it very likely that the theology student Joseph Calasanz was one of the many students who went to the Jesuit College at dawn with a candle in their hand to listen to the “anteprima” lesson in the years 1579-80. Later, between one and two o´clock, he would return for the lesson of Vespers.

This lesson of vespers was held by Father Azor for ten years until he was appointed Rector of the College of Alcalá at the end of February 1578, “and Father Alonso de Sandoval took over the Chair of Sacred Scripture.”[467] The other Chair of scholasticism was occupied “at the beginning of the year 79” by the famous theologian Gabriel Vázquez, “who read them to those at home, and in the year 83 he began to explain them to outsiders.”[468] And we do not know - if that’s exactly how it was - who read it to the outsiders in the 1579-80 course and in the following years. Perhaps the old Father Deza, together with his illustrious disciple Vázquez, until the fall of 1580, when he was elected delegate for the General Congregation, in the Provincial Congregation held in Alcalá.[469]

467 Ibid., p.548. In October 1580 he attended the Provincial Congregation in Alcalá as rector of Murcia (cf. ibid., p.641). We do not know the exact time he occupied the Chair of Scripture.

468 Cf. ibid., p.243. In 1570 he had begun his studies of theology in that same college of Alcalá, and of him Alcázar says: “he heard one lesson in the University and the others in our College, where he had as teachers Fathers Alonso Deza and John Azor, worthy of such a distinguished disciple” (ibid., p.242).

469 Cf. ibid., p.641-642.

Once again, our theology student from Peralta had the opportunity to deal with Father Baltasar Álvarez, because after being appointed Provincial, “he began his Visitation in the year [1580] to the professed house of Toledo, from where he went to the College of Alcalá.”[470]

470 Ibid., p.620. In mid-July he was in Belmonte and died that same summer.

He was Provincial after Father Antonio Cordeses, who held the office from the end of 1573 until the same date in 1579, so that Joseph Calasanz could easily get to know him personally during the first semester of his course in 1579-80 in Alcalá. We will come back to this holy man, for he will reappear in Calasanz’s religious experience during his first years in Rome. Father Alcázar wrote about him: “This Father was one of the most perfect and complete men in every kind of virtue that our Religion has ever had, adorned with wisdom, zeal for souls, love of neighbour and love of God, and everything that one could wish for in a perfect religious and complete superior.”[471]

471 Ibid., p.447.

Historical circumstances enabled the young Calasanz to get to know these two formidable figures of the Society personally, whose memory influenced the esteem, respect and veneration he felt for the Jesuits throughout his life. Father Astrain wrote of them both: “Two truly holy men who were among the most important to honour the Society in Spain at that time were Fathers Antony Cordeses and Balthazar Álvares. Few religious were equal to these two men in fervour of spirit, in humility, in prudence and in all virtues.”[472]

472 Cf. A. ASTRAIN, o.c., III2, p.185.

The unrest of Ribagorza

One day in 1579, Calasanz received the unexpected news that his brother Peter had died. What had happened?

It was an old story that had been known in Peralta for years, although it did not concern him directly. Relations between the Count of Ribagorza and his vassals had become so strained in the last years of Charles V’s reign that the General Council of the County had dictated the extinction of the feudal lordship. The legitimacy of the counts’ titles was legally examined in court and in June 1554 it was concluded “that the fiefdom of the County of Ribagorza was under the direct rule and alodial lordship of His Majesty.”[473] The expropriated Count of Ribagorza, Don Martin de Gurrea y Aragón, Duke of Villahermosa, filed a lawsuit before the Justice of Aragón to defend his legitimate rights. The Court seized the state while it waited for a final judgement, which was handed down in Don Martin’s favour in 1567.

473 Cf. MARQUÉS DE PIDAL, Historia de las alteraciones de Aragón en el reinado de Felipe II (Madrid 1862) vol. I, p.121.

It was already the time of Philip II, who was not pleased with the judgement of the Justice of Aragón, which was so contrary to his claims. The incorporation of the vast County of Ribagorza into the Crown was indeed one of his political obsessions, and he would not stop until he had achieved it. It was a large border area with France, through which an invasion was even feared. Huguenots were invading, heretical books were being traded, smugglers were very active and the criminal activities of bandits were encouraged by bastard interests or by force. And all these dangers and abuses could not be avoided as long as the counts retained their rights to rule, which limited the absolute power of the monarchy.

The obvious desire to annex the historic County to the crown also had another powerful defender: the Count of Chinchón, Treasurer General of the Supreme Council of Aragón, confidant of Philip II. Doña Luisa Pacheco, his wife’s sister, had married Don John de Gurrea y Aragón in 1564, the first-born son of the Count of Ribagorza and Duke of Villahermosa, to whom his father Don Martin had ceded his titles and dominions. However, in 1572, Doña Luisa was murdered by her own husband on serious suspicion of adultery and fled to Italy. He was captured in Milan and taken to Torrejón de Velasco near Madrid, where he was put on trial in 1573 and sentenced to the “garrotte vile” in the market square. His titles and dominions were returned to his father, but out of all this “grew [in the Count of Chinchón] a hatred against the County of Ribagorza.”[474]

474 Ibid., p.74-80.

In the following years, the atmosphere became increasingly tense and the protests against the Count and his representatives increased, under the pretext that their privileges were not being respected, but deep down there was an attitude of revolt to achieve emancipation from the lordly power. Don Martin tried to satisfy his vassals as much as possible, but their demands were so high that a peaceful solution was impossible. “The feudal lord’s refusal, in a sense willed and forced by his vassals, meant, as the mood was, the final break between the parties and the beginning of the rebellion.”[475] And it did not take long for it to break out.

475 Cf. G. COLAS-J. A. SALAS, Aragón en el siglo XVI. Alteraciones sociales y conflictos políticos (Zaragoza 1982) p.128.

When the Count once again summoned the General Council to his castle in Benabarre, the assistants prevented the celebration, surrounded the castle and forced the Count and his two sons to leave the town.[476] This dramatic scene marked the beginning of “the most important anti-lordship movement in Aragón and thus the first “civil war” of Ribagorza. The ruling interests divided the people of Ribagorza into two antagonistic sides that fought each other fiercely for years.”[477] But it was not simply an anti-lordship movement of vassals against lords, nor did it involve forces loyal to the counts and elements sympathetic to the interests of the monarchy. It was a very complex rebellion, with members of the lesser nobility sympathizing with the rebels, although the majority supported the earl. The clergy was also divided on both sides. And on both sides, there were also criminals, assassins, and bandits who were hired as mercenaries.

476 V. BLASCO DE LANUZA, Historias eclesiásticas y seculares de Aragón (Zaragoza 1662) t.II, p.53.

477 Cf. G. COLAS-J. A. SALAS, o.c., p.129.

As soon as the Count and his sons were expelled, the mutineers of Benabarre formed their own government and appointed John de Ager, Antony Calasanz and John Gil de Macián as representative syndics. The former was an ‘infanzón’ of Calasanz who took power into his own hands and, under the pretext of ensuring justice and cleansing the territory of all kinds of miscreants, imposed his will as the sole criterion to justify his personal revenge and criminal excesses. Contemporary writers and witnesses report his misdeeds: “John de Ager killed and murdered most of those who did not join his rebellion”; “under the guise of justice, [he] avenged some particular offenses. And he showed this more and more among the people of Benabarre”; “he had more than 20 and even 30 people executed in it [the city of Graus] without restraint”; “in the ten years it took to put the country in revolt, he arrested and killed those he thought deserved it, without any other or further trial than to say that his mind was satisfied.”[478]

478 Cf. ibid., p.132-133.

This reign of terror lasted ten years, and since John de Ager died in 1587, the revolt began in 1577.[479] Joseph Calasanz, first a student and later a priest, was probably much more interested in these events than in the wanderings of the Flemish and Sicilian Tercios on the roads of Europe, the progress of the conquests in the lands of America or the naval battles and new discoveries in almost all the seas of the world.

479 “For many years (between 1578 and 1589 approximately) revenge, death, murder and injustice of all kinds dominated in Ribagorza” (ibid., p. 132).

The death of his brother Peter

From Benabarre, the rebellion spread like a shock wave throughout the county and even crossed its borders, invading the lands of the House of Castro. The Prior of Roda, Don Louis de Villalpando, a contemporary of the events, wrote in his Relación:

“...the representatives arrested many in Ribagorza and its borders and sentenced them to death, others to flogging and still others to exile. In Calasanz they hanged two or three men, and in Benabarre they flogged others whose names I do not know. Others in Cornudella, Areny, Vall de Lierp, etc. Seeing no punishment, they do more every day... and now the ‘Land of Castro is half-raised up because the procurator of the House of Castro has seized two men from the village of Aler... seized them and brought them as prisoners to Estadilla; the representatives went with many people, ‘both from the county of Ribagorza and from the country of Castro’, and by force they released the said prisoners and now they go with the said representatives, etc. All this was perpetrated in the years 1579, 1580 and 1581.”[480]

480 Cf. J. POCH, The Founder of the Pious Schools in the Ecclesiastical History of the Crown of Aragón: AnCal 20 (1968) 256, n.

As can be seen, there were also supporters of “the “lords” and partisans of the rebels in the lands of Castro. In this long conflict, the Lords of Castro, Barons of La Laguna, were always on the side of the Counts of Ribagorza, Dukes of Villahermosa, until the extinction of the county and its incorporation into the Crown at the end of the century.[481] It is therefore logical to assume that the Calasanz family of Peralta was a supporter of the Lords of Castro, who had distinguished them by placing their trust in Peter, the head of the family, who was at the head of the Barony of Peralta for more than thirteen years (1559-1572), as Local and General Bayle.[482] It is probable that Peter Calasanz, the son and heir of the family, went on one of the troop recruitments of the lands of Castro to fight the mutineers and that he died in a scuffle; or that he became a victim of the insurgents out of revenge or out of hatred to the supporters of the lords of Castro. The fact is that he died in these riots in Ribagorza in 1579.

481 In a report of 1588, received at the Court, we read: “as for Ribagorça, the Duke of Villahermosa [Count of Ribagorza] on 7th of this month, from Benavarre where he was, sent 400 men whose leaders were that of Concas, that of La Pinilla, the Baron of La Laguna’ [Lord of Castro], Captain Agut, French, and Lupercio Latrás to surround and fight one hundred men of the partiality of the land...” (cf. G. COLAS - J. A. SALAS, o.c., p.146).

482 Cf. J. POCH, Aportación documental a la historia de la Universidad de Huesca durante la segunda mitad del s. XVI: AnCal 15 (1966) 236, n.

In fact, during his visit to Peralta in 1677, Father Louis Cavada collected a lot of news about the Saint’s family, including this one, which he recalled in writing in 1690: “The eldest [son of Peter Calasanz and Mary Gaston] was called Peter Calasanz... and he died in the years of our Lord 1579, without leaving an heir, while his father lived.”[483] A contemporary account of the events of 1579 states:

483 It literally says: “was killed ‘in the incursions’ of Ribagorza in the year of the Lord 1579” (RegCal 13,6.2). It is curious that he remembered and translated literally the word “salidas, partite, (incursions)” which was already used by contemporaries of the events, as in this paragraph, one more, referring to John of Ager: “to show his passion against some individuals who for their own pretensions with the title of the governor punished and took the lives of many without guilt and in particular made ‘fuertes sallidas’ (strong incursions) with some of the people of the town of Benabarre, moved on the one hand because they were defending the right of the Duke and on the other because of particular claims, and so some suffered death, others banishment, others loss of their goods or estates and finally it began the dissension and the unrest of that town” (cf. G. COLAS - J. A. SALAS, o.c., p. 132)

“They killed Peter Ballonga, the tailor of Montañana, one of Peralta de la Sal, a son of the lord of Blancafort; Pallargas was shot in prison and so was the tailor of Benabarre and a gunner and another man of Fontova. They also killed the Vicar of Santa Liestra. In Vacamorta, they killed a priest named Mosén Collada and threw him down a cliff after his death. In Benabarre, they shot with harquebus a clergyman named Mosén Spinosa and he remained dead. In the town of Calasanz, they hanged two men without trial... The priests and preachers do not dare to reprimand them for the insults, deaths and damage caused by the representatives in the country...”[484]

484 Cf. J. POCH, El Fundador..., p.255, n

Without being able to confirm it with certainty, it seems possible that the one from Peralta de la Sal was Peter Calasanz Gastón, whose brother Joseph was studying theology in Valencia or in Alcalá de Henares that year.

Return to Peralta and the providencial illness

The sad news undoubtedly moved Joseph. It was not just a tragedy due to the violent circumstances of the death, but a kind of family catastrophe: The universal heir had died without a successor. The father was once again confronted with the question of the will. Of the three sons he had had, only one was left. And only he could carry on the descendants, the family name and the family fortune. But this last son was studying theology to become a priest. Neither he nor his wife had probably ever objected to his son Joseph’s early vocation. Even in his first will, written in 1571 after the death of his first-born son and heir John, he had expressed his hope that the younger Joseph would become a priest, and he had stipulated “that if he should become a clergyman, he would receive a sufficient fortune to ascend to holy orders, if he did not have already a benefice.”[485]

485 Cf. J. POCH, Tres Testamentos..., p.446.

But now things had changed. He consulted with his wife, who apparently also agreed to call their son to Peralta, to end his career and his priestly illusions, to make him the universal heir to their entire fortune and almost force him to marry in order to continue the male line, the surname Calasanz. This decision must have come to Joseph’s attention along with the bitter news of his brother’s death and his request to return home. But Joseph’s stance was unwavering: he renounced the inheritance, even if this necessarily meant marriage and the associated renunciation of the priesthood. In 1651, two elderly farmers from Peralta de la Sal, relatives of the Gastons, testified to this with an oath. John Gaseu said: “After Peter Calasanz, his brother and heir to his parents’ house and estate, died without children, the said parents wanted to make Joseph Calasanz heir to their goods and estate, and he did not want that, and that is true.” And John Lajanuy, aged seventy-one, testified, “that after the death of the said Peter Calasanz, his brother, the parents wished to make the said Doctor Calasanz heir to their estate, and that he did not wish to do so, and this is true.”[486] Father Cavada explicitly alluded to the planned marriage in his memoirs of 1690, quoted earlier,[487] saying that his father “for this reason sought to marry our venerable Father as soon as possible.”

486 Cf. RegCal 13,6-8. On the kinship of the two witnesses cf. J. POCH, Tres testamentos..., p.455. The text adduced by Poch (ibid., p.456) and the one quoted by Bau (BC, p.114) are not precise.

487 Cf. previous n. 106.

Not only did he refuse the marriage and inheritance, but he continued his studies at the university, intending to finish that year 1579-1580, or perhaps his entire career. But soon afterwards he received a second piece of news that was even more bitter than the first: his mother had died. New requests from his father prompted him to leave Alcalá de Henares and make his way to Peralta.

The old testimonies unanimously report three elements that must in some way break the knot of this drama: the return of Calasanz to Peralta, a very serious illness that almost brings him to the grave, and a conditional vow to become a priest if he gets out of danger, which is accepted by his father, who gives him his full consent. The three plain elements must have come as confidences of the elder Founder to his sons, who were curious and inquisitive. But there is no unanimity in the consideration of these elements. The first to speak of this was Father Bonaventura Catalucci in the famous “Breve Notizia”. After speaking of Lérida, Valencia and Alcalá and describing the temptation of the Lady (without saying where it took place), he begins a new paragraph with the words: “He returned to his homeland”; he crosses it out and writes: “Before his return”; he also crosses it out and continues: “He became seriously ill and after vowing to become a priest, he suddenly recovered, returned to his homeland and was ordained in minor orders.”[488] The initial doubts mirror those of the first witnesses. In fact, Berro and Fedele follow this version of Catalucci, while Mussesti and Bianchi, among others, said that he returned to his homeland, became seriously ill, took a vow and was cured.[489] Others are content to recall that during a serious illness he vowed to become a priest and was healed.[490] The fact that so many testimonies insist on these facts shows the importance attached to them.

488 Cf. BAU, RV. p.11 and photocopy of the original document in BAU, BC. p.117.

489 Cf. these testimonies and others in BAU, RV, p.343-348.

490 Cf. BAU, BC, p.113.

If we have to choose between these versions, the second one seems the most logical: Joseph finishes his second course in theology and returns to his village. His father and perhaps also his sisters continue to insist that he renounce his priestly career, marry and give the Calasanz family, his father, heirs and descendants. The psychological tension in the poor young man of twenty-three, exacerbated by the death of his mother and brother, leads to a serious illness. The sick man seizes the providential situation to present his father with a kind of dilemma: either a dead son or a living son, but a priest, and in both cases without hope of offspring. And the father accepted: better a living son, priest. And he was right.

That night, as he looked up at the sky of Peralta, he must have heard in his soul the echo of an ancient divine promise: “Look up to the sky and count the stars, if you can count them… So shall your descendants be.” (Gen 15:5) And for almost four centuries, thousands upon thousands of adults and hundreds of thousands of children will call Father to the son of Peter Calasanz, who was fearing that his lineage would end with him.

Back in Lérida

The long illness caused him to lose one course. But in this year of inactivity at home, he became aware of the harrowing situation in which the people found themselves, caused by two practically intertwined factors: Banditry and subversion or “civil war”. His own brother had been one of the victims and no one could assure him that his father would not also be one of the victims one day, since he had maintained close relations with the lords of Castro during his long years at the head of the bailiff of Peralta.

His father had given him consent to take up the ecclesiastical career, but he could also tell him - or he understood it himself - that, given his advanced age and the turbulent atmosphere that was in the air, he should not stray too far from Peralta so that he could come quickly when the time was right. It is a hypothesis, but without it we can hardly explain why he did not return to Alcalá to finish his theology and do his doctorate. However, he decided to go to Lérida, a day’s journey from Peralta, and was content to finish the two missing years of theology at this University, which he had originally ruled out for such studies. Moreover, when he was ordained a priest, instead of going to his own diocese of Urgel, he would seek employment in the dioceses of Lérida and Barbastro, which would allow him to live within a short radius of his village until his father’s death. And only then would he cut his ties and put himself at the service of his diocese, far away from Peralta.

The summer of 1581 came to an end and in mid-October he set off for Lérida. He knew it well. On St. Luke’s Day, as always, the new course began. He had to present the certificates of studies completed at the “recognised” universities of Valencia and Alcalá, including the title of Bachelor of Arts from Lérida, and he enrolled in the third course of theology.

Lérida had never stood out for its theology faculty. As late as 1557, there were only two Chairs there: the so-called “Conchillos”, which had its own funds and was not dependent on the Pahería,[491] and another. As at other universities, they were called the “ Chair of Prima”, which began at eight in the morning, and the “Chair of Vespers”, which took place at four in the afternoon, to which a third was added in May 1560.[492]

491 James Conchillos was bishop of Lérida (1513-1542) and founded a Chair of theology with a capital of one thousand gold ducats (cf. J. LLADONOSA, Humanisme i reformes a l’Estudi General de Lérida durante el s. XVI: VIII Congreso de Historia de la Corona de Aragón, III, II, p.89).

492 Cf. P. SANAHUJA, OFM, La universidad de Lérida y los franciscanos: Archivo Ibero Americano 7 (1947) 205-206.

When the Dutchman Henry Cock travelled through Lérida in 1585, he noted in his diary: “The city has a very famous Academy in which there are four theological professors.”[493] In 1565, there were indeed already four Chairs of Theology, Prima, Vespers, St. Thomas and Durando.[494] The first two were probably dedicated to the Master of Sentences, according to Spanish tradition, while the other two were dedicated to the Angelic Doctor, even the last one, despite its name.[495] The Chair of Holy Scriptures did not exist until 1603.[496]

493 Cf. J. GARCÍA MERCADAL, Viajes de extranjeros por España y Portugal, vol. I, p.1342.

494 Cf. M. ANDREW, La teología española en el s. XVI (BAC, Madrid 1976), vol. I, p.40.

495 Cf. ibid., p.32 and 40.

496 In a document of the Supreme Council of Aragon (ACA, leg. 345) dated April 7, 1603, we read: “it is not long ago that Scripture is taught in Lérida”.

After his university experiences in Valencia and Alcalá, he had to note the contrast both in the number of chairs - eight in Valencia and six in Alcalá, plus the “two optional lessons” of the respective Jesuit university - and in the number of students, which in these cities exceeded two thousand, while in Lérida there were only a few hundred, as we have seen. However, the importance attached to the teaching of St. Thomas was also evident here, as we have seen in Valencia and Alcalá.

In the General Studium of Lérida, Joseph Calasanz thus studied the last two years of theology that he lacked, i.e. the academic courses of 1581-82 and 1582-83. Probably in the first semester of the academic year 1583-84 he completed the academic exercises required to obtain the degree of “Bachelor in Theology”, the only degree he obtained at that time in that faculty,[497] without knowing why he did not continue to the doctorate. In the second semester, precisely on February 10, 1584, we already find him as a “familiar” of the Bishop of Barbastro, Friar Philip de Urríes y Urríes,[498] in whose service he began his priestly activity. His long and eventful university career was over.

497 In official documents of 1589 and 1590 he is given this title or the similar one of “professor in sacred theology”, for example, when he was named Ecclesiastical Official of Tremp on July 1, 1589, he is qualified: “Rdum. Josephum Calaçans, Sacre Theologie baccalaureum” (P. PUJOL I TUBAU, Obra completa, p.335, doc. IX); when he was appointed Visitator of Tremp, Sort, Tirvia and Cardós, on May 5, 1590, we read: “Josepho Calaçans Priest et professori sacre Theologie” (ibid., p.336, doc. XII). The same Calasanz in his pastoral Visitation to Durro had the notary who accompanied him draw up some 25 deeds in which he is named with the initials “S. T. B.” [Sacrae Theologiae Baccalaureus] (cf. J. MIR DURÁN, S. José de Calasanz gloria de la diócesis de Urgel y honor de su clero. [C. RABAZA] Memorias de un cronista [Valencia 1912] p.347). However, in a document dated October 12, 1585 in Barbastro, he is named as follows: “very Rev. and most magníficent mossen Jusepe Calasanz, graduated in Sacred Theology” (cf. J. P0CH. Aportación documental a la Historia de la Univ. de Huesca..., p.211).

498 Cf. J. POCH, o.c., p.210-211.

Step by step to the priesthood

Seven long years had passed since that April 17, 1575, when the seventeen-year-old law student Joseph Calasanz received his first clerical tonsure. He was already twenty-five years old and studying theology in his fourth and final year at the General Studium of Lérida.

His clear trajectory as a student leads us to believe that he never doubted his priestly vocation, from the first reference documented in his father’s will of March 8, 1571, when he was barely thirteen and a half years old, in which he expressly speaks of “ascending to holy orders”.[499] Furthermore, we have evidence of two serious moments in his young life, when he is strongly pressed by love and flesh in Valencia and by fatherhood and a secure life as a result of his brother’s death. And on both occasions, he overcame danger, firm and resolute in his priestly vocation.

499 Cf. text corresponding to n.485 of this chapter.

His entire long academic career seems solidly structured, almost programmed, without ups and downs or unnecessary delays: three years of grammar and humanities, another three years of Arts and Philosophy, four years of Laws and four more years of Theology. The only interruption of one year is fully justified by the serious illness in Peralta, which caused him to miss a course.

Let us say again that there is no indication that his father opposed his son’s priestly vocation, except at the dramatic moment of the death of the heir Peter. The suppositions of the old biographers that the father had aspired to a military career from the outset are unproven fantasies, the fruit of the baroque paste with which they enveloped the heir of Peralta, believing him to be of high lineage and the descendant of kings. Surely, the father and his pious wife Maria dreamed from the beginning of seeing the youngest of the family as a priest, especially when they saw him repeating with a certain personal tone the verses of Berceo that his mother had taught him by heart:

“Sennores e amigos, muévanos esta cosa,

Amemos e laudemos todos a la Gloriosa

Non echaremos mano en cosa tan preciosa

Que tan bien nos acorra en ora periglosa”

Dear Lords and friends, let us be moved by this,

let us all love and praise the Glorious One,

let us not lay our hands on something so precious

that she honours us so much in perilous times.”

In those times when travel was very arduous and clerics completed their university studies outside their own dioceses, it seems to have been the case that “after tonsure they received permission from the hands of their own bishop to receive the major orders, the subdiaconate and the diaconate with the consent of the bishop in whose diocese they were studying, until they completed their studies and returned to their own ordinary or bishop to receive the priesthood from him.”[500] And so it was for Joseph Calasanz. He received his first tonsure in Balaguer, diocese of Urgel, from the hands of his own bishop, Don John Dimas Loris (17-4-1575), although he was already studying at the University of Lérida.

500 Cf. J. POCH, Las órdenes sagradas del universitario Joseph Calasanz (1575-1583): AnCal 50 (1983) 259-260. And that there were exceptions to this rule is proven by the case of Don Antony de Gallart y de Mongay, a Valencian and student in Lérida who received his first tonsure and priesthood outside his diocese (cf. J. POCH, Don Antonio de Gallart i de Mongay, “bachiller en Derecho Canónico” por el Estudio General de Lérida: Ilerda 27 [1963] 7-9).

When he asked to be admitted to the minor orders and the subdiaconate, he was back in Lérida, to whose episcopal curia he had to turn to obtain the appropriate dimissorial letters, although the episcopal see of his own diocese of Urgel was not vacant. It was occupied by Hugh Ambrose de Moncada (1580-1586), who would confer the priesthood on him. But the see of Lérida was vacant (from October 21, 1581 to May 11, 1583), so he had to turn to a nearby bishop to confer the ordinations. But the one who gave him the dimissorial letters was the vicar general of Lérida, James Mahull, who demanded a prior examination.[501]

501 “Die duodecima mensis decembris MDLXXXII (12 December 1582) per dominum Vicarium Generalem Mahull fuit facta licentia Josepho Calassans loci de Peralta de la Sal, dioecesis Urgelensis, beneficiati beneficii Scti. Petri martyris in ecelesia Sti. Stephani ville Montissoni ad quatuor minores et Subdiaconatus ordines, cum dispensatione” (of interstices) (cf. J. POCH, Aportación documental a la historia de a Univ. de Huesca..., p.198).

And he went to Huesca, whose bishop, Don Peter Del Frago, celebrated general ordinations during Advent Temporas. In the dimissorial letters he was granted a dispensation from the interstices, and this was necessary, because on two consecutive days he received the four minor orders and the subdiaconate. The first on Friday, December 17, 1582, in the bishop’s private oratory and the subdiaconate on the following day, Saturday, in the cathedral.[502] In order to receive the subdiaconate, it was necessary to declare the means of future subsistence or “title”. The religious received it “by title of poverty”, i.e. on the basis of their vow of poverty, the Order was responsible for their subsistence. Non-religious clerics listed the “title” of their own property or that of service to the diocese or that of an ecclesiastical benefice. Joseph Calasanz used the title of the benefice of St. Peter in the church of St. Stephen in Monzón (now disappeared), which belonged to the diocese of Lérida. This suggests that he had not accepted his father’s inheritance after the death of his brother Peter and therefore had no personal inheritance. It was not until 1585 that his father returned to make a will when he became seriously ill and named him as his heir.[503]

502 Cf. the so-called “booklets” of ordinations of Minors and Subdiaconate, in AnCal 50 (1983) 269-270. It should be noted that in that year of 1582 the reform of the calendar was imposed by Pope Gregory XIII and the days from October 5 to 14, both included, were suppressed, but the days of the week followed their normal order: the 4th had been Thursday and the 15th was Friday and not Monday as it should have been. Thus, until the end of the year, Mondays were Fridays and Tuesdays were Saturdays, etc. In fact, the “booklet” of the minor orders of Calasanz says that he received them “die veneris... decima septima Decembris anni 1582”, which in the Perpetual Calendars appears as Monday, the “booklet” of the subdiaconate says “die sabbati... decima octava mensis Decembris” while in such calendars December 18th is Tuesday (cf. A. CAPELLI, Cronologia Cronografia e Calendario Perpetuo, Hoepli [Milan 1930, 2], p.85). December 31, 1582, was Friday and January 1, 1583, Saturday.

503 Cf. J. POCH, Tres Testamentos..., p.457-458.

In the middle of the second semester of the same academic year 1582-83, he again applied for dimissorial letters from the same curia in Lérida to be ordained a deacon. He had to be re-examined according to canonical norms, with the doctors and beneficiaries of La Seo, Dominic Manyes, Francis Vidal and Antony Mani, who were explicitly named in the chapter meeting of November 13, 1582, as the examiners.[504] As the see was still vacant, the canons took the opportunity of the stay of Don Caspar John de la Figuera, Bishop of Jaca and destined for Albarracín, in Fraga, his hometown, to grant him permission to perform all papal acts and confer ecclesiastical ordinations throughout the diocese of Lérida, to which the city of Fraga belonged at that time.[505] And at the last minute, someone raised doubts about the Chapter’s competence to grant the ordinandi dimissorials and the dispense of interstices. A commission was appointed to investigate the matter, which delivered its positive verdict on April 6, 1583.[506]

504 Cf. J. POCH, Aportación documental..., p.201-202.

505 They gave license or place to the Most Rev. Lord Bishop of Jaca Don Caspar Figuera to exercise any pontifical act and to give Orders in the diocese of Lerida. “ (ibid., p.202-203). Don Caspar had been presented by Philip II, on January 17, 1583, for bishop of Albarracín, to Pope Gregory XIII, who appointed him on March 28, 1583. The license of the Chapter of Lérida is dated February 26, 1583, and for this reason he is not yet called Bishop-elect of Albarracín.

506 Cf. J. POCH, Aportación documental..., p.203.

Shortly afterwards, the general Vicar Mahull must have issued the dimissorial letters stating that the ordinandi Joseph Calasanz had been “examined, approved and dispensed from the interstices”, and on the 9th of the same month, Holy Saturday, Bishop de la Figuera ordained him deacon in the “church or chapel of St. Sebastian in the town of Fraga”, which has now disappeared.[507]

507 Cf. the Latin text of the “booklet” of the diaconate in ibid, p.203.

He finished his fourth year of theological studies in 1582-83. Summer came and Calasanz spent his vacation - from June 24 to October 18 - in Peralta, with his father, sisters and nephews. The following academic year began anew, and just before Christmas he completed the prescribed formalities, this time directly in the curia of his diocese of Urgel, and on December 17, 1583, the Saturday of ‘Temporas’, he was ordained a priest in the castle of Sanahuja, the winter residence of the bishops of Urgel, at the hands of his own prelate Friar Hugh Ambrose de Moncada.[508] Today, all that remains of the former bishop’s castle is a crenelated wall. But its silhouette must have remained in the memory of this young man of twenty-six to the end of his long life, for he always believed that “my priesthood - he said - was the greatest dignity I could attain.”[509]

508 Cf. the text of the “booklet” of presbyterate in J. POCH, Las órdenes sagradas..., p.271.

509 On the appreciation and rich ideology that Calasanz had of the priesthood, cf. S. GINER, Ideas sobre el sacerdocio en el epistolario de San Joseph de Calasanz: AnCal 50 (1983) 337-368. This volume 50 of ‘Analecta Calasanctiana’ is commemorative of the IV Centenary of the priestly ordination of the Saint.

He never lost this deep appreciation and even the fear and trembling of the priesthood and expressed it countless times. When he was seventy-three years old, for example, he said to one of his religious who was about to be ordained a priest: “To become a priest, it is not enough to be twenty-five years old, but you must also have the necessary knowledge and, most importantly, a great humility to know how to handle such a high and formidable office.”[510] And two years later, he wrote to another: “Try to humble yourself and recognize yourself as unworthy of such a great office, so that God may give you the inner attitude necessary for such dignity.”[511] And so on to the end, until twenty-five days before his death, when he wrote: “May the Lord reward you with spiritual goods and give you the grace to recognize the priestly dignity and the humility and reverence due to such a high office and sacrament.”[512]

510 C.1588.

511 C.1948.

512 C.4572.

At the age of almost ninety-one, the scent of the oil of his ordination could still be felt in the hand that wrote this, even though sixty-four years had passed since the memorable day of Sanahuja: December 17, 1583.

And on that Christmas, the ringing of the bells of Peralta announced the first solemn mass of Joseph Calasanz.

Chapter 6

First years of priesthood outside his diocese

It is almost exciting to go through the historiographical current that tries to define the figure of St. Joseph Calasanz and to note the sometimes-slow process of clarifying data to which his biography was subjected due to the lack of reliable documents. Perhaps one of the most enigmatic periods for biographers and of major changes for the biographed is that which follows his ordination to the priesthood until his final incorporation into his own diocese of Urgel. This is the period we will deal with in this chapter.

Disorientation of the biographers

The first draft of a Calasanctian biography outlined by Father Bonaventura Catalucci in the aforementioned ‘Breve Notizia’[513] reflects the doubts that prevailed in the Piarist community of San Pantaleo at the death of the Holy Founder, especially with regard to the distant period of his life in Spain. And there were also present those who had received more confidences and would later, many of them, be witnesses in the beatification Processes or the first historians of the Order and its Founder, such as Fathers Berro, Caputi, Scassellati, Fedele, Morelli... and the brothers Ferrari and Stiso.

513 Cf. BAU, RV, p.9. This ‘Breve Notizia’ was duly evaluated by Fr. Bau who published it in its entirety and translated in ibid., p.11-13.

Here, then, is the paragraph that refers to the years between the end of his studies in Alcalá - where, as he says, he obtained his doctorate in theology - and the visit to Montserrat:

“...he became seriously ill and after vowing to become a priest, he suddenly recovered and returned to his homeland, where he was ordained of Minor Orders and then entered the holy Order of the subdiaconate; when he was twenty-two years old, he was chosen as a study assistant by that great scholar and distinguished prelate, Bishop de Balbasaro (sic), whose pupils were Báñez and Medina, who were among the first doctors of Salamanca. He was with this prelate until he was twenty-five years old and was immediately ordained a priest and chosen by the Bishop of Lérida as his confessor; and when this prelate was a Visitator to the Holy House of Montserrat, he assisted the said bishop for six months during the said visit...”[514]

514 Ibid., p.11, with corrections, according to the original text (RegCal 14, n.62, 1), the first page of which can be seen photocopied in BAU, BC, p.117.

Analysing this paragraph allows us to distinguish these steps in his career:

1. (After his doctorate in Alcalá), illness, vows and cure.

2. Return to his hometown and ordination to the Minor Orders and the Subdiaconate.

3. Not after his ordination to the subdiaconate, but from the age of twenty-two to twenty-five, he was in the service of the bishop of “Balbasaro” (“Balbastro”, as it was also called in Spain, instead of Barbastro).

4. Ordination to the priesthood.

5. Immediate transfer to the service of the Bishop of Lérida and visit to Montserrat.

The most interesting thing is that he distinguishes the service for two bishops, whose names he does not mention, and that the ordination (December 17, 1583) is the one that separates the two periods.

Less than a month after the solemn funeral for which the ‘Breve Notizia’ had been written, Father Camillo Scassellati also wanted to solemnly pay his last respects to the Holy Founder in Collegio Nazareno, of which he was the Rector. He himself gave a speech in very elegant Latin, stating that the respected prelate, teacher of Báñez and Medina, who had chosen Calasanz as his “study assistant”, had been “Bishop of Jaca” and was called “Johannes de la Figuera”[515] This began a process of lamentable confusion, the last shadows of which only dissipated a few years ago.

515 Cf. the Latin text in J. POCH, Aportación documental a la historia de la Univ. de Huesca..., p.193. More as anecdote than a serious detail, we can remember the senseless arrangement of Fr. Efisio de Soto Real, of overflowing fantasies in all his work, who, mixing these well-known texts, wrote that Calasanz “was a fellow disciple of those great and famous Masters Báñez and Medina: they were all three disciples of that eminent Balbasor, worthy bishop of Jaca...” (ibid., p. 194).

Half a century later, Father Armini summarises the facts as follows:

1. After obtaining his doctorate in Alcalá, he goes to Jaca without passing through Peralta and is called by Don Caspar John de la Figuera (the famous prelate “who was one of the main lecturers at the famous University of Salamanca”) as a study assistant.

2. He returns to Peralta: illness, vows and healing.

3. From Peralta he receives all ordinations along a year “with dimissorials and dispensation of interstices granted by his own bishop of Urgel.”

4. Already a priest, he accepts the invitation of the new bishop of Lérida, who appoints him as his confessor and theologian and who accompanies him to visit Montserrat.[516]
516 Cf. A. ARMINI, Vita, p.19-26.

Armini therefore accepts Scassellati’s version and names the first prelate as Caspar John de la Figuera, Bishop of Jaca, leaving out the name of Barbastro. However, he ignores the name of the second bishop, that of Lérida, who visited Montserrat, and who was precisely Don Caspar John de la Figuera.

When Armini’s ‘Vita’ was published in 1710, the author had already been dead for fifteen years (February 27, 1695) and twenty-five years since he had written the work. Father Augustine Passante, who edited it, says that he did not want to correct or expand it, but “left it as it is”.[517] However, there were additions. And one of them was a long declaration written and signed by the Founder in 1637, in which he stated that in 1585 he attended the Courts of Monzón and placed himself at the service of “Don Caspar de la Higuera, native of Fraga, Bishop of Albarracín and already elected Bishop of Lérida”, whom he accompanied in the visitation of Montserrat “as confessor and examiner”.[518] This document enriched the news about the Spanish period of the saint and at the same time was the cause of new confusion, adding that the same Don Caspar John de la Figuera had been bishop of Albarracín before that of Lérida, without forgetting that he had been bishop of Jaca before that of Albarracín.

517 “It did not seem to me convenient to correct or amplify the work of others, but to give light to them as they were composed by the author”. (ib., p.8 before 1). And at the beginning of the prologue, he says that he brings to light a book freeing it from the shadows “among which for 25 years and more it has been lying”.

518 Cf. ibid., p.27-28. The complete text in BAU, BC, p.131-132. That it was an addition can be deduced from the fact that neither before nor after this document does he name the bishop of Lérida, although the document reveals it; this statement is inserted in the visit to Montserrat; Monzón is not mentioned before the visit to the monastery, as it should be.

In fact, half a century later, in his ‘Compendium’ of 1735 and then in his voluminous ‘Vita’ of 1753, Father Talenti supplemented the version of Armini’s ‘Vita’ of 1710 with personal annotations. Here is the synthesis:

1. (After his doctorate in Alcalá) he is called to Jaca by Bishop Caspar John de la Figuera as a “study assistant” and stays with him for a whole year.

2. At the age of twenty-five he leaves Jaca and returns to Peralta: illness, vows and cure.

3. He receives minor and major Orders on the dates indicated in the “cartillas” (booklets).

4. After one or two months of incredible pastoral activity in Peralta,[519] he is recalled to his new diocese of Albarracín by Don Caspar John de la Figuera.
519 The author’s baroque and “hagiographic” imagination overflows when he enumerates not only the heroic ascetic acts that the saints must practice, but also the tireless apostolic activity of the new priest in his own village, which more than a village seems like an immense city. We translate: “Having become a priest..., it is unspeakable how much increased his prayers, contemplations, sacred readings, vigils, macerations, visits to churches, instructions to the people, visits to the sick and all kinds of works of mercy and piety. She said the Mass every day with such readiness and with such devotion and fervor as if it were always the first he said or the last he had to say. He frequented and exercised all the ecclesiastical functions, assiduously heard sacramental confessions; he was most zealous in preaching the word of God; he taught Christian doctrine, visited, comforted and relieved the sick and afflicted in hospitals, prisons and private homes; in short, he carried out all the offices that could be expected of a most holy priest” (V. TALENTI, Vita, p.17-18). No doubt Fr. Talenti did not know that Peralta de la Sal had 62 families (about 280 inhabitants) in 1542 and 87 in 1650 (about 390 inhabitants) (cf. note 10 of c.1). And between 1566 and 1606 there were 13 beneficiaries in the parish (cf. Arch. Episc. of Urgel, Reg. 36, years 1566 to 1606)

5. From Albarracín he accompanies Don Caspar to the courts of Monzón and from here they set off on a visit to Montserrat.[520]
520 Cf. V. TALENTI, Vita, p.14-21.

The version handed down by Talenti was accurately received and summarized by Father Tosetti in his ‘Compendium’ of 1767, which, with more than thirty Italian editions and various translations into other languages, has preserved this kind of “tradition” almost intact until our times.[521]

521 Cf. U. TOSETTI, Compendio storico della Vita di San Giuseppe Calasanzio (Firenze 1927), p.14-18. Add the respective Spanish translations of the Lives of Armini, Talenti and Tosetti.

Two centuries after Talenti’s work, Father Bau undertakes a thorough revision of the Calasanctian biography, stating faithfully that “the historian of St. Joseph Calasanz must honestly admit that to this day we do not know when he finished his theological studies in Alcalá; nor where he was before the providential illness that led him to take priestly vows; nor where he went immediately after his ordination. His stay in Jaca and Albarracín is not proven.”[522] In fact, he leaves Jaca with difficulty; he leaves the mystery of the saint’s whereabouts before his ordination unexplained; he continues to drag around the idea that his ordinations were authorized by the dimissorial letters of his bishop of Urgel; once ordained a priest, he takes him with a certain resigned indolence to Albarracín to La Figuera in 1583 and there he stays until he moves to Monzón and then to Montserrat. But in the end, he still leaves everything up in the air: “Barbastro, Jaca, Albarracín perhaps appear unjustly in the old lives of Calasanz.”[523] This was the state of affairs in 1949, the year the Critical Biography was published.

522 Cf. BAU, BC, p.121

523 Ibid., p.129.

New documents and clarifications

In 1950, the Bishop of Barbastro and later Cardinal Arturo Tabera found documents in the diocesan archives that prove the presence of the priest Joseph Calasanz in that city as a familiar of Friar Philip de Urríes, then Bishop of Barbastro (1572-1585). The documents were dated February 10, 1584 and March 24, 1584.[524] Later, others were found dated May 28, 1584 and October 12, 1585,[525] with the last document referring to him as “absent” but it was already on record that he was at the Courts of Monzón at that time.

524 Bishop Tabera communicated his discovery to Fr. Bau, in a letter of May 22, 1950, who made use of it in the work he was writing, Historia de las Escuelas Pías en Cataluña (Barcelona 1951), p.24-25. A photocopy of the documents was published in EphCal 4 (1950) 104-105.

525 Cf. J. POCH, Aportación documental a la hist. De la Univ. de Huesca..., p.210-211, with the texts in which the name of Calasanz appears.

This confirmed the original assertion of the ‘Breve Notizia’ that Calasanz had served the bishop of Barbastro as a “study assistant”; however, this was not before his ordination as a presbyter, but after. At the same time, the hypothesis that he was assigned to the service of the Bishop of Lérida immediately after his ordination was ruled out, as was his presence in Albarracín near La Figuera until his arrival in Monzón in the summer of 1585. The career from his ordination to the priesthood to his visit to Montserrat is already clearly documented: Ordination (December 17, 1583), presence in Barbastro (February 10, 1584) with Bishop Urríes, presence in Monzón (August-September 1585), during the Courts, in the service of La Figuera, Bishop of Lérida, and visit to Montserrat.

But where was he in the years immediately before his ordination, in Jaca, in Barbastro, in Peralta? Despite the documented clarification of Calasanz’s whereabouts in Barbastro after his ordination, Father Bau remained faithful to the version of the ‘Breve Notizia’ that had placed him next to the bishop of Barbastro during a triennium before his ordination. Without any new documents, he reassembled the data in successive publications until he arrived at the revision of the life of St. Joseph of Calasanz (1963), in which he made not only Jaca and Albarracín, but also Valencia and Alcalá disappear from the biography of Calasanz, thus moving him from Lérida to Barbastro, i.e. “that the period of theological formation of St. Joseph of Calasanz was from the time he left the Law School until his ordination to the priesthood gravitated around the figure of Urríes”; “The certainty about the university career of San Joseph Calasanz is that he studied in Lérida as a legist from 1574 to 1578 and that he studied theology in Barbastro and at the Sertoriana University in Huesca from 1579 to 1583, either as a free student or as an official student, since there is no certain information about this.”[526]

526 Cf. BAU, RV, p.39 and 42.

But these last approaches proved to be untenable, not only because of their own internal difficulties,[527] but above all because of the new documents that Father Poch found in the diocesan archives of Lérida, which proved beyond doubt that Calasanz was in Lérida in the year of his ordinations as a minor, subdeacon and deacon, that is, at least in the academic year 1582-83, as we have already seen.[528] And what could he do in Lérida if not complete his theological studies at the University, which he had interrupted first in Valencia and then in Alcalá de Henares for the substantial reasons we know?

527 If Fr. Bau eliminated the universities of Valencia and Alcalá because the name of Calasanz does not appear in their records, it is not understandable how he proposes that of Huesca, since that name does not appear in their books either. It is also unacceptable that he could study “on his own” in Barbastro and then take his exams at the University of Huesca (cf. J. POCH, El Fundador de las Escuelas Pías en la Historia de la Corona de Aragón, in AnCal 20 [1968] 295, n.76). It is incomprehensible that he would go to Huesca to be ordained as a minor and subdiacon and then go to Fraga to be ordained as a deacon, if he had his bishop protector in Barbastro who could ordain him. It is also incomprehensible that in the “booklet” of the diaconate it says that the licenses to be ordained were given to him by the Chapter of Lérida for “sede vacante” and that in those of subdiaconate it says that he is a beneficiary of a church of Monzón, of the diocese of Lérida (cf. AnCal 50 [1983] 269-270). Was he not in Barbastro?

528 Cf. previous Chapter and J. POCH, Aportación documental a la Historia de la Univ. de Huesca..., p.201-204.

The references to Jaca and Albarracín were therefore definitely left aside and the personal relationships of the young priest Calasanz, first with the Bishop of Barbastro, Don Philip de Urríes, and later with the Bishop of Lérida, Don Caspar John de la Figuera, were given documentary solidity.

Why outside his diocese?

Perhaps the logical efforts of the hagiographers and biographers to locate the person in the years immediately before and after his ordination prevented them from asking other parallel questions. They tried to answer the ‘where’ and even the ‘when’, but they did not even ask themselves the ‘why’, and only recently has an attempt been made to answer the ‘how’.

As we have just seen, the latest documentary findings have definitively answered the first two questions. They prove that the student was in Lérida during the academic year 1582-83, while receiving minor and major Orders, and that the newly ordained priest entered the service of two successive bishops, that of Barbastro and that of Lérida (1584-86). But we must ask ourselves why he entered the service of both bishops and not of his own, the Bishop of Urgel, Don Hugh Ambrose de Moncada (1580-86), who had ordained him priest in Sanahuja. We must also try to explain how he managed to enter the service of Urríes and then that of La Figuera after the death of the first, especially since it is a position characterised by as much trust and intimacy as that of the “familiar”.

Let us wait for the answer to the last question and try to solve the first. And the explanation was already partially proposed when it came to the decision to finish his theological studies in Lérida and not return to Alcalá. It should also be noted that in this complicated issue of transfers, decisions and commitments, which at first glance seem confusing, we cannot leave the young Calasanz alone, who decided on his migrations and commitments without relying on his legitimate superior, the Bishop of Urgel. From the moment he received the tonsure, he became ‘clericus Urgelensis dioecesis’, and he could not decide on his studies, his career, his ordinations and his future priestly activity without his bishop, who had been Bishop Hugh A. de Moncada since May 1580. Nor is it the bishop who draws up the path of his cleric or priest without taking into account his personal problems or situations.

However, we are interested precisely in the personal situations or problems that led the bishop to give his consent to the plans proposed to him first by his cleric in relation to his studies and later by his priest to offer his services to other bishops. And we believe that the main reason for all the movements or wanderings of Joseph Calasanz from the death of his brother Peter in 1579 until the death of his father at the end of 1586 was his sense of filial responsibility. If his older brother had lived many more years, his life would probably have been different, as he would have completed his studies in Alcalá, been ordained a priest and immediately placed himself at the service of his diocese without unnecessary delay. At least that was the most logical thing to do.

The premature and unexpected death of the heir threw his life completely out of balance. He did not want to be heir, but as the only surviving male child, he felt obliged to care for his father and did so until his death. His brother had fallen victim to the socio-political upheavals in Ribagorza, and his own father could not consider himself free from reprisals by the same murderers of his son, for he had clearly served the lords of Castro in the Bailiwick of Peralta. And this unsettled atmosphere, a mixture of social turmoil, conflicting political interests and ruthless banditry, remained alive and strong until Calasanz left for Rome in 1592.

As already mentioned, Calasanz left Alcalá because his brother had died and then resumed his studies in Lérida instead of Alcalá in order to be close to his father. As he was now ordained a priest, he did not go to Seo de Urgel, but looked for suitable places for his studies and opportunities, but close to Peralta: in Barbastro and in Lérida, the two bishoprics closest to Peralta. When he went to Monzón to serve La Figuera, nothing was known about his visit to the distant monastery of Montserrat, only that he was bishop of Lérida.

Father Jericó writes that in Monzón, “while [Joseph] was preparing the journey to Montserrate, he seems to have gone to Peralta de la Sal, his hometown, where his father fell seriously ill and on September 12, 1585, ordered another closed will in which... he left as heir, executor and exonerator of his soul and conscience his beloved son Mossén Joseph Calasanz priest, resident in Peralta.”[529] We note not only the frail health of the old man and the attitude of his son, who quickly comes to him from nearby Monzón, but also the detail that Joseph is considered a “resident of the village of Peralta” and not of Barbastro, Monzón or Lérida. And the will goes on to say that “if he was absent at the time of his death...” Which seems to mean that the old man assumes that his son will be present, but just in case he is not... He is aware that he will always be around.

529 Cf. J. POCH, Tres testamentos..., p.457-458.

Calasanz then travelled to Montserrat because he had committed himself to La Figuera to serve him without knowing anything about this trip. But he himself will declare in writing in 1637: “The said bishop died during this visit and I returned to my homeland.”[530] La Figuera died on February 12, 1586 and Calasanz was still in his village on November 7 of the same year when his father, who had fallen seriously ill again, made his last will[531] and died shortly afterwards. And it was only then that Calasanz decided to join his diocese of Urgel, as it is documented that he took up his post as secretary of the cathedral Chapter on February 12, 1587.[532] As far as we know, however, Calasanz spent the entire year (February 12, 1586 to February 12, 1587) in his village, with his father, with no other employment.

530 Cf. BAU, BC, p.132.

531 Cf. J. POCH, o.c., p.459-460.

532 Ibid., p.468, n.27.

This long explanatory digression may seem excessive, but we consider it necessary in order to free our character from the feeling of being disoriented, not knowing what he wants, wandering aimlessly too much and, worse still, thriving in the shadow of secure protectors, in search of an easy and well-paid life without obligations or absorbing tasks. And this as soon as he was ordained a priest.

Let us now pick up the thread of our story.

Towards Barbastro

At the beginning of 1584, Joseph Calasanz was already living in Barbastro. A year later, our famous “Cicerone” Henry Cock, notary and archer of Philip II’s guard, wrote these details about Barbastro in his travelog: “After the bishop’s see was moved to Lérida, it remained empty until our time. Pius V re-erected it as a cathedral and separated it from Huesca in 1571, and its first bishop was Don Philip de Urríes, a friar of the Order of St. Dominic, appointed by His Majesty...”[533] In this new episcopal see, the following offices and dignities were created: “After the bishop, the highest dignity is that of dean, followed by the archdeacons... Then there are archpriests, chantres, chief chaplains and sacristans; among the fifteen Canons there is a doctorate and another magisterial prebend, and each Canon has five thousand gold coins a year, more or less. There are also twelve prebendaries and a whole series of chaplains who come to the liturgical hours every day.”[534] The young priest from Peralta lived with all these clergymen and cultivated a genuine friendship with some of them, as he recalled ten years later in Rome, where he also offered his services to the entire Chapter in pending litigations.[535]

533 Cf. J. GARCÍA MERCADAL, o.c., vol. I, p.1368. The Bull of Pius V in which the diocese of Barbastro was re-created is dated July 18, 1571. Friar Felipe de Urríes was named bishop on February 9, 1573 and on August 14, 1573 he made his entry into the city (cf. Dicc. de Hist. Eccles. de España, vol. I [Madrid 1972] p.185 and 187; J. POCH, El Fundador de las Escuelas Pías en la Historia Eclesiástica de la Corona de Aragón, p.298).

534 E. COCK, o.c., p.1368.

535 “You will be good enough to try through Canon Louis Torres [of Barbastro] and others who are friendly to me, to have me present until I go, since here I can be of much benefice to the Chapter in the dispute that it has in Rota about some revenues of Navarre” (27 September 1594) (C.6).

In 1585, the curious Dutch analyst Cock did not overlook the monasteries and hermitages in Barbastro: “There are four monasteries,” he says: “St. Francis in the suburb to the north, St. Cosmas and Damian, the Trinitarians, to the west, St. Dominic, the Mercedarians, to the south and St. Lucia, the virgins of the Rule of St. Clare, at the eastern gate where you come to Monzón. There is a general hospital dedicated to St. James, the apostle of Spain... Among the hermitages, the most important is that of Our Lady del Pueyo...”, and then goes on to mention those of the Holy Sepulcher, St. John the Baptist, St. Eloy, St. Gilles, St. Mark, Our Lady of Figuerolas and St. John of La Almunia.[536]

536 Cf. E. COCK, o.c., p.1368-1369.

And Cock continues: “There are one thousand and one hundred neighbors and most of them are farmers...[537] Between the town and the suburb there are two bridges that cross the river Vero: the one on the border with San Francis is busier... there is another bridge outside the city, called Santa Fe.”[538] Documentarily, we know that Joseph Calasanz was already in Barbastro on February 10, 1584,[539] but it is likely that he arrived a few weeks earlier, perhaps after Christmas, from his town where he had celebrated his first mass.

537 That is, about five thousand inhabitants. In 1975, according to official data, it was around 13,000.

538 Ibid., p.1369.

539 Cf. n.524 and 525 of this chapter.

Both on this occasion and later, when he entered the service of La Figuera, the ‘Breve Notizia’ states that “he was chosen as an assistant for the studies of...” and “by the respective bishops as their confessor...”.[540] Later hagiographers, less moderate and more glorifying, coined the version that the prestige and merits of the young priest, who had just completed his studies, were such that both bishops earnestly asked him to become their confidant, advisor, confessor, etc. In other words, the initiative came from them and not from him, which in a way answers the question of how the still inexperienced Calasanz could enter their service.[541]

540 Cf. BAU, RV, p.11.

541 “D. Caspar John della Figuera, Bishop of Jacca... having knowledge of the rare qualities that concurred in Joseph, wished to have him near...” (A. ARMINI, Vita, p.20). Remember that Armini suppressed Barbastro for Jaca, and then spoke of Lérida without knowing the name of the bishop: “the new bishop of Lérida (...) wishing to have under him a person qualified in doctrine and spirit, who would help him in the good government, both of his own person and of his diocese, turned his mind to our Calasanz, whose name was very famous and esteemed in Lérida. For this reason, the good Prelate made repeated requests to him in such courteous and effective terms, that Joseph felt obliged to pass himself over to his service.” (ibid., p.25-26). And Talenti: “Moved [La Figuera] by the fame of the high knowledge and vast capacity of Joseph Calasanz, he liked to have him near and invited him to his Cathedral as a companion and help in his studies. He immediately accepted such an invitation...” (TALENTI, Vita, p.14).

However, things must have been simpler and more normal. There is no hint of fame or overly premature merit. He was not even a doctor at the time. So, the initiative did not come from the receiving bishops, but from others. And if we think about it, it is very likely that the bishop of Urgel, Friar Hugh Ambrose de Moncada, a Camaldolese, entrusted his young priest Calasanz to the bishop of Barbastro, the Dominican Fray Philip de Urríes, and when he died, he in turn entrusted Calasanz to the bishop of Lérida, the Canon Regular of Saint Augustine, Don Caspar John de la Figuera. And Calasanz must have confidentially communicated the reasons for this temporary situation to his own bishop, Moncada. And he accepted them.

Nevertheless, there could have been other ways to enter the service of Urríes. Poch hinted at the intervention of the Lords of Castro, since Don Philip de Urríes’ paternal grandmother was Doña Beatrice de Cervellón y Castro, daughter of the Baron de la Laguna, Lord of the House of Castro and Peralta. And Don Peter Calasanz was bailiff of Peralta, a loyal vassal of the lords of Castro...[542] Another person very close to the bishop may also have had influence. In two documents signed by Calasanz in Barbastro on May 28, 1584, they appear together with names and signatures: “Witnesses Rev. mossén John de Abella priest Major Chaplain Barbastri, and mossén Joseph Calasanz priest Barbastri inhabitant.”[543] And the mother of John Carpi, married to Hope, the sister of Calasanz, was called Magdalene Abella.[544] It is possible to assume a close relationship between the two Abella. But with these or other clues and necessary recommendations, the new priest left Peralta, crossed the Cinca and Vero rivers, entered one of the walled gates of Barbastro and, well received, took up residence in the episcopal palace. A new chapter in his life began.

542 Cf. J. POCH, El Fundador..., p.258, n.29.

543 Cf. J. POCH, Aportación documental... Univ. de Huesca..., p.211.

544 Cf. Doc. Merigó, n.53. Another son of Magdalena was Don Martín Carpi, that Master of Arts who signed as a witness with Joseph Calasanz “student”, in a document made in Gabasa in 1573. (Cf. J. POCH, Aportación doc. biográfico-calasancia: AnCal 22 [1969] 279-280.) In a document dated October 9, 1596, we read: “I, Madalena Abella, widow of John Carpi of the place of Alcampell, in my own name and as universal heir of all the goods... that were and belonged to Martí Carpi, my son, canon of the Collegiate Church of the town of Tamarite de Litera...” (Doc. Merigó, n. 1596, p. 1). (Doc. Merigó, n.220). The quality of canon of Tamarite, in addition to his possible kinship with the “major chaplain” of Barbastro, John de Abella, suggests possible influences both in Barbastro and in Lérida, to whose diocese Tamarite belonged.

Familiar of Bishop Urríes

One of the classic Dominican historians of the 17th century gives us this ‘curriculum vitae’ of the prelate in a nutshell:

“...after having served the Order very devoutly in the offices of Regent of St. Gregory of Valladolid and Definitor of the General Chapter in Rome, where he demonstrated his talents, after having served the Church at the Holy Council of Trent with great satisfaction and the honor of his habit, he became Bishop of the Church of Valbastro in the Crown of Aragón.”[545]

545 Fray J. LÓPEZ, Historia General de Sancto Domingo y de su Orden de Predicadores. Third part (Valladolid 1613), p. 276. For what we will say later about his relations with Báñez and Medina, it is interesting to highlight his presence in Valladolid and Ávila, of which Arriaga writes: “For the convent of Santiago of Galicia he entered the College [of St. Gregory of Valladolid] on October 23, 1541... having been Consiliary, and being now Professor, he was sent to the Tridentine Council replacing the bishop of Urgel... He taught twice the lesson of Theology of St. Gregory. Graduated by the Province. Present to the Chapter of Segovia in 1559. Accepted the Representation to the Cap. Gen. in Aviñon, year 1561; the Province gave him the title of Master in the Cap. of Valladolid, year 1569 and something later the same year on 28 of May was nominated to the Gen. Chap. celebrated in Rome, to which he attended as first Definitor for the Province of Spain. After he served the Province being Prior of Santo Tomás el Real de Ávila” (FR. G. DE ARRIAGA, Historia del Colegio de San Gregorio de Valladolid [1634], vol. II [Valladolid 1930], p.129). He attended the third session of the Council of Trent (1562-63) as procurator of the bishop of Urgel, Peter de Castellet (1561-1571) (cf. C. GUTIÉRREZ, Españoles en Trento [Valladolid 1951] p.1014 and 1043).

Among the praises bestowed on him, this is perhaps the most complete: “Noble in human terms and of the greatest and most traditional nobility of the Asturians of Oviedo,[546] and most noble in divine terms, for he was a great religious and a learned, holy and wise bishop.”[547] Apart from the nobility of his lineage, the two adjectives that best describe him are learned and holy. With regard to the former, it should be noted that he retained his passion for study even as a bishop.[548] The latter exalts his virtues, his poverty and commitment to the poor, as well as fidelity to his religious vocation, the spirit and communal atmosphere of which he enforced in the bishop’s palace.[549]

546 He was born in Jaca, but entered the Order of Preachers in the convent of Oviedo: “a native of Jaca and of the most noble family of the Urríes”, we read in a ms. of the Real Academia de la Historia (cf. J. POCH, El Fundador..., p.298); “Ex nobili genere Baronum de Vimes Lares et Ayerve in Urbe Jaca...” (cf. C. GUTIÉRREZ, o.c., p.1012).

547 G. DE ARRIAGA, o.c. p.128.

548 “He lived withdrawn, as if he lived in Oviedo, and studious, as if he were in charge of the College [of Saint Gregory]” (G. DE ARRIAGA, o.c., p.129); “He was very recollected and studied every day as if he were lecturing in the College of Saint Gregory” (J. LÓPEZ, o.c. p.276). His theology teachers were F. de Vitoria and D. de Soto, in Salamanca (cf. C. GUTIÉRREZ, o.c., p.1O14).

549 “...he always lived very much according to the laws of a friar... His house was, as one can imagine, the monastery of Santo Domingo de Oviedo... he always lived so modestly and as he never changed his habit, nor in part in the way of proceeding, he left the style with which he lived in Religion. Such a life was followed by death, ending the bishop with the opinion of a saint” (J. LÓPEZ, o.c., p.276-277); “He governed it [his diocese] for some years [1573-1585] with marvelous example, showing himself with the style of his person, house and family, more a friar than a bishop... He died as he lived, acclaimed as a saint, leaving much for his successors to imitate” (G. DE ARRIAGA, o.c., p.129 and 131).

We know some of those who formed this small religious community with Urríes. Here are two names: “When he was bishop, he had as a companion Fray Andrew de Medina, Dominican, native of Burgos, a very grateful man... Doctor James Arroyos was also an eyewitness of the deeds of the said prelate; he was in his house and company from the day he was consecrated bishop until his death; he was a Canon and archpriest of Barbastro.”[550] Other texts refer to the first of the two, Fray Andrew de Medina, steward and almoner of the bishop, as follows: “He [Urríes] had a religious saint in his house and he was in charge of distributing alms to those who came, teaching Christian doctrine to the poor first.”[551]

550 Cf. J. POCH, I.c., p.129 and 131.

551 J. LOPEZ, o.c., p.276. The same writes G. de Arriaga, o.c., p.130.

Alongside these two, we must place the bishop’s “familiars”, who also lived in the palace and therefore shared the same lifestyle. At least since February 10, 1584, we know that our Joseph Calasanz, presbyter, and Jerome Augustine Diago, who sign as witnesses in the same document, were familiars.[552] In the following year, another familiar named Bernard Villarich appears alongside Calasanz.[553]

552 “Die decima mensis februarii anno computato a nativ. Domini 1584 presentibus ibidem testibus Josepho Calasanz pbro. et Hieronimo Agustino Diago familiaribus nostris. Barbastri” (cf. J. POCH, Aportación documental... Univ. Huesca, p.210).

553 (May 20, 1585). “Witnesses: Rev. mosen Josephe Calasanz priest. and [Bernard] Villarich familiars of the said bishop. Philippus episcopus barbastrensis (manu propria). I Joseph Calasanz am witness of the above” (cf. J. POCH, El Fundador..., p.301, n.81 bis).

The alms-giving and generous hand of Bishop Urríes was undoubtedly Fray Andrew de Medina, but it is interesting to note the forward-looking mentality of the bishop, who was not content to simply give alms, but sought the best means to support the needy in their work. Here is a sobering anecdote: “Although the bishop was also [poor], he gave many alms, and when a very devoted religious tried to persuade him to lease the income of his church, which consisted largely of bread (wheat), he replied: “Never, God willing, and when the grain is in the barns and in the places where it is reaped, I command with great ease that the wheat be distributed to the poor, that they may sow, eat, and supply their wants; but if the rents were in money, I know not whether they would be distributed with this generosity.”[554] It was probably about certain rents of the Diocese in Navarre, for whose administration Friar Medina was responsible[555] and in which even Calasanz took an interest from Rome, in 1594,[556] when both Urríes and his faithful steward Fray Andrew de Medina had disappeared from Barbastro almost ten years earlier.[557]

554 Cf. J. LÓPEZ, o.c., p.276. The same anecdote is given in his work by G. DE ARRIAGA, o.c., p.130.

555 Cf. J. POCH, El Fundador..., p.297, n.78 and p.301, n.81 bis. In a receipt of March 18, 1585, a car driver of Ejea de los Caballeros certifies “having received from His Lordship and father, Father Fray Andrew de Medina, companion of the Most Reverend Lord Bishop of Barbastro namely 6,048 ‘sueldos jaqueses’ (currency that time), which are for 54 carloads of grain that I have brought from Nabarra to the present city...” (ibid., p.301).

556 On September 27, 1594, he writes from Rome to the parish priest of Peralta: “Here I can be of much benefice to the Chapter [of Barbastro] in the lite that it has in the Rota about some rents of Navarre” (EGC, C.6).

557 Calasanz was also a witness of Urríes’ concern to obtain from the king and the Pope a pension of 200 ducats for Fray Andrew de Medina, after finishing his administration, as in fact it was obtained in 1586 (cf. J. POCH, El Fundador..., p.299-300).

We have specifically mentioned this particular way of helping the poor, by distributing grain and not money, because Joseph Calasanz, before going to Rome, did something similar with the poor of the two miserable villages of Claverol and Ortoneda, of which he had been ‘plébano’ (parish priest). And among the many examples of holiness he received from Bishop Urríes and his companion Medina, this special concern for the poor is also worth mentioning.

Calasanz in Barbastro... “teacher-priest”

In his famous sketch from 1648, Father Catalucci reports for the first time on the young Calasanz’s relationship with the Bishop of Barbastro, writing: “He was chosen as a student assistant by that great scholar and distinguished prelate, the Bishop of Barbastro, whose pupils were Báñez and Medina, the first doctors of Salamanca.”[558]

558 BAU, RV, p.11. It has been denied that Báñez and Medina, the famous Dominicans, professors of Prima of the University of Salamanca, had been disciples of Urríes, as Catalucci affirms, especially when noting the presence of Fr. Andrew de Medina next to the bishop of Barbastro (cf. J. POCH, o.c., p.302; BAU, RV, p.38). It would be a misrepresentation, it is said, of supposed confidences of the elder Calasanz. However, after having compared the dates and the wanderings of the three Dominicans, it seems to me very probable that indeed Domingo Báñez and Bartolomé de Medina were disciples of Felipe de Urríes in the Colleges of Saint Gregory of Valladolid and Saint Thomas of Ávila. Urríes was in Saint Gregory in 1541 and from there he was called to go to the Council of Trent, and as he was procurator of Castellet, it had to be in the years 1562-63 (cf. n.545 of this c.). If his presence in Valladolid was not continuous from 1541 to 1562, it is said, at least, that “he twice taught the lesson of Theology in Saint Gregory” (cf. ibid.). But there are those who expressly affirm: “He then read with acceptance philosophy and theology in his college of Saint Gregory of Valladolid for 20 years” (España Sagrada, vol. 48, p.47). Medina and Báñez were fellow disciples, as the latter writes of the former: “Meus et in religione et in litteris condiscipulus” (D. BÁÑEZ, Comment. in 2am 2ae, q.1, a.7, cit. In Anthologica Annua 26-27 [1979-80] 237, n.3). Both Báñez and Medina are said to have studied in Salamanca, Avila and Saint Gregory of Valladolid. Medina professed in 1546 and Báñez in 1547, both in Saint Stephen of Salamanca. The theological career for the Dominicans at that time lasted from ten to twelve years (cf. M. ANDREW, La teología en el siglo XVI, BAC, 1, p.52). The presence of Medina in Saint Gregory is recorded at least in 1555 (cf. G. ARRIAGA, o.c., II, p.203). Then the studies of both fall within the period 1541-1562, of probable presence of Urríes in Valladolid and Avila (cf. Dicc. Hist. Eccles. España, biographies of Báñez [1, p.182] and Medina [III, p. 1453]. Certainly, it is a mistake the statement of Fr. Efisio de Soto Real, who made Calasanz a fellow disciple of Báñez and Medina (cf. n.515 of this c.).

It is not easy to interpret the meaning of this office attributed to Calasanz: study assistant. It seems to be typically Italian, or at least Roman, for we have seen that Cardinal Albizzi explicitly described it in 1684 as equivalent to librarian and amanuensis or secretary.[559] The Italian biographers did not clarify the question further, for Armini simply repeated the term, Talenti spoke of “companion and helper in studies” and Tosetti said “companion of room, table and study”.[560] But Father Joseph Jericó, a contemporary of Talenti and Tosetti, had already written in the mid-18th century: “Our writers generally say that [Calasanz] was the Master of Pages of the venerable Msgr. Caspar John de la Figuera when this prelate was Bishop of Jaca...”[561] Other voices repeated the idea, always referring it to the Bishop of Jaca, La Figuera.[562]

559 Albizzi calls Francis Antony Bucciarelli, in 1684, “mio bibliotecario et aiutante di studio”, and he will be the one to write his will (cf. L. CEYSSENS, Le cardinal François Albizzi (1593-1684). Un cas important dans l’histoire du jansénisme [Rome 1977] p.238).

560 Cf. ARMINI, Vita, p.20; TALENTI, Vita, p.14; TOSETTI, Compendium, p.15. Naturally, given the confusions already mentioned, the three authors speak in this case of Don Caspar J. de la Figuera, bishop of Jaca, and not of Urríes.

561 Cf. J. POCH, Aportación doc. a la hist. de la Univ. de Huesca..., p.189, n. 113. It would be interesting to know who these writers were, since neither those we have named nor their translators bring the news. Neither did Timon-David include it in his work, nor did his translator allude to it (cf. TIMON-DAVID, Vida de San Jose de Calasanz [Zaragoza 1905] p.16).

562 Cf. quotes of Fr. Ramón Huesca in his Teatro histórico (1802) and Latassa in his Diccionario (1884), in J. POCH, o.c., p.189.

However, Catalucci was right when he said that the young Calasanz had not served as a study assistant to the bishop of Jaca, but to the bishop of Barbastro, that is, Don Philip de Urríes y Urríes. The curious thing is that already during the lifetime of Calasanz himself, at the beginning of the XVII century, when some biographical sketches of the “holy and learned” Dominican bishop were written and published, together with his administrator and almoner Friar Andrew de Medina, another anonymous figure began to appear, responsible for the training of the pages of the palace, even explicitly defined as a priest-teacher, and who could be identified with the enigmatic study assistant, namely Joseph Calasanz. Let us read:

“He [Bishop Urríes] required his pages to study, relieving them from many works, so that, being attentive, they would occupy themselves with studies and scholastic exercises appropriate to the principal persons they served. He provided them with a chaplain, a ‘teacher-priest’ to whom they were accountable, and he taught them with all discipline and good manners.”[563]

563 G. DE ARRIAGA, o.c., vol. II, p.129-130. This vol. II was edited in 1930, but Fr. Arriaga, who died in 1656, went in his history to 1634 (cf. vol. III, p.172, where he puts END). Arriaga calls him “Don Fray Felipe de Viries”, and in parentheses adds “(lege Uría or Urías)”.

This author had probably read Friar John López, who published his work in 1613 and said of the bishop and “Father Master Friar Philip de Urríes”: “He had as pages children of noble men and ‘a priest of good qualities’, who taught them grammar and virtue and raised them to good manners and ordered them to learn other exercises befitting noble Christian men.”[564]

564 J LÓPEZ, o.c., p.276-277. Alonso Fernández repeated this paragraph almost literally in his work Historia del Insigne Convento de San Esteban de Salamanca, written between 1616 and 1625: “they served in his house as pages, sons of very noble men, and he had an exemplary and discreet priest who taught them grammar and virtue, raising them in good manners. He also ordered that they be taught other exercises proper to noble Christian men” (cf. J. CUERVO, Historiadores del Convento de San Esteban de Salamanca, t.I [Salamanca 1914] p.38).

This palace school was not an exceptional case, as there is evidence of its existence in other episcopal palaces of the time. For example, when Philip II proposed the separation of Albarracín and Segorbe from the archbishopric of Zaragoza, he wrote around 1577: “Likewise... the children of many important men would be taught and indoctrinated in his [the prelate’s] house, which would lead to everyone having more respect for him.”[565] Of greater interest is the reference to the School of Pages of the Episcopal Palace of Plasencia, as it is a manuscript from the end of the XVII century entitled: ‘The order that the “Teacher of Pages” (Maestro de Pages) should observe in the Episcopal House of Plasencia’, written in the time of Bishop Friar Joseph Jiménez Samaniego, O.F.M. (1683-1692).

565 From a ms. of the Salazar Collection, from the Library of the Royal Academy of History (cf. J. POCH, Aportación doc... Univ. Huesca... p.192-193, n.).

Given the similarity of the duties and tasks of the teacher and the students of the episcopal schools of Plasencia and Barbastro, let us look at these paragraphs in which we can see the young Joseph Calasanz in his role as teacher of the children in Barbastro:

“After mass, the page Master has to take them to his room and give them grammar lessons for an hour. And then they get breakfast and so on. In the antechamber [of the bishop], the page on duty must sit at a desk and study his Art [perhaps the Art of nebrija] or read in a devotional book... In the meantime, the other pages are to gather in their room and study, read or write; and all those who are not on duty are asked by the Master to write a page in the afternoon or in the morning so that they can get used to writing... One of them will read at [the bishop’s] table, from the book to which the prelate will point out, so that he may have learned the lesson well. At the sounding of the “Avimarías” (sic) in winter and summer, everyone must go to the chapel or oratory to pray the crown of the Virgin, which they recite in choir with devotion and slowly. When the crown is finished, they go to the Master’s room, where he gives them the second lesson for another hour, and so on. The Master will see to it that they know the doctrine of Christ very well, with proper instruction, and he will instruct them in a life of devotion and prayer, etc.”[566]

566 Cf. J. POCH, I.c., p.193, n.

It is plausible that the expression “assistant of study” (‘aiutante di studio’), collected in the ‘Breve Notizia’, comes from the mouth of old Calasanz, who used it to evoke his “magisterium” in Barbastro, or that he at least used the word “study” in the sense of “school”. In Barbastro, in those years, there was a Grammar school,[567] which was usually called “Studium Major”.[568] Calasanz was not the master of this school, but of the palace school, which was limited to the pages, but the term “study” in this case seems to refer to the “grammar school” and not to the bishop’s private studies, as the old Calasanzian biographers understood it. It is suggestive to imagine Joseph Calasanz in his twenty-six and twenty-seven years as a “teacher-priest” in the episcopal palace of Barbastro, even if his students were nobles and grammarians and not poor and learning how to read and write, as the students of Santa Dorotea in Rome’s Trastevere would later be.

567 In 1585 Cock noted: ‘At the vernal setting of the sun [Barbastro] has a reasonable school of students’ (cf. J. GARCÍA MERCADAL, o.c., 1, p.1369). And J. B. Labaña, in 1611, said: “They also have [in Barbastro] a hospital to cure fevers and a school of grammar...” (cf. ID., o. c., 1, p.1369). (cf. ID., o.c., II, p.232).

568 When the first Piarists arrived in Spain wanted to found a school in Barbastro in 1677, the Capitulations read: “Equally the said Justice, Prior, Juries and the Council give for the said foundation the houses called of Major Study (grammar classes) … They are in the street and public road going to that ‘Major Study’” etc. (cf. J. POCH, El Fundador... p.295, n.76).

Other experiences in Barbastro

In the year and a half that Calasanz lived with Bishop Urríes, he had to witness and share problematic situations or simply learn about conflicts and legal disputes, of which there is never a shortage in episcopal curias. These were new experiences, cases and things from the ecclesiastical life of his time, some of which had to do with religious life in its less exemplary and pleasant, but real, aspect. Not everything was virtue, holiness, deep piety, poverty, charity, as shown by the behaviour of the Dominican Urríes and the other friars who accompanied him. But all aspects, the good and the bad, began to accumulate as experiences in the soul of the one who would one day be the founder of a religious Order.

The first signature that Calasanz made as a familiar of the Bishop of Barbastro on February 10, 1584, identifies him as a reliable witness to the final verdict that Urríes had passed in a long monastic legal dispute. On October 9, 1576, the prioress of the Alguayre monastery, Doña Jerónima de Mongay, was deposed and locked in a cell by order of the Grand Prior of the Order of the Hospitallers of St. John of Jerusalem in Catalonia, Friar Augustine de Argensola. She was accused of serious irregularities in the management of the monastery’s income, lack of observance and complicity with the bandits who were wreaking havoc in Alguayre and the area around Lérida in those years. The prioress’s brother, Mossen John de Mongay, the monastery’s procurator, was also involved in these conflicts, particularly in the raids and compromises with the bandits.

Several ecclesiastical judges intervened in the matter and several appeals followed, with the civil hierarchies of Catalonia also intervening on the instructions of Philip II. Finally, the Prioress turned to the Apostolic Nuncio, who entrusted the matter to the Bishop of Barbastro, Don Philip de Urríes. And “the said Bishop of Barbastro, by his order or judgement, annulled all that the said Prior of Catalonia had done and attempted, and ordered that the said Prioress should be restored to the possession of the said priory which had been taken from her.”[569] And Joseph Calasanz signed as a witness at the foot of this verdict.

569 Cf. J. POCH, o.c., p.296; J. R. MONER, San José de Calasanz y el bandolerismo en la Corona de Aragón: AnCal 9 (1963) 117-119.

The diocese of Barbastro was founded in 1571 at the expense of the dioceses of Huesca and Lérida and part of the revenues of the monasteries of Montearagón and Saint Victorian. Specifically, 51 towns whose spiritual and secular jurisdiction had belonged to the famous abbey were incorporated into the new diocese.[570] All this happened after protests, objections, lawsuits and other complications. And as Friar Philip de Urríes was the first bishop of the new diocese, he had to bear the consequences of all this during his pontificate. Even in 1584 and 1585, when Calasanz was his familiar, the legal disputes with the abbot and Saint Victorian monastery continued, with the personal intervention of Philip II, promoter of this and other new dioceses such as Jaca, Albarracín, Solsona, etc.[571]

570 Cf. España Sagrada, 48, p.43-46.

571 Cf. J. POCH, o.c., p.3O2.

In 1610, Labaña wrote specifically about the Town of Graus: “The civil jurisdiction belongs to the bishop and the criminal jurisdiction to Ribagorza, because the abbots entrusted the criminal jurisdiction to the counts of Ribagorza and the civil jurisdiction was now left to the bishop when the separation was carried out.”[572] Urríes had a particular fondness for this town, where the Sanctuary of Our Lady of la Peña had been founded in the middle of the century, the construction of which he began himself and which was completed around 1650 by the bishop of Huesca, Don Stephen de Esmir, a son of the town.[573]

572 Cf. J. GARCÍA MERCADAL, o.c., II, p.221.

573 Cf. A. SANZ LAVILLA, Santuarios y ermitas de la diócesis de Barbastro (Barbastro 1953).

In the last years of his life, especially when Joseph Calasanz was his familiar, Urries was plagued by a painful illness; he was not able to take part in the preaching ministry and often withdrew to Graus. This situation provoked the complaints of the Chapter, which appealed to its procurators in Rome on December 6, 1584, accusing him not only of neglecting the preaching ministry but also of other matters concerning the revenues and first fruits of the diocese; that “he almost always resided in his town of Graus and did not leave sufficient authority to the vicar general to administer justice .. that he attempted to exercise an all-encompassing jurisdiction and punishment over the Canons and that he conferred benefices without the consent of the Chapter...”[574]

574 Cf. España Sagrada, 48, p.49-50.

Of particular interest is the final accusation, which states that “his disagreements with the Chapter over the assignment of vacant dignities and canonries in the ordinary months were settled by an agreement in which it was stipulated that the Bishop and the Chapter would assign them alternately, both having to accord to the assignment... Sixtus V confirmed this agreement by his Bull, which he issued in Rome on the Calends of May 1585.”[575]

575 Ibid., p.50.

The young priest from Peralta witnessed these “disagreements” which, despite the arrangement confirmed by the papal Bull, were to resurface in later years when Joseph Calasanz himself tried to obtain a vacant canonry in the cathedral of Barbastro from Rome. Fortunately, he did not get it.

As a familiar, it is logical to assume that he sometimes accompanied his bishop on his frequent visits and stays in Graus, especially to the shrine of Our Lady of la Peña, one of the first on the long list he would complete in Spain and Italy, thus reinforcing his deep Marian devotion.

From Barbastro to Monzón

On June 18, 1585, Friar Philip de Urríes piously died[576] and Calasanz understood that with his death the reason for his remaining in Barbastro had ended. But where should he go? As long as his father was still alive, he did not want to move too far away from Peralta. And Urgel was too far away. It is true that since his ordination as a subdeacon (December 18, 1582) he had held an ecclesiastical benefice in the collegiate church of St. Stephen of Monzón in the diocese of Lérida, but it was meager and without a residence. And the person who had probably campaigned for his concession was able to intervene again at this new crossroads, or at least advise him. It was the parish priest Dr. Bartholomew Calasanz, Ecclesiastical Official and prior of the parish church of Santa María del Romeral in the town of Monzón since 1582,[577] and everything indicates that he was a relative of the Calasanzes of Peralta.[578]

576 With an apt phrase someone wrote when consigning the date of his death: “Jacetque in presbyterio almae sponsae suae” (cf. C. GUTIÉRREZ, Españoles en Trento, p.1014).

577 In a document of the episcopal curia of Lérida, dated June 24, 1579, we read: ...” per dominum Vicarium Generalem [sede vacante] fuit concessa licentia domino Bartholomeo Calasanz Priori parrochialis ecclesiae Beatae Mariae del Romeral ville Montissoni dioces. Illerdensis, ad recipiendos omnes ordines, etc.” (cf. J. POCH, El Fundador… p.306, n.). And in another of November 23, 1582, the same Chapter (sede Vacante) creates him Ecclesiastical Officer: ...” Bartholomeo Calasanç, Decretorum Doctori, Priori Ecclesiae Majoris Beatae Mariae del Romeral Villae Montissonj salutem, etc. facimus et constituimus, creamus et ordinamus vos dictum Bartholomeum Calasanç... Officialem et auditorem animarum dictae Villae et Offícialatus de Monçó...» (ibid.).

578 Dr. Bartholomew Calasanz was nephew and heir of mosén Antony Calasanz, who for 40 years was cantor of the Papal Chapel and died dean of the same in Rome in 1577 (cf. J. LÓPEZ NAVÍO, Ambiente histórico y social en que vivió San José de Calasanz. AnCal 26 [1971] 211). This Antony Calasanz obtained in 1563 a non-residential ecclesiastical benefice in the parish church of Fraga, which then passed to Caspar Agostí, who kept it until his death, which occurred in November 1592. And on February 20, 1593, Joseph Calasanz obtained it, a year after his arrival in Rome (cf. G. SÁNTHA Primum beneficium ecclesiasticum a S. Josepho Calasanctio in Urbem ingresso obtentum: EphCal 11 [1960] 306-312). This benefice was paid for by the Agostí family of Fraga, of which Peter John Agostí, alias Blanch was a member, and who married Johanna, sister of the Saint of Peralta, in Benabarre. (cf. J. POCH, El Fundador..., p.304, n.84).

It was precisely in the church of Santa María del Romeral in Monzón that the Courts of the Crown of Aragon were to be held under the presidency of Philip II, and the day of the inauguration ceremony was set for June 28th, exactly ten days after the death of Bishop Urríes. All the bishops of Aragón, Catalonia and Valencia or their procurators were to attend, as well as the representatives of the cathedral Chapters, abbots and other members of the clergy who made up the “brazo eclesiástico” (ecclesiastical class). It was therefore a favorable opportunity to find a benevolent reception with a prelate of an episcopal see near Peralta, while the current family situation. We do not know when he left Barbastro and arrived in Monzón. It is logical to assume that he was present at the funeral of his prelate protector and subsequently prepared his belongings for his final move from Barbastro, without excluding the possibility that he spent a few days in Peralta with his father and family while he decided on his immediate future.

At the same time, Barbastro was a hive of people looking for accommodation during the General Courts of Monzón. Cock wrote in his annals: “The archer guard [to which Cock belonged] is housed in this town; here His Majesty’s trumpeters have their houses. All the envoys of the princes who follow His Majesty’s Court have the best houses here...” And he names the apostolic Nuncio and the envoys of the Emperor, France, Poland, Venice, Florence, Ferrara, Mantua, Urbino, Parma, Genoa, Savoy and Lorraine.[579] The festive atmosphere of the royal archers and trumpeters and the courtly pomp of the ambassadors must have contrasted with the quiet and mournful atmosphere created by the death and burial of Bishop Urríes.

579 Cf. E. COCK, o.c., p.1369-1370.

The grandeur of the historic moment and the special solemnity of King Philip II’s arrival and the opening of the Courts was a spectacle worth seeing. And of course, Calasanz did not want to miss it. And from Barbastro, following the road along the Cinca - “two very long leagues”, as Cock remarked (about eighteen kilometers) - or from Peralta, along the banks of the Sosa - about twenty-two kilometers - he would arrive in Monzón to be on time for this historic hour. “On Friday, June 28th - so Cock - at four o´clock after lunch, His Majesty went to St. Mary’s Church to propose the Courts to be held by the Grandees of the Kingdom.”[580]

580 Ibid., p.1365.

Monzón and the Courts of 1585

In 1611, J. B. Labaña wrote in his Itinerary of the Kingdom of Aragón: “Monzón is a town of 500 inhabitants, located at the foot of some rocks on which there is an old ruined castle... It is a noble place, as the kings of the three kingdoms of Aragón, Catalonia and Valencia held their Courts here... the last one was held by King Philip II in 1585... the collegiate church was built in last August 1610. There was another old collegiate church in the city, the church of St. Stephen, which was suppressed and from which this largest collegiate church emerged, dedicated to St. Mary and very old in its structure.”[581] Let us explain.

581 Cf. J. GARCÍA MERCADAL, o.c., II, p.230.

Today you can still admire the imposing mass of the castle of Moorish origin, which belonged to the Templars since the twelfth century and served as a “prison” for James I in his childhood. When the Templars were suppressed, it passed to the Order of the Knights of St. John of Jerusalem and formed an ‘encomienda’ (entrusted land) that lasted until the 19th century, although the castle was already in ruins at the time of the 1585 Courts. At the time of James I, it was chosen as the seat of the General Courts of the Crown of Aragón due to its politically neutral character, as it was an ecclesiastical ´encomienda´.[582]

582 Cock wrote in 1585: “It used to be the patrimony of the Templar Knights... and the Templar Knights having been expelled throughout Christendom, it came to belong to the Knights of Malta, of the Order of St. John, whose command is to this day... although it was said in His Majesty’s arrival that with the license of the Supreme Pontiff... His Majesty wanted to exchange it with the aforementioned Order. There are ten other towns under its jurisdiction.” (ibid., I, p.1365).

According to Labaña, in 1610 the church of St. Mary of Romeral, seat of the courts, was converted into a collegiate church, which had previously been the church of St. Stephen. And so Cock stated in 1585: “In their collegiate church, dedicated to Saint Stephen,” he says, “twelve Canons are supported, whose prebends were created and founded by the neighbors themselves.”[583] And our protagonist Joseph Calasanz benefited from this collegiate church from 1582 - if not earlier.[584] Today, nothing remains of the old collegiate church, while the new church of Santa María del Romeral, with its magnificent Mudéjar tower and Gothic interior, recently restored with admirable mastery and good taste, still stands.

583 Ib.

584 His ordination card as subdeacon reads: “dilectum in Christo Josephum Calasanz Acolytum beneficiatum Sancti Stefani Montissoni Illerdensis dioecesis” (cf. AnCal 50 [1983] 270).

As an ecclesiastical dominion or encomienda, it was territorially - then as now - part of the Kingdom of Aragon; nevertheless, as Cock rightly noted, “everything ecclesiastical belongs to the bishop of Lérida, in whose diocese the town is located.”[585] (Today it belongs to the diocese of Barbastro).

585 Cf. COCK, o.c., p.1366.

In those early summer days of 1585, as Joseph Calasanz strolled through the old streets of Monzón, he could easily meet already familiar figures, such as the bishop of Barcelona, Don John Dimas Loris, who presided over the Catalan Courts in place of the Archbishop of Tarragona, who was absent due to illness; as bishop of Urgel, he had performed the first ecclesiastical tonsure ten years earlier in the sanctuary of St. Christ of Balaguer; the Canons of Lérida Peter Margalef, vicar general and chancellor of the University, and Baltasar Rajadell, representative of the Chapter; Don William John de Iborra, procurator of Don Philip de Castro y Cervelló, Baron of La Laguna and Lord of Peralta de la Sal; Don Caspar John de la Figuera, bishop of Albarracín and elected of Lérida, who had ordained him deacon in Fraga on Holy Saturday 1583. He probably also met and knew the ´infanzones´ John de Bardaxí, lord of Ramastué, from the town of Benabarre, as well as Bernard de Puy, also a neighbor of Benabarre, James de Barber from Binéfar, Francis Claramunt from Estadilla, Francis de Ager from Tamarite, etc.[586]

586 Cf. J. POCH, El Fundador..., p.271-273, and COCK, oc., p.1372-1373.

He could also meet others with whom he would later would live, such as Friar Andrew Capilla, Prior of the Charterhouse Scala Dei of Tarragona and future bishop of Urgel, Canons Louis Esquerrer and Michael Aymerich, Procurator of the bishop of Urgel, Friar Ambrose de Moncada, who was unable to attend, and Sebastian Moles, representative of the Chapter of Urgel.[587] He would soon see them again when he returned to his diocese of Urgel, in the direct service of the Chapter.

587 Cf. J. POCH, l.c.

But among all those present in Monzón, it was undoubtedly King Philip II who aroused his curiosity and deep emotion the most. He was accompanied by his son and successor, the “Prince of Spain Don Philip, who is already seven and a half years old”, as Cock pointed out,[588] and his sister, the Infanta Elisabeth Clare Eugenia, with the entire large retinue of ladies and gentlemen of the Court.

588 Cf. COCK, o.c., p.1371.

This great assembly, so heterogeneous in its composition, had only the solemn act of inauguration in common, at which the King made read out his first speech. In the days that followed, each of the nations or kingdoms of Aragon, Catalonia and Valencia had their own sessions and followed their own rhythm, which in turn was divided into three ´arms´ or classes distributed within the church or in its adjoining cloister.[589]

589 Cf. J. POCH, o.c., p.269, n.40. “The three kingdoms each have their own arms (classes), it is: the ecclesiastical, military and civil class of the cities. Only Aragón has a fourth class, which is that of the hidalgos [infanzones]. Each class has its quarters either in the church or in the cloister” (E. COCK, o.c., p.1371)

Not without a certain pessimistic realism, the chronicler Cock summarized in a few lines what happened in the Courts during the first months: “From the beginning of the Courts until the month of October they did nothing else in them, but everything was spent in questions and doubts about the seats, asking the lords for important things: the Count of Chinchón for the King; the Count of Sástago for the Kingdom of Aragón; the Count of Miranda for Catalonia and, for the Kingdom of Valencia, Don García de Mendoza.”[590]

590 Ib. That this judgment was not the result of lightness or exaggeration of the observer COCK it is proved by the Count of Chinchón, who writes on July 27 to Rome: “The Courts have been a month since they began, but we are still at the first step and with much confusion” (cf. POCH, El Fundador..., p.316).

Of course, not everything was limited to “questions and disputes” between the counts, who represented the King and their kingdoms of the Crown of Aragón, to request the monarch’s attention in the serious matters of each of them. The many delicate problems that concerned each of the three “nations” or that were of general interest were dealt with more or less calm.[591] But these are topics beyond our historical scope, apart from the “events of Ribagorza” and banditry, and the comprehensive program of monastic reform that was dear to the King’s heart. We will continue to talk about both topics.

591 Cf. extensive edited and unpublished bibliography for the study of the Cortes de Monzón of 1585 in J. POCH, l.c., p.267, n.38.

In the service of the Bishop of Lérida

No one in the Piarist Order knew of Joseph Calasanz’s presence in Monzón during the General Courts of 1585 But in 1690, Father Armini, who had already completed the manuscript of his ‘Vita del Servo di Christo P. Giuseppe della Madre di Dio...’ in 1686, had some evidence of his intervention in a certain reform of the Spanish Augustinians and asked for reports to Father Augustine Passante, who was in Barcelona. Father Passante made inquiries and sent to Rome the letter of the Prior of the Augustinians of Toledo, in which was copied a personal declaration of the Founder of the Pious Schools of 1637, which had been published in 1664.[592] Here is the full text of this most interesting declaration, in which the elderly Calasanz, in his eighty years and fifty-two years after the events, recalls with admirable precision the dates, names and events he witnessed:

592 It was edited in Historia General de los Religiosos Descalzos de la Orden de los Hermitaños ... de San Agustín, by Fr. Fray Andrew of Saint Nicholas (Madrid 1664) t.I, p.128. See references to the epistolary correspondence between Armini, Passante and the Augustinian Prior of Toledo in J. POCH, I.c., p.23O-233. Armini died leaving his work in manuscript, which was published in Rome by Fr. Passante, in 1710, adding to the text of Armini the aforementioned statement translated into Italian, simply to prove that Calasanz had been “secretary of the Visitation to Montserrat” -which is not affirmed in this text-, without commenting absolutely on the intervention in the Augustinian reform.

“In the year fifteen hundred and eighty-five, King Philip the Second came to Monçón, returning from Barcelona, where he accompanied His Highness the Duke of Savoy and the Infanta of Spain, wife of the said Highness. He came to hold the Courts or State for the three kingdoms of the Crown of Aragon. Among the other prelates was Don Caspar de la Higuera, a native of Fraga, Bishop of Albarracín and already elected Bishop of Lérida. In his palace there was a Father named Aguilar of the Order of St. Augustine, a great preacher and of small stature, and it seems to me that he was from the region of Seville and that we were both in Monçón in the service of the said bishop. This Father Aguilar began to talk with the said bishop about the reformation of his Religion, and the said bishop with the confessor of King Philip the Second, called Father Chaves of the Order of St. Dominic, he discussed this reformation, and in this way came to an understanding with the king, who sent a Congregation (commission) to settle this matter, and the said bishop, the said king’s confessor, and the count of Chinchon, the Justice of Aragón, and the said Father Aguilar were present; and after they had met several times, they finally decided the way in which it should be done, and I was appointed secretary to write the despatches to be sent to Rome. This was in August or September of the said year 1585, and the papers were sent by order of the King to his Embaxador. The said bishop was then elected, by an Apostolic Brief, Visitator of the monastery or sanctuary of the Most Holy House of Monserrate, and I accompanied him as his Confessor and Examiner. The said bishop died during the said Visitation, and I returned to my country. I heard no more of the matter until I saw that the Reformation had already begun, and may God give it a continual increase of spirit and zeal. I, Joseph of the Mother of God, Minister General of the Pious Schools, affirm that I was in Monçon at the above time, and that I wrote the above documents with my own hand, and because it is true, I signed the above report in Rome on the fourteenth day of November, one thousand six hundred and thirty-seven.”[593]

593 Cf. J. POCH, I.c., p.233-234.

This long report shows that Calasanz entered the service of La Figuera in August or September, together with Father Aguilar, on the basis of the Augustinians’ reform proposal. It is likely that the said bishop was already present at the inauguration of the Courts on the afternoon of June 28th. There is evidence that on the 13th of the same month he wrote from Huesca (whose University he was Visitator) to the Chapter of Lérida to inform it of his appointment and his imminent departure for Monzón,[594] and that he wrote again on July 8th, when he was already in Monzón.[595] Calasanz therefore had at least the whole month of July to enter the service of the elected bishop of Lérida.

594 (Monzón) “where I think we will have to go very soon” (J. POCH, ibid., p.291).

595 Cf. ibid., p.310-311.

Perhaps he hoped to find his bishop at the Courts to resolve the situation of “unemployment” in which the death of Urríes had left him. But Friar Hugh Ambrose de Moncada did not go to Monzón. It was therefore necessary to discuss the matter with his procurators, to whom he had perhaps already presented the solution of his transfer to the service of the bishop of Lérida. But who lobbied for him to be given this position?

The answer does not seem to be very difficult. One could initially assume a direct recommendation from the procurators of the bishop of Urgel or a personal letter from the bishop, who was absent and could not be present. It is not unlikely that Father Aguilar, who was admitted to the palace of La Figuera as a result of the reform, presented the young Calasanz as a suitable collaborator, whose talents he might have known very well in the General Studium of Lérida, where he was professor of Sacred Scripture in the years when Calasanz was finishing his ecclesiastical career.[596] The phrase “we were both in Monçón in the service of the said bishop” gives a nuance of personal relationship that supports the proposed hypothesis. The bishop’s fond memory of having ordained him deacon in Fraga could also be significant, as well as possible family ties or a simple friendship between La Figuera and the Agostís of Fraga, who were related to Calasanz’s brother-in-law from Benabarre.[597] Not forgetting the possible recommendation of Dr. Bartholomew Calasanz, prior of Saint Mary of Romeral and Ecclesiastical Official of Monzón.

596 On February 10, 1584 Fr Provincial of Augustinians gives his licence to print a book written by “Most Rev. Fr. Master Friar Francis Aguilar, prior of our monastery of Lérida and lecturer of Holy Scripture of the University of the said city” (J. POCH, ibid., p.338). In describing him as a “great preacher” Calasanz must have evoked him in his university years in Lérida, since it would be difficult for Fr. Aguilar to have the opportunity to show off his oratory skills in Monzón, given his own occupations and those of the Courts.

597 Cf. n.578 of this chapter. This last hypothesis and the following one were proposed by J. Poch, El Fundador..., p.304-306, n.84.

So, we have Joseph Calasanz, ‘familiar´ of another bishop, in whose service he will be for a short time, but until his death, as was the case with that of Barbastro.

Bishop de La Figuera and the monastic reform

One of the most important figures among the many high-ranking clergymen who gathered at the courts of Monzón was undoubtedly Don Caspar John de la Figuera (1537-1586). Friar Ramón de Huesca wrote the following eulogy about him:

“This prelate was born into a noble family in the town of Fraga in the Kingdom of Aragón. From the first year of his life, he showed a lofty spirit and a great inclination towards the sciences and virtue. The progress he made in both areas earned him a canonry and the archdeaconry of Teruel in the metropolitan church of Zaragoza, when he was still a Regular [Canon Regular of St. Augustine]. He was an outstanding preacher and one of the most recognised subjects of his time. Due to his merits, the Catholic King Don Philip II appointed him Bishop of Jaca, which he took possession of in 1578 and began to visit his diocese in the same year.”[598]

598 FR. RAMÓN DE HUESCA, Teatro histórico de las Iglesias del Reyno de Aragón, vol. VIII (Pamplona 1802), p.152-154.

King Philip II greatly appreciated his gifts and merits and successively elected him bishop of Jaca (1578-1583), Albarracín (1583-1585) and Lérida (1585-1586) and also entrusted him with the Visitation reform of the University of Huesca (1584-1585). As bishop, he visited his diocese of Jaca and held a synod in Albarracín. He was no longer able to do anything in Lérida, as he died prematurely and unexpectedly at the age of forty-nine in full possession of his strength.

But of all his tasks, we are particularly interested in his special commitment to the reform of the Religious, which was also the express will of Philip II, who was so committed to the reform of the Regulars during his very long reign. La Figuera’s first experience as bishop of Jaca was the Visitation-reform of the famous Benedictine monastery of San John de la Peña, which he carried out in September 1581.[599] The second was entrusted to him at the courts of Monzón and concerned the Augustinians. And the third and last he had in Montserrat, where he ended his days, but not the Visitation. And in the last two he had Joseph Calasanz at his side as a collaborator, at the still young age of twenty-eight.

599 Cf. J. POCH, D. Gaspar Juan de la Figuera. Obispo y Visitador. Sus relaciones con San José de Calasanz: AnCal 8 (1962) 361-367.

La Figuera’s three interventions in the matter of monastic reform do not stand in isolation, not even in the religious policy of Philip II, but are embedded in a much larger stream and general character.

It all began in the last century in Italy with the so-called “Congregations of Observance”, which set about reforming religious life and returning to the rigour of primitive rules. In Spain, this movement was welcomed and particularly encouraged by Cardinal Cisneros and the Catholic Kings. The reform led to a division of the monasteries and convents into “observant” and “cloistered or conventual” monasteries: the former had adopted the reform, while the latter remained faithful to their norms and customs, in the way they had changed over the centuries. This internal division led to many conflicts and disagreements.

In Spain, the reform took hold in the Kingdom of Castile and passed from there to the Crown of Aragón, not without the reform itself encountering resistance and undisguised hostility from the those of the Crown of Aragón who felt their nationalist sensibilities were hurt by what they considered centralist interference and subterfuges of Castilianization.

This phenomenon affected all the old religious orders such as the Benedictines, Canon Regulars, Cistercians, Franciscans, Dominicans, Augustinian Hermits, Carmelites, Trinitarians, Mercedarians, etc...[600]

600 Cf. Historia de la Iglesia en España, BAC, vol. III-1ª. p.329-330.

Philip II gave an extraordinary impetus to this reform movement and in 1585, at the Courts of Monzón, he showed his interest and concern,[601] especially for the Augustinians and the Benedictines of Montserrat, whose reform he entrusted to La Figuera, who used the services of Joseph Calasanz.

601 Jerome Gassol, secretary of Philip II, wrote to the ambassador of Rome, Count of Olivares, from Monzón, on August 22, 1585: “It is a pity to see the way the Abbeys [of Canons Regular of St. Augustine] are in Catalonia. It is necessary that the Brief come in the form that is requested. The matter of the Merced [Mercedarian religious] has no less need, especially because according to the resolution that His Majesty has now taken, the bishop of Vich to whom it is entrusted will not interfere in it, and thus the Order remains at the discretion of the Prior of Barcelona, which is very inconvenient.” And Father Poch adds to this quote: “Note that during the Courts of Monzón (1585) a true series of Briefs for the reform and apostolic visitation of monastic institutions of the Crown of Aragón were processed in Rome by the skilful Olivares” (J. POCH, El Fundador..., p.276, n.50).

The reform of the Augustinians

The Augustinians had three provinces on the peninsula: Castile, Portugal and the Crown of Aragón. The first welcomed the reform with success, but the other two were reluctant. Philip II was determined to introduce “observance’ in the Crown of Aragón, and to this end he chose one of the most important figures in the Province of Castile as reformer and vicar-general of the Province of the Crown of Aragón. He was Friar Rodrigo de Solís, Prior of Seville and Definitor of the Castilian Province.

As he always had to obtain the approval of the Holy See, Philip II wrote to his ambassador on March 9, 1568, asking for the relevant Bulls or Briefs:

“It will be necessary to take for this office some of the reformed friars of the province of Castile, as this will bring the necessary success, etc. Father Rodrigo de Solís receives [in the papal instruction] the express permission to take as many friars from Castile as are necessary, of good and exemplary life, and among them as many preachers that they may be elected priors and other necessary offices for the reformation of these houses and monasteries [of the Crown of Aragón].”[602]

602 Cf. J. POCH, o.c., p.336-337. For the whole matter of the Augustinian reform, see Chapter 6 (p.319-356) of the aforementioned study of Father Poch, based on unpublished documents.

Among the fifty Castilian religious chosen by Father Solís for this mission[603] were Fathers Francis Mansilla, Francis Castroverde, Diego de Orellana, Rodrigo de Ayala, Hernando de Peralta, John de Tolosa, Caspar de Sama and Francis de Aguilar. The latter was praised by Calasanz as a “great preacher”, which ensured that the King’s wish that they should be good preachers was fulfilled.

603 In a Brief of September 12, 1570, we read: “Fratri Roderico de Solís, priori monasterii Scti. Augustini Hispalensis, conceditur facultas reformandi et ad observantiam redeundi fratres conventuales dicti Ordinis Coronae Aragonum, etc.” (ibid., p.336).

By the time Father Solís died in early 1583, all the monasteries owned by the Order in the Crown of Aragón had been reformed. Francis Mansilla, the first provincial of the Observance in Aragón, succeeded him as Reformer and General Vicar and held a Provincial Chapter in Valencia in May 1583. There, Father John Gregory Satorre - formerly “Cloistered” - was elected as the new Provincial, and Father Mansilla was relieved of his duties when the title and office of Reformer and General Vicar was abolished by Rome. Father Mansilla returned to his province of Castile. Moreover, at the insistence of the natives of the Crown of Aragón, the new provincial gradually ousted the “observant” Castilians from their leadership positions and replaced them with “ex-cloistered” from the Crown of Aragón.[604] There was no abruptness, no provocations and no boasting of reprisals, but what is certain is that the removal of the “Castilians” seemed implicitly to entail the removal of the “observance”, and in a way it did.[605] The alarm spread among the remaining members of the group of “reformers”, whose representative - Father Aguilar, Prior of Lérida - arrived in Monzón to obtain from Philip II a halt to what was thought to be the end of the reform he was promoting.

604 In the Memorandum that Father Aguilar addressed to Philip II, he said: “the Provincial [Father Satorre] promised before many of ‘the natives’ to do all he could to drive out the ‘Castilians’ from this Province, and then in the first visit he made, he began to fulfill his promise, leaving orders in the houses where novices could be received, that no Castilian novices be received. He also began to remove priors who seemed to him that they were not at his (...) or to presure them with bad treatments so that they would leave their offices, particularly those who were Castilian, putting others who were of his (...) so that of 33 convents that there are in this province, you will hardly find ten that conserve the priors in their own way” (ibid., p.429-430).

605 In the aforementioned Memorandum, Father Aguilar said: “in only four years since the death of the said Friar Rodrigo de Solís, this Reformation has lost so much of its good principles, that with much reason it is to be feared that it will soon return to its first ruin and havoc if the most pious hand of Your Majesty, who gave it its beginning, does not repair it so that it does not fall” (ibid., p.428).

Father Aguilar resided in the city of Segre as prior of the Augustinian monastery and professor at the university. He had no intention of presenting his problem as a matter to be dealt with by the Courts. In fact, they did not care about. He simply wanted to take advantage of the fact that in Monzón, which “is six leagues from Lérida”,[606] there were some people who were very interested in the Augustinian reform in the Crown of Aragón from the very beginning. In addition to the King, these were John de Lanuza, Justice of Aragón, and the new bishop of Lérida, Bishop La Figuera.[607] Both advised him to speak to the king’s confessor, the Dominican priest Diego de Chaves, to whom he presented a memorandum written by Calasanz.[608] Aguilar wrote to the King: “Father Chaves has sent me to the Count of Chinchón, to whom I have communicated everything I say in this memorandum and the means by which, in my opinion, the damage can be well remedied, and it is very necessary that a solution be found in this way or in another way that pleases Your Majesty for the coming Chapter to be held in this Province on April 22nd of the following year 1586.”[609]

606 Cf. E. COCK, o.c., p.13. Today fifty-one kilometers.

607 In the quoted Memorandum, Father Aguilar said about La Figuera, who had been a Canon Regular of St. Augustine, “who from the beginning has shown it [the Reform]... his affection and done great favors to it” (J. POCH, o.c., p.430).

608 See photocopy in J. POCH, o.c., Illustration adjoining p.341

609 Cf. J. POCH, o.c., p.430.

The King - says Calasanz in his testimony of 1637 - “entrusted a commission to settle this matter, and the said bishop, the said King’s confessor and the count of Chinchón, the Justice of Aragón and the said Father Aguilar were present”, and he could have added with Dante: “si ch’io fui sesto tra cotanto senno”,[610] although not as an advisory member, but “I was summoned - he adds - as secretary to write the dispatches to be sent to Rome. And that was in August or September of 1585, and the papers were sent to his embaxador by order of the King.”[611]

610 Cf. DANTE, La Divina Commedia. Inferno, canto IV, v.102: “so that I was the sixth among so worthy a council”.

611 Cf. the text corresponding to n.593 above.

These handwritten dispatches from Calasanz have not yet been found despite all the research, but their content is well known to us, because together with them and on September 21st, the King sent a letter to his ambassador Olivares in which “he “offers the summary of the resolutions or agreements of the Congregation that have met on his behalf to revive the Augustinian observance in the monasteries of the Crown of Aragon.”[612] For his part, the secretary of the Roman embassy drew up a summary of the petitions, which he sent to the King with the above-mentioned letter from Olivares. We read:

612 So assures Poch in o.c., p.344. Cf. the royal letter, in its entirety, in ibid., p.431.433. To this letter the King added another, addressed to the Pope, so that he would attend to the pleas that the ambassador Olivares would make on his behalf (cf. ibid., p.434).

“Summary: Your Majesty September 21, 1585.

Monçon. Secretary Gassol.

That Friar Francis Mansilla of the the Order of St. Augustine, native of Córdoba, be appointed General Vicar of the Province of Aragón in said Order, with the same authority and power that Friar Rodrigo de Solís had at the time he reformed it. Or to Friar Caspar de Saona, who is in Barcelona. Or to Friar Hernando de Peralta. With the clarification that if the one General Vicar appointed dies before the Reformation is completed, His Majesty may appoint one of the other two to complete it, the one that the Province of Castile deems suitable. The General Vicar has the power to unite the monasteries of those who, due to their poverty, cannot keep the observance. That he can take two religious from the Province of Castile, whomever he wishes. That everything be done with discretion and secrecy.”[613]

613 Ibid., p347-348.

That was all that was dealt with and decided in Monzón by this special commission appointed by the King, which had nothing to do with the issue under discussion in Courts. Nor does it seem right to reduce Calasanz’s intervention to the simple drafting of the “dispatches” that were sent to Rome and with which the meeting was concluded, since his collaboration began even before the appointment of the Commission members, when he wrote the “Summary of the Memorandum” that was given to Father Chaves during the preparatory phase.[614] In addition, his position as secretary logically required a normal and continuous presence at all meetings of the group.

614 Thus Fr. Poch against the reductionist opinion of Fr. Antony Vidal, who denied the attendance of Calasanz to the sessions of the group and limited his action to the final drafting of the dispatches (cf. ibid., p.364).

Another historical confusion

The report signed by Calasanz in 1637 ended as follows: “The said bishop [La Figuera] died on the said visit [to Montserrat] and I returned to my country; and I learned nothing further about this matter until I saw that the Reformation had already begun.”[615] The one who first published this account in 1664 was Friar Andrew of San Nicolás in his ‘Historia General de los Religiosos Descalzos de la Orden de los Hermitaños... de San Augustin’, who believed that “what was discussed in the above-mentioned assembly of Monzón referred to the ‘Descalcez’ or Augustinian Recollection. For the same reason, it is quite natural that the authors who wrote about the foundation of the Recollection after the aforementioned chronicler, and also the biographers of the Holy Founder of the Pious Schools, interpreted this document in the same way...”[616]

615 Ibid., p.234.

616 Cf. P. Fr. MANUEL CARCELLER (Augustinian Recollect), Nueva luz sobre la Junta de Monzón del año 1585: Boletín de la Provincia de San Nicolás de Tolentino 589 [1963] 4.

The confusion was indeed easy, because three years after the assembly of Monzón, in 1588, a Chapter of the province of Castile was held in Toledo under the presidency of Father General Gregory Petrochini, at which the foundation of monasteries of the Recollects was decided. As there was talk of an “Augustinian reform” in Monzon and Toledo, it was believed that the two were closely linked. Both the Recollects and the Piarists, depending on their point of view, felt justified satisfaction at the intervention of St. Joseph Calasanz in the origin of this Augustinian reform.[617] However, these were two completely different and independent reforms.

617 Talenti wrote: “ In 1588, when the R.P. Gregorio Petrochini, General of the Order of St. Augustine, arrived in Spain, in order to satisfy the requests of the King [Philip II], he convened the Provincial Chapter of Toledo, and the reform was decreed, to which Joseph [Calasanz] had contributed so much....” (TALENTI, Vita, p.19). And the erroneous tradition continues to this day (cf. BAU, BC, p.130-132; BAU, RV, p.45-46). Poch’s research, which we have summarized, dispelled the confusion, which he himself still accepted in 1962 (cf. J. POCH, D. Gaspar Juan de la Figuera, obispo y visitador..., p.374-377).

While the royal courier took the “Calasanz’s dispatches” and other letters from Philip II to Rome, and the ambassador Olivares, the Augustinian general, Father Espiritu Vicentino, and Pope Sixtus V dealt with the issue of reform in the Crown of Aragón, bishop Caspar John de la Figuera and Joseph Calasanz left Monzón and set off for Montserrat at the end of October of the same year 1585, without bothering about this problem, because other, more serious problems awaited them at the Benedictine monastery.

There was no Papal Brief. The solution lay in the hands of the General of the Order, who wrote to Philip II on November 4th, first expressing his astonishment that in the two and a half years that Father Satorre had been Provincial, not a single complaint about non-compliance with the rules had been made to him, neither by the Castilians nor by the Aragonese. He suggested that he should personally visit the provinces of Spain to take the appropriate measures. He reminded the King that he had already received many complaints from Aragón and Catalonia years ago because, after so many years of reforms, they had to be subjected to the rule of the Castilians like immature children with shame and disgrace, because being the “most reformed” Province it was intolerable to be under the yoke of the Castilians, as no more observance was in Castile than in the Crown of Aragón.[618]

618 Cf. J POCH, El Fundador... p.436.

Despite these complaints, the General offered a solution which, although not entirely in line with the King’s wishes, was extremely clever: he chose Father Saona from the three candidates presented and excluded the other two; he appointed him Commissioner and not Reformer and General Vicar, as the King had requested, and only until the next Provincial Chapter, which was still a few months away. There was no allusion to the omnipotent powers that Father Solis possessed, nor was there any mention of Castile or the Castilians.[619]

619 Cf. ibid., p.436-438.

When the Chapter was held, Father Saona was elected Provincial and the office of Commissioner came to an end. This three-year period of the provincialate (1586-1589) was followed by another (1592-1595). This continuity in the highest office of the Province of the Crown of Aragón is a guarantee that the “observance”, for which Father Saona was one of the main proponents from the beginning, remained in force. On the other hand, Father Aguilar remained in his monastery in Lérida as prior, at least in the triennium of 1586-1589, and he died there in 1613.[620] But neither Saona nor Aguilar went over to the “Reform of the Recollection” which arose in Toledo in 1588, but they remained in the “observance” until their deaths.

620 Cf. ibid, p.352.

During the years that Calasanz spent in his diocese of Urgel (1587-1592), he had the opportunity to see for himself the vitality of the Augustinian “Reform”, as there were Augustinian monasteries in the same town of La Seo and in Puigcerdá. And it seems absurd to think that he did not know how to distinguish between the Recollects and the “observant” Augustinians, whose intimate problems he had come to know in Monzón.[621]

621 Rightly Fr. Poch rejects the opinion of Fr. Manuel Carceller who attributes the confusion, in fact work of historians, to Calasanz himself: “It is not strange that [Calasanz], at that distance of time (1585-1637) and living in Rome since 1592, could believe that the reform of the Augustinian conventuals of the Crown of Aragon and the Augustinian Reform or Recollection, born in Toledo, in December 1588, were the same thing” (cf. ibid., p.353, n.130).

An urgent short visit to Peralta

In one of his invaluable historical notes, Father Jericó wrote the following:

“While [Joseph Calasanz] was preparing to go to Montserrat, he seems to have gone to Peralta de la Sal, his home, where his father fell seriously ill and on September 19, 1585, he made another closed will in which he names himself Master Peter Calasanz and, after several mandates and bequests, leaves his beloved son Mossén Joseph Calasanz, priest, resident in the town of Peralta, as heir, executor and exonerator of his soul and conscience. And he adds that, should he be absent at the time of his death, the executors appointed by him will be charged with making the necessary arrangements for the fulfillment and security of his goods.”[622]

622 Cf. J. POCH, Tres testamentos ..., p.457-458.

This serious illness of his father in Peralta fits perfectly with a kind of plague that broke out in Monzón and the surrounding area around the months of September and October, as Cock reports in his ‘Annals of the Year Eighty-Five’. He begins with the words: “At the beginning of September I fell ill with a fever from which I was unable to recover until the end of October...” And he continues: “On October 10, Dr. John Fonch, President of Flanders, died...” And the King: “Shortly afterwards [September 21] His Majesty fell into a fever, which did not leave him for several days in October. Nevertheless, on the eve of All Saints’ Day, he returned in good health with great joy for all...” And the victims continue: “The Archbishop of Saragossa... died on October 12th to the great horror of all....” And again, he recalls “that the Archbishop died, as I said, almost suddenly, although it seems he could have lived to be much older.” And then he adds, “During the Courts many important men also died..., it is said that the number of all the dead, both courtiers and ‘country people’, exceeded one thousand five hundred people... In Barbastro, too, for a time there were five, six or seven deaths a day...”[623]

623 Cf. E. COCK, o.c., p.1371-1373.

If there were so many deaths, Joseph Calasanz could not help but walk the twenty-two kilometres up the banks of the Sosa and get to Peralta as quickly as possible when he learned that his father was ill. He made his will on September 19th and on September 21st the king signed the letters that were to accompany “the “dispatches” prepared by Calasanz. It is therefore not possible to say exactly whether he was already in Peralta on the 19th or whether he was still in Monzón to write the dispatches.

It is clear from the messages that Calasanz was very attentive during these years, as he was worried about his father’s ailing health and was therefore very close to Peralta. A few months later, he returned to his town, where he stayed for almost a year until his father died in his arms. We have also already noted that Joseph is referred to in this will as a “resident of the town of Peralta”, as he apparently did not want to establish his residence anywhere while his father was still alive.

This will also confirms the fact that Calasanz did not want to be an “heir” after the death of his brother Peter, as the witnesses said. And that is why his father only made a will now, in the face of death. And only now did he appoint him as universal heir. As it was a “closed” will, Calasanz neither knew its contents nor did he have the option of accepting his appointment as universal heir - for the second time - or renouncing it.

Master Peter Calasanz escaped the danger and his son returned to Monzón.

On the way to Montserrat

At the end of July 1585, a Brief arrived from Sixtus V to the King, in which he appointed the Bishop of Albarracín, Mons. de La Figuera, and the Bishop of Vich, John Bta. Cardona, Apostolic Visitators of the Monastery of Monserrat, with far-reaching decision-making powers.[624] Both were present at the Courts as members of the ecclesiastical ´brazo¨(class). The one from Albarracín had been proposed by the King for the see of Lérida, but the appointment Bulls did not arrive until mid-September.[625] Philip II had a preference for him, as he had already demonstrated his abilities as Visitator at the University of Huesca and, in particular, at the Benedictine monastery of San John de la Peña; he was also responsible for the reform of the Augustinians during the months of the courts of Monzón. Therefore, the King chose La Figuera between the two proposed visitators to Montserrat, to whom he presented the papal Brief on August 21st.[626]

624 The Brief was in response to Philip II’s request (May 28, 1585) to appoint “any of the Prelates or persons constituted in dignity of these Kingdoms of the Crown of Aragon, whom I shall appoint or choose” (cf. J. POCH, Don Gaspar Juan de la Figuera.., p.388).

625 On September 12, 1585, La Figuera wrote to the Cabildo of Lérida: “I wait for the Bulls in hours, because I am told that they are already in Çaragoça” (cf. J. POCH, Aportación documental a la hist. de la Univ. de Huesca... p.229).

626 Cf. J. POCH, El Fundador..., p.379.

The ‘Prudent’ King wanted to finalise all these preparatory steps well and “for greater security... and so that those who wish to hinder the said Visitation and its execution have no opportunity to do so” - as he informed his ambassador Olivares - he asked the Pope for a further Brief in which he expressly appointed Don Caspar John de la Figuera,[627] whom he had had transferred from the Aragonese episcopal see of Albarracín to the Catalan episcopal see of Lérida[628] precisely in view of this visit to a Catalan monastery, as Visitator. When Sixtus V signed the new appointment (November 4, 1585), the Bishop of Lérida had already begun the difficult Visitation.

627 Cf. the letter to the ambassador, dated September 21, 1585 (the same day he signed the letters accompanying the “Calasanctian dispatches” on the Augustinian reform), in J. POCH, Don Gaspar Juan de la Figuera... p.391-392. The King’s doubts were based on the fact that the Brief of Visitation was addressed to “the bishops of Albarracín and Vich”, without naming them, and on that date (June 27, 1585) Figuera had not yet been named bishop of Lérida (August 12, 1585), who was the one who would in fact make the visit, and not that of Albarracín, which remained “sede vacante.”

628 This is how the King explained it to Olivares: “One of the things that made me appoint him was to move him from [Albarracín] to Lérida in Catalonia and not to remain in Aragón, and this is very convenient” (ibid. p.392).

La Figuera spent ten days maturing his decision to accept the appointment as Visitator of Montserrat. And he had his reasons. Just reading the papal Brief that had been handed to him gave him an idea of the seriousness of the situation, as it not only spoke of the death of the previous Visitator, but also of serious disputes and discord among the religious, of scandals and cruel and monstrous crimes.[629] But he took the risk.

629 “Sicut nuper intelleximus idem Benedictus [de Tocco] Episcopus more preventus munus hujusmodi [of Visitator] ut par erat obire et absolvere non potuerit, et post eius obitum graviores discussiones et discordias inter ipsos Religiosos procurante humani generis hoste disseminare, ac majora inde scandala secuta fuerint, ac nonnulli ex ipsis religiosis propriae salutis immemores atrocia et enormia facinora etiam adiunctis sibi in societatem sceleris aliquot perditis et facinerosis hominibus laicis perpetrarint” (ib. , 433-434, n.91).

At the end of August, the King instructed the royal archivist of Barcelona to hand over the documents relating to the visit to Montserrat, which had been interrupted by the death of the previous Visitator and bishop of Lérida, Friar Benedict de Tocco. The ‘Council of the Hundred’ was against these documents, which were locked under two keys in a pine box, left the borders of Catalonia, but the King’s will was fulfilled and at the end of September they arrived in Monzón and were handed over to the new Visitator, La Figuera.[630]

630 Cf. J. POCH, El Fundador..., p.380-381.

During the three weeks he spent in Monzón, he had time to slowly read all the reports, interrogations, letters, pleas and other secret documents that were kept in the precious pine box. And he also had the opportunity to talk to the King, the all-powerful Count of Chinchón and other regents of the Supreme Council of Aragón about the complicated monastery problem and the possible ways to solve it. And in the quiet hours of the palace where he resided, he no doubt went to his young confidant Joseph Calasanz to discuss and comment on all this. His personal gifts earned him the appointment by the visiting bishop as “familiar”, together with the deacon Michael John Castanesa,[631] and - as he himself confirmed in 1637 - “his confessor and Examiner”[632]

631 Cf. ibid., p. 407.

632 Cf. ibid., p.382, n.166.

On October 20th, Bishop La Figuera from Monzón wrote to the Chapter of Lérida: “Most Ill. Lords... After tomorrow Tuesday [22nd], with God’s favor, I plan to leave for Montserrat and arrive in Balaguer on Wednesday or Thursday...”[633] When he left Monzón, his entourage included the two young “familiars” Calasanz and Castanesa, the secretary of the visit, Don Jerome Pérez,[634] and the two laymen: Don Iván de Bardají, advisor to the governor of Aragón and royal commissioner for the political-civic affairs of the visit,[635] and Mathew Ferro, also royal commissioner for economic affairs.[636] The Courts, with all their problems, were left behind and were to remain until December 2nd, when the King and his entourage left for Binéfar, where the last meetings of the Catalans and Aragonese were to take place.[637]

633 Cf. ibid., p.405-406.

634 From the ‘Breve Notizia’ of 1648 until our time another false tradition has been maintained, according to which Calasanz exercised the office of secretary of the Montserrat Visit, until Fr. Bau published the photocopy of the Minutes of Visitation of October 29th in which we read: ...” per relationem mihi dicto Hieronymo Pérez notario et secretario...” (cf. (cf. C. BAU, Historia de las Escuelas Pías en Cataluña, between p.32-33). More data on this ecclesiastic person can be found in J. POCH, El Fundador..., p.398-404.

635 On this person see J. POCH, o.c., p.385-398.

636 Cf. J. POCH, Com un malentés configurá una tradició: Cat 228 [1980] 8.

637 Cf. E. COCK, o.c., p.1374-1375.

The Visitator’s entourage also passed through Binéfar, but instead of following the royal road to Lérida, it took a detour entering in Catalonia via Alfarrás to reach Balaguer.[638] No doubt Calasanz visited the sanctuary of the Christ of Almatá, remembering the ceremony of his first ecclesiastical tonsure ten years earlier. From Balaguer, they traveled via Bellcaire de Urgel and Fuliola to Vilagrasa, where they joined the Lérida-Barcelona royal road and via Tárrega, Cervera and Igualada[639] arrived in Montserrat on October 28th after six days.[640]

638 The aforementioned letter of October 20th to the Chapter of Lérida was an obligatory greeting, given the intention of not passing through Lérida and going to Balaguer; although he had received the Bull of appointment a month ago, he had not taken official possession of his See, given his commitments in Monzón. He took possession by procurator on November 7, 1585, while he was in Montserrat (cf. J. POCH, D. Gaspar J. de la Figuera..., p.410).

639 It is very probable -and suggestive- that when passing through Igualada the retinue stayed at the Augustinian convent, since La Figuera had been a Canon Regular of St. Augustine. And that convent is today the Piarist School. The chroniclers and historians of Igualada suggest so (cf. J. POCH, o.c., p.435, n.98).

640 On October 29th La Figuera wrote to the Chapter of Lérida: “Yesterday I arrived at this Holy House of Montserrat...” (cf. J. POCH, o.c., p.433, n.98). (cf. J. POCH, El Fundador..., p.4O7). On the Monzón-Montserrat itinerary, cf. J. POCH, D. Gaspar J. de la Figuera..., p.435, n.99.

Distant background: Valladolid and Montserrat

The problem of Montserrat had a certain similarity with the reform of the Augustinians that was being dealt with in Monzón. Both cases were part of King Philip II’s concern to preserve the monastic reform movement promoted by the “Congregations of the Observance”, and in both cases the conflicts had arisen from the reaction of the religious of the Crown of Aragón to the dominant and abusive attitude of those who had introduced “the Observance” from the Crown of Castile”. In Monzón it was the Augustinians, in Montserrat the Benedictines.

It had been almost two centuries since the monastery of St. Benedict had been founded in Valladolid with the aim of returning to the strict observance of the Rule. And with the support of the popes and the kings, it transformed other Benedictine monasteries with its new vision of reform, making them revolve in its own orbit until an independent congregation emerged, whose head was the abbot of the monastery of Valladolid, which is why it was also called the “Congregation of St. Benedict of Valladolid”[641]

641 On his origins, cf. E. ZARAGOZA, Los Generales de la Congregación de San Benito de Valladolid I. The Priors (Silos 1973).

The Catholic Monarchs wanted to introduce the Valladolid reform in the Crown of Aragón, where there were around thirty monasteries that formed the Claustral Congregation of Tarragona, but despite their efforts, they only achieved their goal in Montserrat (1493) and Saint Felíu de Guíxols (1512).[642] And that was not easy. In Montserrat, Abbot John de Peralta was appointed Bishop of Vich and the monks who refused to accept the reform were expelled. Only three remained.

642 Cf. ID., o.c., II, Los Abades trienales (Silos 1976), p.66.

At the end of June 1493, the General Prior, Friar John of San Juan de Luz, arrived at the monastery with fourteen monks from Valladolid and took possession of it in his own name and in the name of the monastery of Saint Benedict of Valladolid, to whose jurisdiction it was subject like all the monasteries of the Observance. And on July 3rd, Friar García de Cisneros, the nephew of the famous cardinal, was elected the first prior-reformer.

The great personality of Friar García managed to create an exemplary atmosphere of observance, undoubtedly helped by the fact that his community was already reformed and there were no contradictory elements. However, half a century later, in 1544, the former General, Friar Alonso del Toro, was installed as abbot. When he was not well received by the community, he resigned and returned to Castile, where he complained to the General about the hostile attitude with which he had been treated.

The General, Friar Diego de Sahagún, reacted angrily and took his anger out on the culprits by banning the ‘monks of the Crown of Aragón’ from the offices of abbot and prior and then dispersing them to various monasteries of the Crown of Castile and the priory of Montserrat in Naples. Outrage at this disproportionate punishment stirred the bishops and civil hierarchs of Catalonia. Even Prince Philip (II), still furious, wrote a long and insistent letter to the General on August 12, 1545, in which he said:

“We tell you, instruct you and command you that, in order to remove any scandal, you bring back from these kingdoms all the monks and religious who were in the said house and remove the foreigners from there and return them to their homes or to other places of your Religion which you consider; and that the offices of the house be administered by the sons of the house and natives of the country, and not by foreigners; and neither these, nor any of them, nor those who shall enter in the future, should you or your successors permit them to leave the house against their will...”[643]

643 Ibid., II, p.191-193. Cf. also J. POCH, El Fundador..., p.439-441.

The water returned to its course. Peace reigned. But probably the prince’s wishes and orders, which would have avoided future conflicts, were not entirely fulfilled. The proposed solution was to leave the monastery in the hands of the “natural” monks of the Crown of Aragón, who were not exactly Catalans, and to remove all “foreigners” from the monastery. The question of the monastery’s independence is not even hinted at, but it is tacitly admitted that it will continue to be part of the Congregation of Valladolid, to whose Abbot General it will continue to be subordinate.

Near background: Apostolic visitation

During the second term of Abbot Philip de Santiago (1575-1581) there were complaints about “his conduct in the administration of the treasury”[644] and he was deposed. His successor was Andrew de Intriago (1581-1584), but he too did not complete his six-year term.

644 F. DE P. CRUSELLAS, Nueva historia del Santuario y Monasterio de Na. Sra. de Montserrat (Barcelona 1896) p.409.

In fact, two Visitators from Valladolid, Bellorado and Flandes, arrived in 1582, unwisely disturbing the already precarious peace of the monastery. Friar John Fuentes declared on August 24, 1584, that “while the affairs of the last Visitation [of 1582] continued, passions were in turmoil between the natives of the Crown of Aragón and those of Castile.”[645] And the echo of this unrest reached the ears of the ecclesiastical and civil hierarchy of the Principality of Catalonia, the court of Philip II and the Roman Curia. From Barcelona, the “Council of the Hundred” sent its emissaries to the monastery because it wanted to intervene “as a matter of this country”, believing that it was its concern. The Viceroy of Catalonia sent an emissary to prevent the meddling of the Deputies from Barcelona “and to ensure that they did not interfere in the matter.” At the same time, he warned the Abbot and the Visitators what they should or should not do, such as releasing some monks they had imprisoned, “and that until further notice they should not take out from the monastery any monks of the Crown of Aragón against their will.” His envoy wrote a detailed report, which the viceroy sent to Philip II in June 1582 together with a personal letter.[646]

645 Cf. J. POCH, o.c., p.360.

646 The letter of the viceroy, Don Carlos de Aragón Tagliavia, in ibid., p.361-362.

In the letter which the monks of the Crown of Aragón had written to the King a few months earlier, they asked him to send an Apostolic Visitator as soon as possible.[647] At the end of January of the following year, the king asked Gregory XIII to appoint Friar Benedict de Tocco, currently bishop of Gerona and twice abbot of the monastery of Montserrat (1556-59, 1562-64), whom he presented the same day for the vacant see of Lérida.[648] The Pope agreed and appointed him Bishop of Lérida (May 11, 1583) and Visitator of Montserrat (June 25, 1583). With regard to the unrest in the monastery, he referred to the abuses in the administration and government.[649]

647 Ibid., p.362-363.

648 Cf. letters of Philip II to the Pope and to the ambassador Olivares in J. POCH, D. Gaspar J. de la Figuera..., p.378-379. The Court wanted to prevent at all costs the interference of the ‘Council of One Hundred’ (Consell de Cent), as is again stated in a letter from the royal secretary Gassol (March 14, 1583): “so that the damage does not go forward, it is convenient to remedy it by means of a Visitation, which will be easy to do, and with it we will prevent the Deputies and the city of Barcelona from going into business and becoming angry and coming to deal with things that are better left buried” (ibid., p.379).

649 Cf. ibid., p.428, n.52.

The Bishop of Lérida delayed the start of his visit by almost a year, as he was on another Apostolic Visitation to the Mercedarians in Catalonia at the time. These delays aggravated the mood of the monks, but above all of the ‘’Council of One Hundred’’ and even of the Viceroy of Catalonia.[650]

650 Cf. J. POCH, El Fundador..., p.364.

On May 9, 1584, Friar Benedict de Tocco finally embarked on his longed-for Apostolic Visitation. From the abundant contemporary documentation, it can be deduced that the main disturbances were: “poor administration and inadequate use of the monastery funds by the last abbots and Castilian administrators; export of various sums of money and alms to the Benedictine abbey of Valladolid; uncontrolled administration; clandestine export of gold to Castile, which prompted the Catalan Generalitat to intervene. Recruitment of new members for the community of Montserrat among Castilian students, with those from the Crown of Aragón banned from entering; possession of petronels and harquebuses by monks and lay brothers.”[651]

651 Cf. J. POCH, D. Gaspar J. de la Figuera..., p.428, n.55. See a long “Report” of facts in ibid., p.381-382.

The Visitation was slow and painful. On December 6th, seven months after it began, the Visitator wrote a letter to the Pope describing his impressions. Before going into the problems, he painted an uplifting picture of the orderly life of the monastery, in which seventy monks lived, who, to the applause of the pilgrims, “commendably and reverently” fulfilled their choral duties day and night and, with few exceptions, cultivated the common life in accordance with their monastic profession.[652]

652 Cf. J. POCH, El Fundador..., p.448.

Their internal disagreements revolved around the management of the monastery and the administration of its goods, and the good Visitator summarized them as follows: ‘the natives of the Crown of Aragón, together with the Deputies of Catalonia and the Councilors of Barcelona, complain against the Castilian monks, as they feel oppressed by many abuses, such as, among others, that the monks of the said Crown are excluded from the administration of the temporal goods (with whose alms the monastery is largely maintained); they do not admit young men of the said crown to the habit who are perfectly suitable; the administrators do not manage the revenues and alms properly, so that the monastery is in debt.[653] The accusations coincide with those already mentioned. But the bishop of Lérida and former abbot of the monastery softened the picture with excessive benevolence.

653 Ibid.

Unexpectedly, on January 31, 1585, the Visitator died, not without the suspicion of having been poisoned... And he was not the first. Here are the minutes of the “Council of One Hundred”, dated the day before Tocco’s death:

“In view of the present state of the Monastery of Our Lady of Montserrat and the dangers and scandals that may arise therefrom if suitable and appropriate remedial measures are not taken, it is agreed that His Excellency [the Viceroy of Catalonia] be requested to see that the Most Reverend Bishop of Lérida [Tocco] appoints a suitable president of the said monastery. In view of what is known about the death of some of the friars of the said monastery, as well as other events, may His Excellency immediately cause the necessary to be done by Apostolic Letter, as he sees fit. It is also agreed to ask Your Excellency to send a high official to Montserrat so that no new scandals arise in the said house of Montserrat.”[654]

654 Ibid., p.366.

The disturbing news of the previous act reappears in the letter that the same “consellers of Barcelona” send to the king the day after the death of Tocco, whose actions they judge negatively, urgently requesting a new Visitator.[655] No doubt the ‘Council of One Hundred’ and the Generalitat followed the course of Montserrat’s Visitation closely, “as a matter of this country”, and despite the efforts of the Court and its representatives to prevent their interference, the Prudent King granted their requests: He obtained another Brief, appointed La Figuera as Visitator, gave him the seat of Lérida as “prelate of this principality” and had him accompanied by a royal delegate, Don John de Bardaxí. All caution and care was too little in this delicate and very serious situation.

655 Ibid., p.367.

Dramatic interlude

With all the pomp of monastic ceremony, the Apostolic Visitator was buried and a magnificent epitaph in elegant Latin was placed on his tomb, beginning with this verse:

“Inclita marmoreo sita sunt hoc ossa sepulcro

Eximii monachi, pontificisque pii.”[656]

656 Cf. J. VILLANUEVA, Viaje literario, vol. 18, p.103.

The suspicious death of the Visitator accelerated events. The unrest and unease of the monks of the Crown of Aragón forced them to take a dramatic solution: they fled the monastery... But it is even more moving to read the report with which the Supreme Council of Aragón, at the king’s request, informed the new Pope Sixtus V of the events and asked him for a Brief to continue and conclude the interrupted Visitation. After recalling everything that had happened up to the death of Tocco, they said:

“...when the house was left without a head, and with the passion that prevailed among them, the respect that was due to the superiors was lost; those who sought to destroy the brotherhood that should have existed among them took advantage of the opportunity and persisted in saying that either the Castilians must leave the Monastery or they themselves; and those from those Kingdoms left the monastery without the prior’s permission...., they went to the house in the City and carried their distress and what they had invented before the Council and asked to be protected by it...”[657]

657 Cf. full doc. in J. POCH, ‘El Fundador...’, p.451-453.

Indeed, on March 21st, the Deputies of the Generalitat of Catalonia sent an emissary to report the recent events to Philip II, and one of the letters they signed stated:

“The abuses and scandals in the house of Our Lady of Montserrat have increased daily... especially after the death of the Bishop of Lérida, who was visiting there. Most of the friars, monks and hermits of this Crown of Aragón, characterised by their mature age, holiness and exemplary religiosity, affirm with tears that they had a legitimate reason to leave the Monastery of Montserrat and go to the Monastery of St. Paul del Campo in the city of Barcelona.[658] It is said that many foreign monks go to Castile for reasons we do not know, so as not to be exposed to the information that corresponds to our mission...”[659]

658 This Benedictine monastery, located in the old district of Las Ramblas in Barcelona, was annexed in 1577 by Gregory XIII to the abbey of Montserrat, but the opposition of the monks of Saint Paul and of the Congregación Claustral, from which it had been detached, caused it to separate again from Montserrat in 1593 (cf. Gran Encicl. Catalana, vol. 13, p.287).

659 Cf. J. POCH, El Fundador... p.370, n.151

And it was true that a new forced exodus had taken place in Montserrat, this time of Castilians, and that this was apparently in retaliation for the previous exile of those of the Crown of Aragon. This was informed by the Supreme Council of Aragón in its report to Sixtus V:

”...Three lay brothers of the same house [Monastery of Montserrat] and, with their leader, Friar Guillem of French descent, instigated (as far as can be believed) by other religious and also by seculars, who had secretly gathered a number of people and among them a band of bandits and thugs, at midnight by a ruse forcibly took the messenger who used to bring them the fish, whom they forced to call to open the door for them; they forced their way into the house and entered through the porch and part of the church, breaking down the doors that were not open with iron hammers and other tools they had brought with them. From there they went into the dormitory and held all the monks there, locking the doors with bolts. Then they took out the Castilians by force with them, 27 in number, according to the information they had, leaving others of the same nation behind without telling them anything. About 40 bandits took these 27 out of the monastery under bad treatment and threats, some on foot and some on horseback, to get them out of Catalonia and take them to Castile. When they arrived in Cervera, the people the viceroy had sent to arrest them, together with the veguer of the said town of Cervera, released them and fled without being able to prove that they had at any time stolen anything from the monastery, as they wanted to make it known,[660] and they took them back to the monastery of Montserrate, although the bandits who remained there did not allow them to enter the house, with the exception of five or six of the youngest, who did not want to stay in the house afterward because they did not feel safe, and the rest went to the priory of St. Paul in the city of Barcelona; and the Catalan monks of the Crown of Aragón exchanged all the offices that the Castilians had and distributed them among themselves.”[661]

660 Perhaps related to this is a note of March 27, 1585, which reads: “The Deputies of the Generality claim from the Deputies of Aragón two amounts (cargues) of currency, which were seized from two monks from Valladolid of Montserrat when they took them out of Catalonia, with fraud” (cf. J. POCH, I.c.).

661 Cf. ibid., p.452-453.

It was obvious that both the Generalitat of Catalonia and the “Council of One Hundred” were interested in the drama of Montserrat and intervened, as they knew that it suited them “as a matter of this country.”[662] In addition, the monks of the Crown of Aragón asked the civil authorities of Barcelona for protection and security. And it was also clear that Philip II and his entourage were anxious to avoid interference from the Catalan institutions, fearing that their meddling would further complicate the already convoluted conflict.[663] For this reason, he asked the Pope for a new visitator and, in the same Brief, demanded that “this mission be accompanied by the imposition of severe penalties and censures, ipso facto affecting all lay people who interfere directly or indirectly in the said Visitation or in other matters concerning this holy house (even if they have the intention and motive to help them); and that the friars and clergy who attempt to induce laymen to interfere, directly or indirectly, among the religious and in anything connected with the said visitation, incur the same censures.”[664]

662 On the same day, March 21, 1585, the Generality sends its emissary to the Court to inform the King, and the Consellers of Barcelona do the same with another messenger. Even the latter informed the viceroy of Catalonia on the same day that “he had sent the ‘Conseller Terç’ to Montserrat to occupy the convent and pacify it” (cf. 3. POCH, El Fundador..., p.369, n.151).

663 Cf. J. POCH, Documents montserratins amb rerafons calassanci: Cat 220 [1979] 4. Philip II writes to the Roman ambassador on March 16, 1585: “And because it could be that the Deputies of Catalonia or the Consellers of Barcelona with other aims would like to try with His Holiness some things in this matter, we have wanted to warn you so that you be very careful not to allow anything to be provided without first giving us very particular news of it” (cf. J. POCH, El Fundador..., p.371).

664 Cf. ibid., p.373. The letter is dated May 28, 1585. Poch comments: “The intruding seculars to whom Philip II repeatedly refers are certainly not the members of the estates or civil authorities of the Principality... The seculars alluded to by the King were notorious persons who, supporters of the “monks of the Crown of Aragón”, stirred up the conflict to the point of putting at his service some armed parties, surnamed “bandoleros”” (ibid., p.374, n.156). The texts adduced so far, such as the one in the previous note and others more explicit that we will quote later, sufficiently prove that, for the Court, “the laymen” in question were above all the deputies and councilors of Barcelona.

Another fundamental and indisputable point for the King was that the reform carried out by the Visitators had to preserve the affiliation of the Monastery of Montserrat to the Congregation of St. Benedict of Valladolid.[665] The new visitator had to deal with both problems: the interference of Barcelona’s civil institutions and the struggle for Montserrat’s independence from Valladolid, not to mention the rattling of the harquebuses in the hands of the bandits.

665 Cf. ibid., p.372, 379, n.162, and p.384. On January 23, 1585, before Tocco died, Philip II had already obtained from Gregory XIII the “Revalidatio litterarum Alexandri VI circa unionem monasterii Montisserrati congregationi Vallisoletanae” (ibid.). And this perhaps because Tocco himself, in a secret report at the end of 1584, had suggested the Pope to separate the Abbey of Montserrat from the Congregation of Valladolid (ibid., p.384, n.168).

The bishop and his companions would recount these and similar things, which of course were not very pleasant, from the time they left Monzón on October 22nd until October 28th, when they saw the imposing mass of the mountain of Montserrat emerge, impressive and wonderful with its sharp ridges and wild vegetation. And on the back of the mules they began the ascent, slowly and quietly, knowing that an unprecedented adventure awaited them up there.

Arrival in Montserrat and start of the visitation of De La Figuera

The Minutes of the Apostolic Visitation state that the episcopal Delegate and Visitator Don Caspar John de la Figuera arrived at the monastery on October 28, 1585 and was received at the same doors in a procession with the cross by the monks in choir dress, among whom the priest, the deacon and the subdeacon wore golden vestments. After the cross had been adored, he went in procession to the church, where he prayed in the chapel of Our Lady, and after the priest had sung the usual prayers, the bishop imparted his blessing to those present and performed the customary ceremonies in such cases. And the story ends with these Latin words, which form the entire text: “Witnesses, Joseph Calasanz, presbyter, and Michael John Castanesa, deacon, familiars of the said bishop, present in the said monastery.”[666]

666 Cf. J. POCH, D. Gaspar J. de la Figuera..., p.398.

Neither the church nor the monastery were as we can admire them today. In 1542, the Portuguese Caspar Barreiros described what he saw as follows:

“The first entrance is through a large cloister, open on the south side, in the walls of which there are many offerings, such as shackles, thick chains, ships, many panels painted with various events, weapons of all kinds, bombshells and other things that indicate the miracles that Our Lady has done and does every day... In the middle of this cloister is a large cistern... From this cloister you enter the church, which is very small and dark, very full of furniture and lamps that make it even smaller, and which has 93 silver lamps. Of these, 40 are in constant use, the others are lit on feast days... In the centre of the altarpiece of the main altar is the image of Our Lady with her precious Son in her arms, and the physiognomy of the face is characterised by a certain majesty that evokes devotion in the hearts and gives much spiritual sweetness to those who contemplate it with the thought of what they see in it.”[667]

667 Cf. G. BARREIROS, Corografía de algunos lugares, in J. GARCÍA MERCADAL, o.c., vol. I, p.1027-1028.

Everything was probably already like this when Calasanz arrived with La Figuera, but the construction of the new church had been underway since 1560 and was not due to be completed until 1592. In the meantime, the “old church” continued to be the place of liturgical prayer for the monks and the constant devotion of pilgrims to the Dark Lady.[668] Saint John of Mata had prostrated himself at her feet in 1209, Saint Peter Nolasco in 1218, Saint Vincent Ferrer in 1410, Saint Ignatius of Loyola in 1522, Saint Francis Borgia in 1533, Saint Saviour of Horta in 1540, Saint Peter Claver (?), Saint Aloysius Gonzaga in 1582 and now (1585) the future Saint and Founder of the Pious Schools, Joseph Calasanz.[669]

668 Cf. P. CRUSELLAS, o.c., p.67. On February 2, 1592 the new church was consecrated, but the image remained in the old one until July 11, 1599, when the transfer was made in the presence of Philip III (ibid., p.72-75). The venerable old church, where the Holy Image had been for 719 years, was demolished on January 3, 1755 (ibid., p.479). Monastery and church were burned by the French in 1811-12 and rebuilt in 1817 (ibid., p.312). The present chapel, begun in 1878, was inaugurated in 1887 (ibid., p.361).

669 Cf. ibid., p.93-101.

The first impression of Visitator La Figuera was satisfactory and optimistic.[670] But he must have changed his mind in the course of the visit. He had to find out the naked truth about everything that had happened so far. And he was not content with whitewashing, as can be seen from the first of the “26 questions” that all the monks had to answer, which read “First of all, let them be questioned as to whether they know, overheard or have heard that any monk, hermit, lay brother or other servant of the house of Our Lady of Monserrate had or has any responsibility in the death of the Venerable Bishop Tocco and the religious who died on that occasion in the said monastery and house.”[671]

670 The day after his arrival he wrote to the Chapter of Lérida: “Yesterday I arrived at this holy house of Montserrat, where I was received with signs of great joy and signs that they wish to see these things composed: may Our Lord guide them to his service” (cf. J. POCH, El Fundador..., p.407).

671 Cf. ibid., p.408-409.

It is probable that Joseph Calasanz, the bishop’s young “familiar”, participated in this difficult task of questioning or investigating the monks. This is indicated by the office of “examiner” that La Figuera had assigned to him for this visit, as the eighty-year-old Calasanz explained in 1637.[672] All monks - at least - had to be “examined” or questioned. And there were many of them. A report from May of the same year states that there are “now more than 60 monks and 90 lay brothers”[673]

672 Cf. ibid., p.234.

673 Cf. ibid., p.451. Tocco’s report of December 6, 1584 stated that there were 70 monks (ibid., p.448). In the minutes of the first Chapter session of the visit, held on October 29, 27 professed monks are named, of whom 4 are hermits (cf. J. POCH, D. Caspar J. de la Figuera..., p.399). In the visit that Cock made in May of the same year, he gives the names and details of 13 hermits (cf. E. COCK, oc., p. 1358).

Among those interrogated was Friar Diego de Marquina, twenty-eight years old, who had been in the habit for twelve years and came from Estadilla.[674] Given his background and his similar age to Calasanz, it is likely that they had known each other since their time as Latin students at the Trinitarian convent in Estadilla. And if so, Calasanz would not only find pleasant company in this friendship, but also confidences about the reality of the events that had taken place.

674 Cf. J. POCH, El Fundador..., p.409, n.201. His name is also read in the Chapter minutes mentioned in the previous note (“fratre Didaco Marquina”).

But the main purpose of the apostolic Visitation was not to clarify past events and scandals and discover the culprits, but to resolve the problem of the confrontation between those from Valladolid and the natives of the Crown of Aragon regarding the management and administration of the monastery. And regarding this, the visitator deposed Don Francis de Boxadors, the procurator-general of the monastery estates, and appointed Don Guerao de Alentorn as his successor.

From the very beginning, the “Consellers of Barcelona” spoke out, gave the Visitator indications and advices and proposed solutions. In a letter dated November 11, they presented him with three emissaries, “our Syndics”, who “will tell him some important things and warn him of the good direction ‘what should be done there’...”[675] Shortly afterwards, they send him a “memorandum”, signed on November 16th, in which they write: “In the opinion of scholars and other qualified persons, both religious and secular, a stable remedy can only be found by making Catalonia, Aragón and Valencia a separate Benedictine province and separating them from the Congregation of Valladolid...” And they alluded to the fact that the same idea had been put forward by the Catalan deputies at the recently closed Courts of Monzón.[676] And that this was the opinion of the monks is clear from the letter that eight of them wrote to the “Council of One Hundred” on behalf of the entire Crown of Aragón, in which they expressed their firm will to abide by the instructions of the Council, contrary to the King’s words, and were prepared to lose a thousand lives rather than give up their attempt to form an independent “Catalan” Province.[677]

675 Cf. the full letter in Catalan in J. POCH, Documents montserratins..., p.6.

676 “… it was agreed by the three classes or “braços” of the General Court of Catalonia [in Monzón] that the aforementioned separation is very necessary and that the erection of the said Province is convenient...” (cf, J. POCH, The Founder ... p.383-384).

677 The letter is very interesting because it shows the constant contact that the Council maintained with the monks. It says among other things: (We have already told Your Lordships that His Majesty wrote us a letter; we will replay giving Him thanks for his mercy regarding the care of this holy House. Of everything we have sent a copy to Your Magnificent Lordships. Only this one is because we have had notices that in this letter after having signed it, there is a clause in which it says that all of us had agreed to do what His Majesty would command..., the clause is against our will.... ‘and we will not move a point from what Your Lordships and this wise Council will order...’ It is necessary that this Monastery and other Benedictines of Catalonia be formed a Province, that it is the only remedy. If it is not done this way, the spirits and consciences never will be quiet... It is our determination not to desist from this purpose of what is so convenient for the benefice of all the land and honor of that City and increase of this holy house” (November 27, 1585) (J. Poch, Documents montserratins..., p.7).

This submission of the monks was not enough for the ‘Council of a Hundred’, not even to send letters to the Visitator or emissaries. They had their representatives in Montserrat, such as Mr. Galcerán Cahors, to whom they wrote on November 28, praising him for everything he had done so far to achieve the separation from Valladolid and urging again: “What is urgent now is to ask Your Grace again and strongly recommend them to intercede in all possible ways for this separation to be accomplished...”[678]

678 Ib.

New and serious unrest

In mid-December they wrote again to La Figuera complaining that the new General Procurator had provided armed men to defend the monastery, which was not necessary since the house was living in peace, and again they urged that “the eternal salvation of this monastery consists in this Crown forming a Province separate from the Congregation of Valladolid, as decided by the three ‘classes’ in the general courts recently held at Villa de Monzón.”[679] To this letter the Visitator replied harshly, saying:

679 Ibid., p.7-8.

“In that which concerns the particularity of the Visitation of this Holy House, I have the care which obliges me to understand what is of importance for the service of our Lord and his blessed Mother and for the benefice of this shrine ... and in view of the great censures which his Holiness makes in his letter against all seculars who interfere in this Visitation, as the Syndics have brought it to your Grace’s attention... and on the other hand, the spirit of these religious is disturbed by the assertion that Your Graces are not only doing what they rightly can and should do, but that you are ‘stirring up and will always stir up their passions’, which are so incarnate in their hearts and whose fires are so kindled that ... It has been my experience that with every encouragement they receive from this city, they fuel the fire in a way that is very unfortunate.”

And as for the armed men of Don Guerao de Alentorn, he clarified that this was “by order of His Majesty”.[680]

680 Ibid., p.8. The letter of the Consellers was dated December 14, 1585, and that of the Visitator, two days later.

The constant harassment of the Barcelona Consellers prompted La Figuera to inform the King, who wrote from Tortosa on December 30th to the ‘Council of One Hundred’ with the same clarity as the Visitator:

“...since experience shows that most of the disturbances and scandals that have occurred in this sanctuary are due to the interference of secular persons among the religious who disturb them... we did not want to fail to confide in you and order that, since the said Bishop is a person of great integrity, you do not interfere in anything concerning the said Visitation or Reformation, but let him exercise his office freely...”[681]

681 Ibid. See n.152 above.

The events accelerated. Every day it became clearer that the Apostolic Visitation was taking a course that ran counter to the demands of the monks of the Crown of Aragón and the Consellers of Barcelona. And opposition to La Figuera grew and flared up, not only from the anti-Valladolid monks themselves, but also from the monastery’s “vassals”, i.e. the towns that belonged to the “dominion of Montserrat”, namely La Guardia, El Bruch, Olesa, Collbató, Monistrol and Esparraguera, all of which were opposed to the monastery’s Castilian administrators. From here, armed bands of “bandits” formed, even encouraged by some monks or lay brothers such as Friar Guillén and Friar Pau, who, after their feat of raiding the monastery at night and forcing the Castilians to leave in the spring of 1585, were pursued by the troops of the Viceroy of Catalonia and finally condemned by the end of 1586.[682]

682 Cf. J. POCH, El Fundador..., p.374-375, n.156 and 157.

Another famous name was ‘the Vidrieret’, who again roamed the mountain with his men in January 1586, terrifying the inhabitants of the monastery and filling the nights with loud explosions of harquebuses. The armed groups of Guerao de Alentorn were prepared for this. And it was not without a certain irony that, on January 14th, La Figuera informed the Barcelona Councilors of the adventures of “the “Vidrieret” in the middle of the night.[683]

683 Cf. J. POCH, Documents montserratins..., p.9.

The mood around the monastery deteriorated from day to day. And the Visitator himself was “very frightened” when he saw that there were monks supporting and protecting Vidrieret and his bandits. The vigilance of the armed people of Guerao de Alentorn was not enough. The viceroy lamented this in a letter to La Figuera on February 2nd, in which he explained that all this unrest and sedition was coming from the vassals of the monastery. He therefore promised the Visitator that he would suppress the rebels with a firm hand. At the same time, he wrote to the jurors and bailiffs of the towns of the lordship of Montserrat, threatening to punish the culprits, and he gave his bailiff Federico Pol very precise instructions on what he should do in these towns and in the monastery itself, in consultation with La Figuera and Alentorn, to inform, discover and arrest the culprits.[684]

684 Cf. letter to the Visitator (Feb. 2, 1585) in ibid. and a long ‘Instructió’ to the bailiff (Feb. 3, 1585), in J. POCH, Montserrat i Calassanç, encara: Cat 252 [1982] 17-18.

Calasanz, witness to the final tragedy

The ‘Breve Notizia’ states that Calasanz “assisted the said bishop on this visit... as he always wished to retire and stay in a room from which he listened with much spiritual pleasure to the mass that was sung every day at sunrise in a chapel opposite.”[685] Father Berro gives us the same indication, but he does not stop there. The drama of the situation could not leave the young Calasanz calm, uninvolved and inattentive in his personal devotions. And when Berro goes into the details, one must conclude that they are the fruit of the confidences of the Saint, in whose happy memory these regrettable and tragic events had not yet been erased in his last years. Berro adds:

685 Cf. BAU, RV, p.11. See the plan of the old church in J. POCH, El Fundador... plate in p.405, in which it is said that the chapel of the Virgin was lateral. However, according to Barreiros, already cited, “the image of Our Lady is in the middle of the panel of the main altar...” (cf. n. 667 above and corresponding text).

“...although under these circumstances it would have been easy to take advantage of the opportunity to earn large sums by small favors, he never had any other aim than the glory of God, the salvation of souls, and the public good of this holy house. His rule was fidelity to his office; he never allowed himself to be bribed by small donations, which were often offered to him, and he even had to warn his prelate several times to be careful because he suspected serious abuses, for grave crimes had been committed in the handling of the monastery’s considerable interests.”

And he concludes:

“Joseph’s warnings were not enough for Monsignor, who did not know how to be on his guard. After six months, he suddenly fell ill and passed into eternity in just two days, the obvious signs giving rise to the great suspicion that he had been poisoned.”[686]

686 Cf. BAU, BC, p.146-l47. ...” in only two days of sickness -says the original Italian- he passed into another life, with no little suspicion that he had been poisoned by the signs that were seen as very evident” (BERRO I, p.59).

On the very day of his death, February 13, 1586, the royal emissary Ivan de Bardaxí brought the unexpected news to the Chapter of Lérida:

“This morning, between four and five hours, God was kind enough to take to himself the husband of this church, who has left us with a feeling that can only be imagined; he went to bed with a slight fever after saying Mass the day before, and he was ill for no more than two or three days...”[687]

687 Cf. J. POCH, Documents montserratins..., p.10.

With the same zeal, Bardaxí wrote to the Viceroy of Catalonia, informing him of the ungrateful news. And that same day, the Viceroy wrote to the secretary of the visitation, Jerome Pérez, ordering him to collect all the papers relating to the visitation and bring them to Barcelona immediately, accompanied by a royal commissioner.[688] He wrote again to the jurors and bailiffs of the vassal towns of the monastery and demanded “much peace and quiet, without assemblies or crowds, nor demonstrations of passions, and that the troublemakers and delinquents be prosecuted and punished...”[689] And the Viceroy sent a third letter that same day to the Prior and the monks of Montserrat, advising them “until His Holiness determines otherwise, to give an internal and external testimony of your Christianity...”, upholding all the positions established by the Visitator, “not to give place to the troublemakers to cause the disturbances of the past.”[690] And in the three letters, the Viceroy alluded to “the sudden death”, but neither he, nor Bardaxí, nor in the Minutes or chronicles of the monastery, nor in the necrological note of the episcopal curia of Lérida, was the suspicion of poisoning noted.[691] Later, the abbot of Montearagón, Don Martín Carrillo, wrote in 1615 that “Don Caspar John de la Figuera... elected bishop of Lérida, died in Montserrat, where they were conducting the Visitation of this house together with Doctor Ibán de Bardaxí, advisor to the governor of Aragón, and ‘both died in great haste and not without suspicion...’”[692]

688 Ib.

689 Ibid.

690 Ibid., p.10-12.

691 Cf. J. POCH, El Fundador..., p.410, n.203.

692 Historia del glorioso San Valero... (Zaragoza 1615), p.379 (quoted in J. POCH, o.c. p.385.

This very serious suspicion of poisoning was clearly formulated by Berro as far as Bishop La Figuera was concerned. And considering the other details, such as the two days of illness that Bardaxí also notes in his letter, we have the unmistakable impression that in all this he had no other source of information than the confidences of the old Founder of the Pious Schools, an eyewitness to the events. There are also suspicions consistent with what was said in the first point of the interrogation about the mysterious death of the former Visitator and other monks.[693]

693 According to F. Carreras Candí, there was still a third visitor of Montserrat, previous to Tocco and La Figuera, who like them “death prevented him from carrying out his difficult task and the disagreements were redoubled”, and this happened in 1582 (cf. F. CARRERAS CANDÍ, Visites dels nostres Reys a Montserrat (1268-1907) [Barcelona 1911] p.72).

And there was another very solemn funeral in the venerable old church, less dark than usual, for no doubt the ninety-three silver lamps were burning for the occasion. And standing beside the coffin as “familiar” of the deceased were the priest Joseph Calasanz and the deacon Michael John Castanesa, the secretary Jerome Pérez and the royal Delegate John de Bardaxí.

As an epilogue

The ‘Breve Notizia’ states that after the death of the bishop of Lérida, “the patent of the Visitator was sent to whom had previously been proposed to the King by the Resident [Bardaxí] and by our Calasanz, who was immediately instructed to deliver the news to the said bishop.”[694] Later biographers expanded on the details, saying that as soon as the new Visitator arrived in Montserrat, he asked Calasanz to continue acting as secretary of the visit. The royal delegate urged him to stay and promised him that once the Visitation was over, he would take him to Madrid to be his confessor and spiritual director, but Calasanz apologised to one and other and left for his village because he had received news that his father was seriously ill again.[695]

694 Cf. BAU, RV, p.11.

695 Cf. ARMINI, Vita, p.29-30; TALENTI, Vita, p.20-21.

Ivan de Bardaxi’s suggestions could have been made before the Visitator’s death. In the long hours of living together from the end of October to mid-February, there was time to talk, comment and make suggestions. And it is quite possible that a certain trust and esteem developed between the two - it is even possible that there were family ties -[696] and the old “royal emissary”, who admired the young priest’s talents, wanted to take him with him, not to the Court, but to Zaragoza, where he resided.[697]

696 Cf. J. POCH, El Fundador..., p.387-391; J. LÓPEZ NAVÍO, Don Juan de Mercado y Calasanz: AnCal 20 (1968) 464-466, 475-476; ID., Ambiente histórico y social en que vivió San José de Calasanz: AnCal 26 (1971) 212.

697 Cf. J. LÓPEZ NAVÍO, Don Juan de Mercado y Calasanz, p.464. Berro wrote: “The old Regent did not know how to be without Joseph and proposed to him that, once that [visit] was over, he should go with him to Madrid to have the opportunity to deal with spiritual matters. During the day I will attend to the Court,” he told him, “because of the office I hold; but in the afternoon and evening we will vacate ourselves for discourses and spiritual readings and I will hand over to you the government of my soul. He held our Calasanz in such high esteem as a man of God” (cf. BAU, BC, p.146-147, translated from BERRO I, p.59).

But things turned out differently. The royal delegate Bardaxí and the secretary of the visit, Jerome Pérez, stayed in Montserrat and waited for the new Visitator. But before he arrived, Ivan de Bardaxi died suddenly on May 14, 1586, “with great haste and not without suspicion”, as Abbot Carrillo was later to say.[698] The new Visitator was the Bishop of Vich, Don John Baptist Cardona,[699] who wanted to keep the old secretary, Jerome Pérez, until the end of the Visitation. In fact, in 1637 Calasanz declared with a certain laconicism: “The said bishop [La Figuera] died during the said Visitation and I returned to my country.”[700] And this is confirmed by the absolute silence in the minutes of the Visitation of the Bishop of Vich about the presence of Calasanz.

698 Cf. J. POCH, El Fundador..., p.385 and 395-396.

699 P. CRUSELLAS, in Nueva Historia de Montserrat (Barcelona 1896), besides confusing many dates, says that the Visitator Don John de Cardona, bishop of Vich, “brought as secretary the one who today is Saint Joseph Calasanz” (p.411), while in another place he says: “D. Caspar de la Figuera took Saint Joseph Calasanz as secretary” (p. 100). And these are two more confusions.

700 Cf. J. POCH, El Fundador..., p. 234.

Friar Gregory de Argaiz, chronicler of the Benedictine Order, summarized the actions of the last Visitator as follows: “He entered on 22 June 1586; in an effort to remove the cause of the disagreements, ‘vivae vocis oraculo’, he appointed the president, Friar John Campmany, abbot of Montserrat on 8 September 1586 after vespers. With him, the differences that existed between the monks of the two crowns of Castile and Aragón came to an end, and the alternative began, which continues in this form to this day [1677]: one triennium should belong to one crown, the other to the other, with the proviso that if the abbot belongs to one crown, the prior belongs to the other crown.”[701]

701 G. DE ARGAIZ, La perla de Cataluña (Madrid 1677) p.209-211.

What appears to be a “very simple solution”,[702] namely the canonical independence of Montserrat from the Congregation of Valladolid, was not yet the case at the time. It was not just a problem for the Benedictines of Montserrat, but for all the old Orders whose Observant Congregations had born in the Crown of Castile and had entered the Crown of Aragon with more or less resistance. And the enforced dependence led to legal disputes, unrest and scandals, of which Montserrat was not the only scenario.[703]

702 Cf. A. ALBAREDA, Historia de Montserrat (Montserrat 1946), p.74-94.

703 Among the Dominicans it also happens that the “Castilian reform” is imposed in the Crown of Aragón in 1530 by papal Brief. The “Aragonese” reacted strongly. In 1531 Fray Dominic of Montemayor, energetic promoter of the reform, was elected Provincial of Aragón. But in 1534 both he and the Prior of Valencia, Amador Pi, were stabbed to death in an ambush by two Dominican apostate friars who then fled to Africa (cf. History of the Church in Spain, BAC, vol. III-1°, p.306).

Chapter 7

In the service of the chapter of canons in Urgel

No doubt the long six months he had spent in the service of Don Caspar John de la Figuera had been rich in experience. For an intelligent young man like him, the months in Monzón gave him an insight into the complicated world of high politics, and although he was not particularly interested in it, it was inevitable - in such a small town - to grasp ideas and intentions; national, regional and personal egoisms and interests; evasions, intrigues, schemes and tricks; contrasts between arrogance and servility... A whole world full of different characters and serious problems.

But as a priest - and even more so as the future Founder of a religious Order - the opportunity to participate, at least as an exceptional observer and witness, in the dramatic problems caused by the reform of the Augustinians and Benedictines was a priceless grace and an extraordinary school for the maturation of his personality.

Moreover, after the incisive experience in Montserrat, he had the fortunate opportunity to retire to his home village for almost a year, where he could reflect on his memories in peace and look optimistically to the future.

A whole year in Peralta

Calasanz’s decision after the death of La Figuera in Montserrat was identical to the one he had made in Barbastro after the death of Urríes. His mission and his office were over. He had nothing more to do there. So, it does not seem unreasonable to take his late statement literally: “The said bishop [La Figuera] died during the said visit and I returned to my homeland.”[704] The Visitator died on February 13, 1586, so it was easy for Calasanz to arrive in Peralta towards the end of the month.

704 Cf. POCH, El Fundador..., p.234.

Father Bau wrote that “the whole year 1586 is the year with the least news of Calasanz’s life.”[705] In fact, there is not a single document that gives us his name, from his personal statement referring to the death of La Figuera on February 13, 1586, to exactly February 12, 1587, when his presence is recorded in Seo de Urgel.[706]

705 Cf. C. BAU, Historia de las Escuelas Pías en Cuba, p.21.

706 “Mossen Joseph Calaçans, on March 24, 1587, received with satisfaction for the salary of the secretary of the Chapter and master of ceremonies, which began on February 12th” (cf. P. PUJOL, Sant Josep de Calassanç...: Obra completa, p.285).

It is difficult for us to understand that a man like him - whose future we know - would spend a whole year in his father’s house without having any occupation. It is unlikely that he would find suitable pastoral work in his parish, which at the time comprised more or less 300 people and had a dozen beneficiaries in addition to the parish priest.[707] In this case, then, the young presbyter does nothing other than adapt himself with complete normality to what most clergymen of his time do, living without pastoral obligations on a benefice or on their own property in their homes. He enjoyed a benefice without residence in Monzón and also had a sufficient paternal inheritance. The only notable difference between Calasanz and the dozen beneficiaries of Peralta was that for the latter, the life of a beneficiary was permanent, whereas what kept Calasanz in his town all year round was not a permanent thing, but a circumstance: the attention that his father’s frail health required.

707 Cf. n.221 of chapter 3.

Added to this was the concern about the tense socio-political situation that kept the neighboring county of Ribagorza and the surrounding areas, especially the lands of Castro, on edge. After the death of the Count of Ribagorza, Don Martin de Gurrea y Aragón (1581), Philip II steadfastly refused to hand over the County to his rightful successor, Don Hernando, in the hope of annexing it to the Crown once and for all. The intolerable situation of the abuses and violence committed by the rebels prompted the Aragonese deputies in the Courts of Monzón to call on the King to hand over the County to its rightful owner. The special committee that the monarch had entrusted with the matter passed a favorable resolution and demanded that “His Majesty’s ministers and officials” intervene in the matter.[708] And indeed, at the end of the Courts, precisely towards the middle of January, when the King was “in Ulldecona, he made arrangements for D. Manuel de Sesse, General Bayle of Aragón, to put Don Hernando in possession of the said County.”[709]

708 Cf. G. COLAS-J. A. SALAS, Aragón en el s. XVI. Alteraciones sociales y conflictos políticos, p.136-137.

709 Cf. F. L. PIÉRREZ, Historia del Condado (1622), in J. M. DE MONER, Biblioteca de escritores ribagorzanos (Zaragoza 1884), p.160.

General Bayle left Zaragoza for Benabarre, and although he traveled in the name of the monarch, he was treated no better than the envoys of the Royal Audience and the Justice of Aragón had been shortly before, so the embassy was a failure. When he arrived in Benabarre, he found the city in turmoil and militarily occupied by John de Ager’s men, who even prevented the meeting of the General Council in which the Bayle was to read out a letter from the King addressed to the rebels. But that was not all. According to Lanuza, “they tried to threaten the Bayle, and some say to kill him, whereupon he hid in another house and left the town and the County secretly and as quickly and quietly as possible”[710]

710 Cited in G. COLAS-J. A. SALAS, o.c., p.138.

When Sesse left the county, the ringleader John de Ager and his hosts attacked the count’s followers, robbing and plundering their homes and making direct attempts on their lives. The unworthy behavior of the rebels with such an important figure as the royal Bayle of Aragón caused a wave of indignation throughout the Kingdom. And despite pleas for the King to intervene forcefully to punish the excesses of the rebels and fulfill his royal promise to peacefully hand over the county to its rightful lord, Don Hernando de Gurrea y Aragón, Felipe II remained passive and indecisive while the entire territory suffered the consequences of a true civil war. However, the monarch’s inhibitions forced the Count of Ribagorza and his supporters to take up arms against the insurgents at the end of May 1587.[711]

711 Cf. ibid., p.138-140.

This panorama of unrest, riots, violence and uprisings that occurred between January 1586 and May 1587 gives us a valid reason why Joseph Calasanz, who was dramatically dismissed from the service of La Figuera, rushed to Peralta and stayed with his father for the entire year, the last of his life, with the painful memory of the death of his brother Peter and the fear that something similar might happen. The town of Calasanz, the birthplace of John de Ager, the leader of the uprising, was in the hands of the rebels and almost a stone’s throw away from defenseless Peralta.

The death of his father

On November 7, 1586, old Peter Calasanz made his third and last will “leaving his son Mosén Joseph Calasanz priest as heir and naming two daughters, Joanna and Magdalene.”[712] Father Jericó also read this will and commented: “He names no more children in the legitimate will than Mosén Joseph Calasanz and Joanna and Magdalene Calasanz, from which one can conclude that the others died, because only in this case or in the case of being professed could he leave them out.”[713] Nonetheless, due to confusion, Father Poch believed that the other daughter, Maria, was still living in Peralta at this time, suggesting that she must have died around 1601-1602.[714]

712 Thus writes around 1746 the distinguished searcher of Calasanzian documents, Joseph Bardaxí (cf. J. POCH, Tres testamentos..., p.461).

713 Ibid., p.460.

714 Ibid., p.461-462. Bardaxí, in the text adduced, does not say that Mary (daughter) is named in the testament of 1586. Cf, Mossén Joseph Calassanç a la diócesi d’Urgell (1587-1591): Cat. 195 (1977) 43. With date of November 25, 1592 Calasanz writes to the parish priest of Peralta, sending greetings “to my nieces of the house of Peter Ferrer”, without alluding to their mother, who was Mary, and then “to my sister and her daughters”, that is, Magdalene, whose son Antony John Pastor “and his mother” he has named before (cf. c.4). If he does not name his sister, it is because he has only one sister left in Peralta, which is Magdalene. Then Mary had already died in 1592. He also does not name Mary in his letter of May 12, 1593, when he acknowledges the death of Magdalene, as it seems logical that he would name her (cf. c.5).

By this time in his long life, the poor old man had already lost his wife, his sons John and Peter and his daughters Mary, Hope and Elizabeth. He was left with only Magdalena in Peralta and Joanna in Benabarre, who experienced fear and terror during those fateful months of unrest and violence. But above all, there was his son Joseph, his youngest son and universal heir, who would speak to him more than ever about God, in that house where you could no longer hear the hammers clanging on the anvil, but where on the nights of his last winter you could see through the windows the immense sky of Peralta, with all the shining stars that reminded him of the ancient promise: “So shall your descendants be”.

Father Jericó explains categorically: “Father Joseph’s father died of this illness in the arms of this pious priest.”[715] But when? Among the notes collected by Father Jericó from the year 1746, it is noted that in the church of Peralta there was a notebook with the foundation of anniversaries for the deceased, including a note that read: “Anniversary of the foundation by Doctor Joseph Calasanz” The year of the foundation was not indicated, but the day of the celebration, February 27th, was.[716] Father Bau concluded with some doubt that the founder’s father died on February 27, 1586.[717] However, the will from November of the same year refuted this assumption. Father Poch then suggested that the date should be February 27, 1587, as a consequence of the testamentary dispositions that the son would scrupulously follow, and this despite the fact that we have documentary evidence that Joseph Calasanz had been in the service of the chapter in Urgel since the 12th of the same month.[718]

715 Cf. J. POCH, Aportación documental biográfico-calas., p.268.

716 Cf. J. POCH, Tres Testamentos..., p.468

717 Cf. BAU, BC, p.149

718 Cf. J. POCH, l.c.

It seems inadmissible to us that after almost a year of renouncing any other occupation in order to be at his father’s side, Joseph would leave him exactly 15 days before his death, when he would probably have already given signs that his end was approaching, given his age and illness. According to the hypothesis we have proposed, the reason why Calasanz did not enter his own diocese, where he had just been ordained a priest, and sought employment with the neighboring bishops of Barbastro and Lérida, was precisely the concern to remain near Peralta to care for his father. It was not logical to change his mind and to join the diocese before his death, and precisely when the circumstances suggested otherwise.

Father Talenti said in this context that after the death of his father, Calasanz “established a perpetual anniversary for the souls in purgatory.”[719] This could be true and would clear up the case, as we do not know when he started celebrating. It could also be that in his father’s testamentary dispositions there was an arrangement for the souls of his wife Mary Gaston, whose anniversary of death could fall on February 27th, or even that this date was the anniversary of the death of Peter, the son who fell victim to the Ribagorza riots, and on this day an anniversary could even be celebrated for the souls of all the deceased of the Calasanz-Gaston family, and could be understood at the same time Talenti’s proposal. It is therefore not necessary to admit that the anniversary commemorates the anniversary of his father’s death.

719 Cf. TALENTI, Vita, p.21-22. No doubt he relied on a writing entitled Notizie prime del B°. Padre dall’infanzia 1556 (RegCal 13,6,1), which reads: “Being already the Venerable Father priest and chaplain in the parish church of Santa Maria di Peralta, he founded a perpetual anniversary that is currently celebrated every year... in suffrage of the holy souls in Purgatory…”

The arrival at Seo de Urgel

At the beginning of February 1587 Joseph left his village and set out for Seo de Urgel. The only sister who lived outside of Peralta was Joanna, but she would come from Benabarre to be with her dying father until he was buried in the old parish church. This meeting of all the brothers was a propitious occasion for Joseph to speak of his intention to join his diocese of Urgel for good. He had conscientiously fulfilled his duties as son and heir-protector of his father, and was now free to dispose of himself. Before leaving, he also had to settle the questions arising from his status as universal heir. Logically, he could not take care of his father’s estates and property, nor did he need to renounce his rights for the time being.

He gathered his personal belongings and on horseback he rode away from Peralta, which was soon hidden in its hollow. Instead of going up to Benabarre and passing through Tremp, crossing the valleys of the two Nogueras to the Segre, perhaps he preferred to go down to Balaguer and follow the course of the Segre, which took him directly to La Seo by a flatter road. Thus, he avoided getting into the hornet’s nest of Ribagorza County, watched and controlled by the insurrected vassals and plagued by bandits, and got rid of the winding mountain roads that went up and down from river to river.

As little as he felt the beauty of the landscape he could not help but admire the grandeur of the gorges cut to give way to the waters of the Segre, clear, transparent; the imposing ruggedness of some bends whose cliffs are cut into the sky like cathedral crests; the nooks and crannies of the road, clinging to the rocky walls or thrown from side to side over the current of the river, over bridges laden with centuries; and at the end, the spectacular green cove, almost plain, against the scenic backdrop of the Pyrenees, then already white with winter snows. And there, at its feet, Seo de Urgel.

The diocese of Urgel

The extensive diocese of Urgel encompassed an area bounded to the north by the border of the Pyrenees; to the east and south by a line whose reference points could be at the tips of the archpriesthoods of Puigcerdá (whose territory extended to the sanctuary of Nuria), Bagá, Berga, Cardona, Guissona, Agramunt and Balaguer; to the west by another intermediate line between the two rivers Noguera, adding the three enclaves of Castanesa, Arén and Peralta de la Sal to the west of the river Noguera Ribagorzana.

According to a document written by Joseph Calasanz on October 12, 1587, the diocese of Urgel was divided into 17 “oficialats” or archpriesthoods, namely: La Seo, Cerdaña, Tremp, Balaguer, Guissona, Agramunt, Sanahuja, Oliana, Pons, Sort, Tirvia, Cardós, Berga, Bagá, Cardona, Solsona and Sant Llorens.[720] In this vast diocesan area, there were towns and villages with their respective districts, in which the bishop had full secular, civil and criminal jurisdiction, with all the prerogatives of complete secular rule, administration of justice, tax collection, appointment of authorities and officials, etc. Thus, even in the last century, the Urgelitan diocese retained its full secular rule in the city of Urgel and its district and in the cities of Sanahuja, Guissona and Tremp and their respective districts, all of them heads of archpriesthoods, in addition to other villages and towns.[721]

720 Arch. Cap. Urgel, Liber conclusionum et statutorum ecclesiae Urgellensis a die 10 aprilis 1570 usque 18 aprilis 1608, f.154 v. Cit. in P. PUJOL I TUBAU, Noves dades de l’estada de Sant Josep de Calasanç al Bisbat d’Urgell (1587-1591) ms. (complete copy in my possession), p.28, n.50. We regret that this well-documented article by the aforementioned researcher does not appear in his Obra completa (Ed. Andorra, Valls d’Andorra 1984). The authors J. Mir and J. Poch say that there were only ‘eleven’ archpriestshiphs (cf. J. MIR DURÁN. S. Joseph de Calasanz gloria de la diócesis de Urgel y honor de su clero, in [C. Rabaza] Memorias de un cronista [Valencia 1912], p.342; J. POCH, Mossen Josep Calassanç a la diócesi d’Urgell: Cat 195 [1977] 3). Nevertheless, Poch then cites ten nominally (ibid., p.7), among which La Seo, Tremp, Sort, Tirvia and Cardós, the five related precisely to Calasanz, do not appear. In addition, he adduces an unpublished document (ibid., p.8) of 1671 that begins thus: “El bisbat d’Urgell consta de tretze oficialats...”, and at that time it was so, because when the diocese of Solsona was formed (1593) four archpriestships were dismembered from Urgel (Berga, Cardona, Solsona and Bagá), that with the said 13 add up to 17.

721 In a document, dated November 25, 1808, referring to the bishop of Urgel, Francisco Dueña, the towns and their terms that were still episcopal dominion are recorded: “Els llocs i viles en els quals la Mitra d’Urgell té jurisdicció temporal son: la ciutat d’Urgell i son terme; Sanahuja i son terme; Guissona i son terme; Vilamitjana i terme; Tremp i terme; Pla de Sant Tirs i terme; Valldarqués i Riera Salada; Amurri i terme; Torres i terme; Arcabeli i terme; Coborriu i Llosa i terme” (cf. J. POCH, o.c., p.13).

In these cases, the ecclesiastical officials, as representatives of the bishop, exercised temporal power in the places under their jurisdiction. In some of them, they also exercised the functions and title of General Vicar for the entire district, as in Balaguer, Tremp, Sanahuja, Agramunt, Guissona, etc., to which was added the General Vicar of the entire diocese, based in La Seo.[722]

722 In a document of the time we read: “He asked as Judges the Rev. Bishop of Urgel or his Official and General Vicar and a certain John Pujol, parish priest of Balaguer who is ‘in partibus’ General Vicar but only in Balaguer and his district, and not in la Seu de Urgell, neither in Tremps (sic), Sanahuja, and Agramunt, where the said Rev. Bishop has his particular Officials and Generals Vicar, because the one who is General is the Canon Sebastian Moles who is and resides in the Cathedral of Urgel” (Arch. Minist. As. Exter... fund S. Sede, Leg. 51, Fondo S. Sede, Leg. 51, n.d.).

The extent of feudal jurisdiction over cities, villages, towns and territories, which was held by a certain hierarchy of secular and regular clergy, was not limited to the diocese of Urgel or the other dioceses of Catalonia, but was found throughout Spain.

Such all-encompassing feudal powers might lead one to believe what Joan Reglá claims: “Like the rest of Spain, the Catalan ecclesiastical class is very rich”, based on a memorandum by Peter Núñez de Salcedo from the end of the 16th century, which is so exaggerated that Reglá himself asserts that “some isolated findings essentially correct these figures.” However, he continues with little logic that “in any case, one fact seems obvious: the wealth of the Pyrenean dioceses, especially that of the Seo de Urgel....” And indeed, according to this memorandum, the annual revenues of the dioceses of Catalonia would be, in ducats: Tarragona, 16,000; Lérida, 6,000; Tortosa, 20,000; Gerona, 5,000; Barcelona, 12,000; Solsona, 40,000, and Urgel, 70,000.[723]

723 J REGLÁ, Els Virreis de Catalunya (Barcelona 19703), p.21-22.

However, the historian was closer to historical reality in another earlier writing, in which he said: “Apparently the Catalan clergy was characterized by its poverty... It is recorded that in 1564 a memorandum was submitted to the papal curia requesting that a large number of benefices be granted to the Catalan clergy so that they could live off them. This was refused.”[724]

724 ID, La España de los Austrias, in Historia social y económica de España y América, direct. J. VICENS VIVEs, t.III, p.65. In this work he gives the complete statistics of the aforementioned memoirs. To Solsona he attributes 40,000 ducats, while in the other work of the previous note he gave him only 4,000. Which makes us suspect that Urgel should have in these calculations 7,000 and not 70,000. In fact, in another report of 1567 of a Venetian ambassador it is said that Urgel has 7,000 escudos of annual income, Tarragona 12,000, Barcelona 4,000, Lérida 9,000, Tortosa 14,000, Gerona 2,000 and Vich 2,000 (cf. J. ALIAGA GIRBES, Relación del viaje del embajador veneciano Sigismondo di Cavalli a España [1567]: Anthologica Annua 16 [1968] 471).

More reliable calculations from 1534 give the diocese of Urgel an annual income of 3,300 ducats plus a further 700 for pensions, i.e. 4,000. This puts it behind Tarragona (which leads the principality with 6,000 income and 3,000 pensions) and Barcelona (?), Lérida and Tortosa. They are followed only by Gerona and Vich.[725]

725 Cf. Historia de la Iglesia en España, edited by R. GARCÍA-VILLOSLADA, vol. III-1°., p.187. Regarding the rents of the rest of Spain, the leading one is the diocese of Toledo with 25,000 ducats of rent and 7,000 of pensions, that is, 32,000 in total. And they follow in descending order other 16 dioceses before arriving at that of Tarragona, which is the richest of Catalonia. Of the 48 Spanish dioceses, the incomes of 7 (including Barcelona) are not recorded, and there are only 13 (including Gerona and Vich) whose incomes are lower than those of Urgel.

A total income of 4,000 ducats per year was certainly poor and scarce for a diocese like Urgel, which, in addition to the expenses common to all dioceses,[726] had to provide for its own defense against the Huguenots who crossed its borders and against the endemic plague of bandits that plagued its territory. And this is exactly what Joseph Calasanz acknowledged when he spoke to the Viceroy of Catalonia about revenue and defense spending.[727]

726 The income of the diocese of Barbastro at that time, in the time of Urríes (1573-1585), was similar to that of Urgel, and it was also considered poor: ...” some of them (relatives of Urríes) were poor. The diocese, being poor, was also very almsgiving... The income did not reach four thousand ducats...” (J. LÓPEZ, Historia General de Sto. Domingo y de su Orden de Predicadores (Valladolid 1613), third part, lib. I, c.64, p.276). H. Cock wrote: “The episcopal ‘mensa’ [of Basbastro] has five thousand ducats each year.” (cf. E. COCK, o.c., p.1368)

727 “...we find it absolutely impossible to be able to contribute to the payment of 60 soldiers... because we certify to Your Excellency... that since that time that we were content to contribute in such a thing until now the income of this church has decreased five thousand pounds and that we have spent six days in making the calculation of our income..... that will not suffice for the distributions and ordinary expenses of the church that cannot cease, so in order to make up for those we have had to take money from lenders, for two thousand pounds, that we have taken these days in Barcelona...” (Letter from Calasanz to the Viceroy, dated May 25, 1587. Cf. EGC x, p.395). Five thousand Catalan pounds were equivalent to 4,460 Catalan ducats. A month later Calasanz repeated again to the Viceroy that they could not pay sixty soldiers: “we wrote to Your Exc. that the Church had no possibilities to do so because its poverty “ (ibid., p.398). In the aforementioned letter to the Viceroy (June 11, 1581), it was the Chapter alone that had offered to pay 20 soldiers, if the bishop and the city would do the same, and said: “in spite that this Chapter is bankrupt because the many expenses of the last winter and because the rents have diminished more than one thousand ducats...” (cf. P. PUJOL I TUBAU, Obra completa, p.318). And in another (May 9, 1583) he confessed “in the other hand, having so small benefices, when we have to pay the ‘scusado and quarta’ remains almost nothing to live honestly” (ibid., p.323). All of which is in conflict with the wealth of which Reglá speaks.

When Joseph Calasanz arrived in La Seo de Urgel at the beginning of February 1587, the diocese was a vacant episcopal see. The last bishop had died on December 8th of the previous year. It was the Camaldolese monk Hugh Ambrose de Moncada, who had ordained Calasanz as priest on December 17, 1583 in the episcopal castle of Sanahuja. The management of the diocese was therefore in the hands of the cathedral Chapter.

The town of La Seo

Perhaps it was the first time that Calasanz entered the episcopal town of Urgel that winter of 1587. It really was an episcopal town, not only because the bishop was its only secular and ecclesiastical lord, but also because its name came from the episcopal see: ‘La Seu’. In its essence, it bore the indelible stamp of its Middle Ages, which was expressed in the harmony - in its case, the fusion - of spiritual and secular power.

La Seu d’Urgel - an exceptional case in history - was Seu (See) “long before it was a town”[728] and so the cathedral, half temple, half fortress, dedicated to St. Mary, is the best expression of its medieval values and the synthesis of its past. The current cathedral, which is the fourth in history, dates back to the second half of the 12th century and its Romanesque style is strongly influenced by Lombardy. Its central apse, crowned by an airy arched gallery, towered over the city walls as a further defensive bastion. And its entire outer structure with its four robust corner towers still gives the impression of a compact, crenelated, invincible mass. Its interior, with its very high, austere and bright central nave, forces us to focus our attention on the magnificent frame of its apse, in which the venerable 13th century Romanesque carving of St. Mary of Urgel used to stand as if in a huge niche (today in the bishop palace). The quiet Romanesque cloister, also dating from the 13th century, still retains its air of simplicity and serene medieval elegance.

728 Ibid., p.613.

The unchanging atmosphere created in these surroundings seems to erase distances and transport us to the end of the 16th century, when - for a few years - the young priest Joseph Calasanz appeared and disappeared through the galleries of the cloister and the naves of the cathedral.

But the Middle Ages was not only breathed in the cathedral. The urban context itself preserved all the charm of medieval towns, surrounded by walls through whose gates, towers, battlements and barbicans - always mocking vigilance, public prohibitions and extreme precautions - plagues, wars and bandits invaded relentlessly.

The streets were narrow, dark and not always clean, with the exception of Main Street, with its wide arcades, which provided a safe haven on the frequent rainy and cold days; a meeting place, a place to stroll and a place for town gossips. At one end of the street, the public mesures for grain that have been installed there since 1579 are still preserved today. Despite its modern urban changes, La Seo is still “one of the towns in Catalonia with its least disfigured medieval physiognomy.”[729]

729 Ibid., p.567

No less medieval was the industrial and commercial traffic in this small Pyrenean town at the end of the sixteenth century, which was undoubtedly due to its distance from the major commercial centers on the Mediterranean. Nevertheless, it seems that La Seo experienced a period of relative prosperity in those years.[730] And this despite the fact that, according to statistical calculations, the population must have ranged between 1,100 and 1,500 inhabitants.[731] And one of the representatives of local trade was Antony Janer, in whose house Joseph Calasanz was a guest.

730 Ibid., p.473-474.

731 Pujol says that it did not exceed 1,500 inhabitants (ibid., p.474). The “fogatge” of 1553 gave it 227 fires (families), that is, 1,135 inhabitants (cf. J. IGLESIES, El fogatge de 1553, vol. I, p.71), but another “fogatge” of 1564, perhaps more plausible as the author explains, counted in La Seo 292 fires, that is, 1,460 inhabitants (cf ibid., p.149-151).

In the house of Antony Janer

Antony Janer i Catá, son of a royal notary from Barcelona, arrived in Urgel around 1584 and soon married Joanna, the widow of the merchant John Gallart, whose trade he continued to run with extraordinary skill and profit. His store was a real “village store” where everything was available; moreover, the shopkeeper was a born merchant who could get anything you asked for. He bought and sold wheat, wine, oil, salt, anchovies, sardines, sugar, cheese, wax, paper, books, breviaries, building materials, ropes, baskets, fabrics, buttons, ribbons, cloaks, saddlebags, skins, weapons, goldsmith’s items, etc., and at the same time he hired pack animals, was a money lender, etc. And as if that was not enough, his house was also an inn where he accommodated guests with full board.

All these diverse business activities forced him to keep meticulous records of his income and expenditure in two complementary books, the ‘Journal’ (Manual) and the ‘Ledger’ (Mayor), which fortunately have been preserved[732] and constitute an invaluable arsenal of information about Calasanz, as they cover the years 1587 to 1592, when he was in his diocese before going to Rome. More specifically, he was received as a guest in the house of Janer on June 1, 1587, without us knowing where he stayed from the beginning of February, when he arrived in La Seo, until the end of May of the same year; probably in the house of a clergyman, such as the organist of the cathedral, mosén Peter Rostoll, of whose friendship we know.[733] And on February 1, 1589, he ceased to live in the house of Janer.[734] Nonetheless, he maintained cordial relations with the merchant, as he kept track of his current accounts of income and expenditure, both during the months of his stay in La Seo and later in Tremp.

732 The Manual (Journal) begins on July 1, 1587 and ends on December 31, 1590, and is preserved in the Biblioteca de Cataluña (Barcelona), ms. 1239. The Mayor (Ledger) begins on July 1, 1587 and ends on December 31, 1592 and is preserved in the same library, ms. 1240. Peter Pujol i Tubau made two detailed studies on both books, one of which, already published in Estudis Universitaris Catalans, 18 (1933) 1-91, has been included in his Obra completa (Valls d’Andorra 1984), p.473-554, and is entitled Antoni Janer i Catá, mercader, a la Seu d’Urgell, a finals del segle XVI (Antoni Janer i Catá, merchant, a la Seu d’Urgell, a finals del segle XVI). The second one deals with St. Joseph Calasanz and remains unpublished, as we have stated in the previous note 720.

733 This is what Pujol believes in Noves dades..., p.8, supported by multiple references in Janer’s books.

734 Cf. ibid., p.8. Janer’s notes read: “Friday, March 11, 1588. Sir Joseph Calesans owes 70 pounds, for his expenses and one servant. It started June 1, 1587 and will finish the end of May of this year 1588…” And on January 28, 1589: “Saturday, January 28, 1589. The Sir Juseph Calesans owes 46 pounds, 13 escudos and 4 coins, for his expenditure and his servant, during eith months, at the rate of 70 pounds per year” (ibid.).

Together with Calasanz, other clergymen shared Janer’s lodgings, such as the parish priest of Canilló, Mossen Esteve Belzors, for less than a month (August 18, 1587 to September 10, 1587), and Mossen Joan Morer, for eight and a half months (March 9, 1588 to December 14, 1588).[735] He also took in pupils, such as the son of the farmer John Moles, for three and a half months (January to April 1588).[736] He also had his wife’s son, Jerome Gallart, at home, who was still a child and a singer at the cathedral.[737] He also had a servant or helper at home during these years, who was indispensable given the movement of the store.[738]

735 Cf P PUJOL I TUBAU, Antoni Janer i Catá… p.523.

736 Ib.

737 Ib., p.478.

738 There are four in a row: Peter Entreaygues (1586-1587), Tomás Peyrot (1588), Joan Berthomeu (1589), Guillem Timoneda (1589-1590) (cf. P. PUJOL I TUBAU, o.c., p.480-481).

It is undoubtedly more interesting to know that Calasanz also had a servant of his own called James John Coromines, who was from Urgel, but who also lived in Janer’s house from the day Calasanz entered, and who - in addition to his salary - paid him full board and clothing.[739] This boy or young man accompanied him many times, both during his stay in La Seo and later in Tremp, when he travelled on the back of a mule through these parishes lost in the mountains. And the daily contact over so many months with “his master”, the priest Calasanz, prompted him to imitate him and he became a priest. And Calasanz obtained for him an ecclesiastical benefice without residence in the collegiate church of Orgañá, which was conferred on him by Bishop Capilla on March 25, 1589.[740] At that time, there was still no Tridentine seminary in Urgel, so the recruitment and training of the clergy was in the hands of parish priests, priests, university colleges, etc. In this case, Coromines was fortunate to have Joseph Calasanz as his teacher, ‘master’, tutor and extraordinary friend. And he was still called “his servant.” On November 20, 1590, Janer notes that Calasanz paid him 16 coins from Tremp to buy a breviary for Coromines “so that he could say the Roman Office.”[741] He was probably already a priest. When Calasanz went to Rome, his beloved Coromines was given a benefice in the cathedral of Urgel, but he only enjoyed it for a short time, as he died in 1603.[742]

739 Regarding the pension, cf. n.734 above. Other notes: “(23-12-1588) for a shirt for his servant, 10 escudos “; “On 4-2-1589, 4 pounds, 9 escudos, 4 coins things for his servant”; “(2-9-1589) 2 pounds, 14 escudos material for the cope of Coromines”; “(30-6-1590) 1 pound, 5 escudos for a cope of the servant “; “(11-5-1591) 4 escudos for his servant” (cf. P. PUJOL I TUBAU, Noves dades, p.19).

740 Cf. the complete document in ID., Obra completa, p.334, n.V. The recommendation of Calasanz is expressed as follows: “Persone tue merita quibus apud nos fidedigno commendaris testimonio....” And he appears as a witness: “presentibus ibidem Rdo. Josepho Calaçans, presbitero”.

741 Cf. ibid., p.486.

742 His death certificate reads: “On 8 October 1603 died Rev. mossén Jaume Joan Coromines, Beneficiary of the Cathedral of Urgell. He was buried in the Piety “ (Arch. parr. de Sant Ot, UrgelI, Llibre de defuncions de 1598 a 1638, 6, cit in P. PUJOL I TUBAU, Noves dades, n.102).

Thus,” writes Pujol i Tubau, “Janer’s house was more than just a store for cold commercial speculation. It was first and foremost a comfortable and peaceful place where people felt at home. Quite in keeping with his good-natured temperament, Janer’s house preserved all the essences of ancestral family life, which in a town like La Seo was so intensely Christian, hardworking and secluded, in an atmosphere saturated with spiritualism.”[743]

743 Cf. ID., Obra completa, p.522-523.

In his account books, Janer wrote the name ‘Calesans’ about 120 times, in connection with his credit and debit or as a witness in many transactions with other customers. About 32 times he put his own signature with this expression: “In the presence of me, Joseph Calasanz, priest...”, or ten times in Latin “Ita est, Josephus Calasanz” And some of these signatures confirm the amounts that the good Janer left in anonymity, or he had the delicacy to remember the recipient of the alms of Mosén de Peralta.[744] Among them, we can highlight the pious memory he keeps of the sanctuary of Montserrat, because on November 18, 1588, he asks Janer for twenty ‘reals’ “per donar a caritat a N. Sra. de Montserrat” (for charity to Our Lady of Montserrat).[745]

744 In five days, from December 19 to 24, 1588, Janer consigns four deliveries to Calasanz with the respectable sum of 16 pounds and 4 sueldos “for his intentions” (cf. P. PUJOL I TUBAU, Noves dades, n.63). And given the dates, one might think that more than one poor family would have a better Christmas. There is an entry that says: “The Sir. Juseph Calesans Rector of Claverol owes 44 escudos... to cloth Bernard for the love of God” (ibid., p.18). Who would that be, a simple street beggar?

745 lb., n.61 bis.

No doubt the entire population of La Seo would go through Janer’s store, considering that the town had no more than one thousand five hundred inhabitants at the time. And so, it was another opportunity for the young Calasanz to socialize with everyone. It is likely that it was under the arcades of Calle Mayor, “but - concludes Pujol i Tubau - despite the abundance of data, we cannot indicate the street of the town where Janer’s house was located.”[746] And that is unfortunate.

746 P. PUJOL I TUBAU, Obra completa, p.479, n.18.

The esteem and trust that Calasanz felt for this honest merchant were later confirmed when he was appointed consul of the town. When he died in 1606,[747] Calasanz had already been in Rome for almost fifteen years. And it is likely that he soon received the news and praise of his good government and concern for the poor expressed by Bishop Capilla just one month after his death.[748]

747 “On July 13, 1606 died the magnificent lord Antoni Jener, consul, having reeived all the sacraments of the Holy Mother Church. He was buried in his chapel of the community of Urgell” (ibid., p.480, n.24). The consuls were four and annual, and they had in their hand the government of the city. In the Act of burial of bishop Hugh Ambrose de Moncada the names of the four are cited and it is added “consuls of this present year of the City of Urgel” (Arch. Cap. Urg., Liber conclusionum el stalutorum Ecclesiae UrgeL, a die 10 aprilis 1570 usque 18 aprilis 1608, f.146v). It is not possible to specify whether Janer was consul when he died or had been so years before.

748 On August 29, 1606, from Sanahuja Capilla wrote a letter ‘To the consuls of our city of La Seu d’Urgell’ and accused them of bad government comparing it with Janer’s: ‘... take care not to verify what everybody is telling, that not being consul Gener all the good government was absent in this consulate, and the care of the poor’ (cf. P. PUJOL I TUBAU, Noves dades, p.5).

Post-conciliar times

The post-conciliar epochs promote and encourage attempts at reform, especially after such decisive councils in the history of the Church as that of Trent. The atmosphere of Christian life that prevailed among the clergy and the population of the diocese of Urgel was probably not very different from that of other Spanish regions in this post-Tridentine period. Everywhere there were abuses, vices, bad habits that needed to be corrected and voices of zealous reformers who, as at all times, painted very gloomy pictures to justify their reforms.

As early as 1581, Dr. Peter Gervás y de las Heras managed to interest Philip II in the foundation of a Jesuit school for the Pyrenean regions “from the county of Cerdania to Sobrarbe, covering about 20 leagues of land in length and as many in width”, to be established in his native town of Arén, in the heart of Ribagorza and the diocese of Urgel. Based on this founding proposal, the King wrote letters to the initiator of the idea, Gervás, to the bishops of Barcelona and Urgel and to the corresponding Jesuit provincial, in which he warmly recommended the initiative.[749]

749 Cf. M. JIMÉNEZ-J. SINUÉS, Historia de la Real y Pontificia Universidad de Zaragoza, t.III (Zaragoza 1929), p.35-39.

To justify the necessity and urgency of such a foundation, the King gives in his letters a brief description of the religious situation in the area, which covers practically the entire diocese of Urgel, around the year 1580. Undoubtedly, the monarch’s letters echo those written to him by Gervás, who knew the area. Here are the most important paragraphs:

”...You, Dr. Peter Gervás ... have informed us that because of the great lack of spiritual personages of letters and exemplary lives the inhabitants of the said mountains [Pyrenees] are ill-instructed and ill-taught; and because the country is very rugged and suitable for crimes, which are very often committed there, and moreover because of the bad neighborhood they have with the heretics of France, who are familiar with them, there is evidently a danger that something of their bad habits will pass over to them.....”[750]

750 Ibid., p.35. Letter of Philip II to Dr. Gervás, dated March 20, 1581, like the three following ones we are going to quote.

“[Gervás] has told us of the great danger in which the inhabitants of the Pyrenees from the county of Cerdania to Sobrarbe find themselves... that something of the Lutheran sect clings to them, both because the clergy and laity are very ignorant and inclined to embrace every error, and because they daily treat and communicate with the Lutherans in a very friendly and familiar manner... The monasteries, from the summits of which these parts were formerly taught and preserved, are almost lost, and those who dwell there are very ignorant...”[751]

751 Ibid., p.36. Philip II to the bishop of Barcelona. To the bishop of Urgel, Don Hugh A. de Moncada, he recommends him to help and support the foundation (ibid., p.38). It is the shortest letter. There was no need to describe to him what he knew so well.

“We have understood that most of those who live in the Pyrenees... are very ignorant and ready to commit any error, both because of the great communication they have with the Lutherans in France, who are very close to them, and because they have been badly taught and feel inclined to seduction, theft and other crimes and sins...”[752]

752 Ibid., p.38. Philip II to the Provincial of the Jesuits.

It is well known that Philip II felt an obsession against heretics and Lutherans, and this was one of the decisive motivations in his religious policy, particularly in the creation or division of bishoprics near the Pyrenees. It was therefore a good idea to suggest that he could found a Jesuit school in these Pyrenean regions, which were at risk of Lutheran contamination. The school was indeed founded in La Seo and not in Arén, as Gervás wanted, but not until 1599. And a year earlier, when the Jesuits asked Father General for permission, they presented him with the same picture of 1581, even more gloomy, as can be seen in this paragraph: “It is a land with a people very needy of doctrine, very ignorant and hardly less needy than the Indians, because for the reasons mentioned there are few priests in these lands who know and care for the souls of their faithful... and the clergy there live in great freedom, without their pastors being able to remedy, because they are daring and rebellious...”[753] So, nothing has been done for almost twenty years?

753 Cf. Urgellia 2 (1979) 384-385.

There are probably more generalizations and exaggerations than truths, and what is true for a few is ultimately a sign of general depravity. In the diocese of Urgel, on the other hand, in view of the fact that in some archpriesthoods the civil and ecclesiastical authorities were identical, it may be presumed that the complaints of the clergymen concerned do not always relate to the purely religious sphere, and that the insubordination, audacity and crimes may sometimes relate to the collection of dues or to matters of simple secular jurisdiction.[754]

754 Thus we can guess in this complaint from the time of Bishop Capilla: “Pervenit ad auditum Fiscalis Procuratoris curie nostrae urgellen. aliquos esse pbros. et laicos nostrae jurisdictionis parum Deum et ‘justitiam temporalem’ timentes, qui non verentur talia comittere et perpetrare facinora et delicta ex quibus magnum curiae et ‘jurisdictioni nostrae tam spirituali quam temporali’, infertur praejudicium et populo scandalum...” (cit. by J. MIR DURÁN, San José de Calasanz gloria de la Diócesis de Urgel..., p.342).

It does not seem fair, then, that this supposedly bleak picture should be foregrounded to emphasize the transformative effect of the Jesuit school, or the providential government of the zealous Bishop Capilla, or the pastoral work of Joseph Calasanz. It was undoubtedly a difficult field for those who had to travel across the diocese to visit even the remotest corners. This was due to the harsh geography and also to two characteristic problems of the region: the aforementioned danger of infection by heretics and the plague of banditry. Calasanz was one of these tireless visitors, but before him and together with him there were others who endeavored to preserve, improve and reform the lives of the people and the clergy.

Since the end of the Council of Trent in 1563, the ecclesiastical province of Tarragona, to which Urgel belonged, held several Provincial Councils to implement the Tridentine reform. These included one in 1564-65 under Archbishop Ferdinand de Loaces, another in 1572-74 under Caspar Cervantes de Gaeta (1568-1575), three more under Antony Augustín (1576-1587) and three more under Johannes Terés (1587-1603).[755] And it is undeniable that these Councils had an impact in each of the dioceses, albeit with the slowness and resistance that any reform entails. For example, in the first meeting of the Chapter of Urgel, which Calasanz attended as secretary inmediately after his arrival (February 13, 1587), it was decided to distribute throughout the diocese the Constitutions of Tarragona, which had been reprinted by order of the Provincial Council concluded on the 10th of the previous month.[756]

755 Cf. Historia de la Iglesia en España, dir. R. GARCÍA-VILLOSLADA, vol. III-2°., p.30.

756 Cf. P. PUJOL I TUBAU, Noves dades… p. 7.

An indication of the religious sensitivity of the town of La Seo in those years of the permanence of Calasanz may be the large number of confraternities that were more or less linked to the guilds of arts and crafts, considering the small population, which, as we have already seen, did not even reach 1,500 inhabitants. These were the Confraternitys of Our Lady of Piety, Saints Blaise and Ermengol, Saints John and Odón, Saint Eloy, Saint Joseph, Saints Ivo and Sereno, Our Lady of the Rosary, Saint Mark, the Holy Cross and the Precious Blood of Jesus Christ.[757] It is likely that Calasanz belonged to some of them - even if we do not know it - because in Rome he will belong to several, and soon we will see him in one in Tremp.

757 Cf. P. PUJOL I TUBAU, Antoni Janer i Catá..., p.355, 405, 410, 483. 598, 609. etc.

Secretary of the Chapter

On February 12, 1587, Calasanz began to exercise his new duties as Secretary of the Chapter and Master of Ceremonies of the Cathedral of Urgel, which he held until January 27, 1589, “on which date he took his leave”, as the account book states.[758] But neither of these appointments appear in the Minute book because they were not officially assigned to him, but only provisionally, or perhaps - as Pujol i Tubau comments - “because it was feared that the illustrious student of our most prestigious universities would not remain in this country for long, or perhaps because he did not have a canonical benefice.”[759]

758 “Mossén Joseph Calesans on March 24, 1587 received 10 pounds per salary as Secretary of Ill Chapter and Master of Ceremonies; he started on 12 February, X pounds... And on February 7, 1589, 27 pounds, 10 escudos, received cash from Canon Cases, cashier; they are payment of the salary due until January 27 when he went for good, XXVII pounds, 10 escudos” (cf. P. PUJOL I TUBAU, Sant Josep de Calassanç..., en Obra completa, p.285). The text is corrected according to its new version, more precise, in Noves dades..., p.24, n.18.

759 Cf. P. PUJOL I TUBAU, o.c., in Obra Completa, p.285. Poch wondered who granted him these offices, if the bishop Moncada, the chapter, or he got it by oppositions (Cf. J. POCH, Josep Calassanç, plebá de Claverol i Ortoneda: Cat 181[1976]3-4). It does not seem likely that it was Bishop Moncada, since he died on December 8, 1586 and Calasanz began his functions two months later. It would be, therefore, the Chapter and in a provisional way, as Pujol supposes.

His predecessor, Mosén Peter Laudes, was in fact a beneficiary of the cathedral and had officially received both appointments, that of secretary in 1574 and that of master of ceremonies in 1578, being the first to hold them, as the latter office was created in the same year.[760] For both offices Calasanz received an annual salary of 60 pounds,[761] a remarkably meager, insufficient and inadequate amount for such offices,[762] considering that he did not hold a benefice like his predecessor.[763] Perhaps because of his obligatory presence in the choir - since he was master of ceremonies - he received the regular perks ‘inter presents’, like his friend Peter Rostoll, organist, who was paid much better than Calasanz at 100 pounds a year.[764]

760 Cf. P. PUJOL I TUBAU, o.c., p.284. Curiously, the breviary of this priest was acquired on November 20, 1590 by Antony Janer to give it to James John Coromines, servant of Calasanz “so he can say the roman office” (ibid., p.486).

761 To the entries consigned in the previous n.758, first and last delivery of salary, add these two of annuities: “On February 12, 1588 he is given 60 pounds as one year salary for the offices as Secretary and Master of Ceremonies that he had until today, LX pounds. And on February 7, 1589, 57 pounds, 10 escudos, for 11 months and 15 days that had the above written Offices of Secretary and Master of Ceremonies. LVII pounds, X escudos. Total, CXVII pounds, X escudos” (P. PUJOL I TUBAU, Noves dades, p.24, n. 18).

762 Pujol mistakenly wrote: “He came to perceive aproximately around 118 pounds as salary that would not be an adequate salary for the duties he had to fulfil...” (ID., o.c. Obra completa, p.285, n.21). In his later study, and in view of the entries cited in the previous note, he rectified the error, since instead of 118 pounds per year it was only 60 (cf, ID., Noves dades..., p.24, n.18). The error, however, increases the value of his judgment, for if 118 pounds a year was an inadequate salary, how much more if it was only 60.

763 However, because he was a beneficiary, his predecessor was paid only 25 pounds a year as secretary and five more as master of ceremonies, at least in 1584, since when he was given this office (April 24, 1578) it was stated in the minutes “without any salary sed cum spe future remunerationis” (cf. P. PUJOL I TUBAU, o.c., Obra completa, p.284, n.20).

764 In the contract with Rostoll we read: “give to the said mossén Rostoll the office to play the organs in the present church with the usual salary of one hundred pounds; and because he is also priest, be given the retributions of the Chapter, when there is choir...” (ID., Noves dades, p.25, n.23)

Certainly, the Chapter of Urgel was not very lavish in its salaries, which confirms the idea that the church of Urgel was poor. Calasanz paid Antony Janer a pension of 70 pounds a year for himself and his servant Coromines,[765] i.e. 35 pounds each, for which the 60 pounds he received from the Chapter was not enough. Much less for their clothing, travel costs and other expenses. Janer paid his servants 10 and 14 pounds a year,[766] and if we add the 35 pounds pension they did not pay, we come to 45 or 49 pounds a year, not that far from Calasanz’s 60. He had to get the money he needed for himself and his servant and for his copious alms from somewhere. And it could be no other source than his family fortune.

765 Cf. n.734 of this chapter.

766 To Peter Entreaygues and William Timoneda 14 pounds and 8 sous a year; to Thomas Peyrot 10 pounds and to John Berthomeu 10 pounds 16 sous a year (1 pound = 20 sous; 1 sou = 12 denarii). Perhaps the last two were smaller (cf. P. PUJOL I TUBAU, Obra completa, p.481).

And it is not that these offices were of little importance. The secretary was undoubtedly - writes Pujol - one of the most important offices in the old cathedral Chapters, as he was not only responsible for the Minute book and had to be present in person at the meetings to confirm the agreements made, but was also responsible for the official correspondence of the corporation.”[767] In the almost two full years he served as secretary, he had to write many pages - almost all of them in perfect Catalan - in six different books related to the Chapter of Canons.[768] And with these numerous autograph pages, one does not know what to admire more, whether his beautiful calligraphy or the fluidity and elegance of his literary prose. The often-quoted historian and Canon Peter Pujol i Tubau, an expert on the ecclesiastical archives of Urgel, could not contain his admiration for both aspects: “He was - he says - an excellent calligrapher. His handwriting is of a beautiful character and clearly stands out from the other scribes who were in the service of the Chapter immediately before and after him.”[769] And before a historical page, which we will talk about later and which refers to the “Invincible Armada”, Pujol exclaims: “Let us give an account of it by our unheard-of scribe with his clear, perceptive, and penetrating prose, who, by the way, had no one before or after him who surpassed him or even equaled him in literary presentation under the double aspect, the material and the formal, of the agreements of the Chapter.”[770] All his admirers are unanimous in praising the cleanliness and graphic beauty of the first page of the so-called “Easter Chapters” of 1588, which were repeatedly reprinted in many publications.[771]

767 Ibid., p.284

768 They are the following: Liber conclusionum et statutorum eclesie Urgellensis a die 10 aprilis 1570 usque 18 aprilis 1608; Rational del Reverent Capítol de Urgell [de 1584 a 1591] en lo qual son continuats los comptes, entrades y exides, rebudes y dades de les pecunies e rendes del dit Rnt. Capítol; Liber distributionum conductus seu prebenda vulgo dicta Grossa... ab anno 1583 ad 1595; libro de Cartas del Capítulo (1568-1588); Rationes syndicorum Barcinonis (1577-1649); Liber archivii a 1577 ad 1591 (cf. L. PICANYOL, Memoriae S. Josephi Calassanctii in dioecesi Urgellensi: EphCal 2 [1932] 56; P. PUJOL I TUBAU, o.c., p.284-286, 294).

769 P. PUJOL I TUBAU, o.c., p.286, n.22

770 ID., Noves dades, p.13.

771 Cf. for example, P. PUJOL I TUBAU, Obra completa, sheet between p.288-289; EphCal 2 (1932) sheet between p.56-57. At the beginning of the Minutes, he names himself thus: “et vocato me Josepho Calasanz Presbitero ac Illis. et perquam Rdi. Capitulo Ecclesiae Urgellensis Secretario et scriba...”

The clarity and elegance of the calligraphy he learned in Spain does not seem to have been surpassed during his long years in Rome. Suffice it to compare pages from here with pages from there. The future schoolmaster who taught Roman children to write was always obsessed with good calligraphy and turned his schools in San Pantaleo into a veritable quarry for calligraphers.[772] As he approached his eighty-fourth year, he confessed with simplicity: “I have always been busy with many things and I have learned to write to perfection... to be able to teach it to ours.”[773] So, he was not only a teacher for children, but also a teacher for teachers in the art of calligraphy. And for this he wanted to receive further perfectionist instruction from one of the most respected calligraphers in Rome at the time, Ventura Sarafellini, whom he hired for his Pious Schools.[774]

772 In 1982 there was an exhibition at the Palazzo Braschi, Rome, on writing in Baroque Rome, where one could see a manuscript of 1625 with a large series of plates of calligraphic exercises by the pupils of the Pious Schools of San Pantaleo (cf. A. PETRUCCICI, Scrittura e popolo nella Roma barocca 1585-1721, Ed. Quasar [Rome 1982] p.20, n.40). See an example in SÁNTHA, S.J.C., plate between 336-337; EcoCen 3-4 (1949) tav. XVII.

773 C.3673.

774 We will speak of it later.

Master of ceremonies of the cathedral

When the office of Master of Ceremonies was created in the cathedral of Urgel on May 4, 1577, the reason given was that “in the old ceremonies of this church and in those of the Roman office, the order that would be necessary is not observed, since there is no one to take special care of it.”[775] The new task was given to the secretary of the Chapter, the beneficiary Mosén Peter Laudes, who was probably unable to do much due to his advanced age, as in August 1582 he asked to be exempted from attending Matins in view of his thirty years of service to the church.[776]

775 Cf. P. PUJOL I TUBAU, o.c., p.284, n.20.

776 Ibid.

On February 12, 1587, Calasanz replaced Mossen Laudes, with or without official appointment, in the two offices of secretary of the Chapter and master of ceremonies. As far as the latter was concerned, he had to ensure that not only the regulations of the Roman rite applicable to the entire Latin Church were brought up to date, but also the “ancient ceremonies” typical of the Church of Urgel, as the Chapter recalled when creating the new office. In doing so, he inevitably had to rely on the Ritual of Urgel, which was first published in 1536 by Bishop Francis de Urríes (1534-1551) in Zaragoza and which, corrected and reformed in later editions, has come down to us.[777]

777 In 1617 he had another edition, whose title is: Rituale Ecclesiae Urgellensis ad sacramenta administranda et alia parochorum munia rite obeunda (Tolosa 1617). In 1727-1728 and 1890-1891 it was republished respectively by bishops Simeón de Guinda Apeztegui and Salvador Casañas Pagés. In 1934 there was another edition with the title Appendix Tarraconensis ad Rituale Romanum (cf. P. PUJOL I TUBAU, El ritu de l’administració del Viatic en el Ritual Urgellitá de l’any 1617: Obra completa, p.641-642).

It is likely that his preoccupation with the ceremonial led him to delve deeper into the mystery of the liturgy and that he came into possession of works that were published in those years and that must have been widely distributed given their numerous editions. These were the works of two medieval authors, one from the 12th century, John Beleth, and one from the 13th century, William Durando (+ 1296), which bear the same title: ‘Rationale divinorum officiorum’.[778] And that such works must have reached Urgel is proven by the 1617 edition of the ‘Rituale’ urgelitano, as at the end of the first part, priests are advised to explain the meaning of the ceremonies and the mysteries contained therein, using the works of Durando and Beleth precisely.[779] What is most interesting, however, is that at Calasanz’s death, among the few books he kept in his room for his personal use was a book entitled ‘De ritibus Ecclesiae Catholicae’ by John Stephen Durando (Rome 1591), the content and presentation of which is similar to its medieval homonym.[780]

778 Beleth’s work was first published in 1553 by Cornelius Laurimann, and then in Dilingen and Anversa in 1570, and in Lyon in 1565, 1583, 1592, 1612, etc. And the two together were published in Venice in 1572 and 1581 (cf. Dict. Archéol. Chrét. et de Liturgie, X, 1, c.650).

779 “Animadvertat Parochus, ad officium suum pertinere, ut explicet aliquoties populo sibi commisso caeremonias, quibus utitur Ecclesia in Adventu, in Quadragesima et aliis temporibus: et mysteria, quae in ipsis latent, aperiat; et alia arcana spiritus Ecclesiae, et significationes sacrarum rerum explicet prout inveniet in Rationale divinorum Officiorum Guilielmi Durandi et Joannis Belethi” (cf. P. PUJOL I TUBAU, o.c., p.643, n.5). This recommendation, however, could not be included in the first edition of the Ritual of Urgel that Calasanz handled, because it was of 1536 and the ‘Rationale’ of Beleth was edited for the first time in 1553.

780 Cf. F. GUILLÉN, Apuntes sobre las fuentes de la espiritualidad sacerdotal de Calasanz: EphCal 2 (1985) 70. The French surname of both authors is Durant. It is probable that Calasanz had news of the tragic death of John Stephen Durant, president of the Parliament of Toulouse, murdered in an insurrection of the Huguenots on February 11, 1589 (ibid., n.7), because at that time our Saint lived in Seo de Urgel, very attentive to the misdeeds of the Huguenots.

Calasanz undoubtedly maintained a deep reverence and appreciation for the liturgy throughout his life as a priest and Founder, both in its ceremonial aspect and in its theological and spiritual significance. In his Constitutions, he dedicates an entire chapter to the observance of ceremonies and the care of vestments and objects of worship, beginning as follows: “It is very convenient for the dignity of the Church that those who are called to serve at the altar know the sacred rites and ceremonies well.”[781] And in numerous letters, especially to new priests, he opened his soul to impress upon them the devotion, respect, and richness of experience that he himself felt when celebrating Mass. Here are a few examples:

781 CC 1, c.VIII, n.66.

“Celebrate Mass with great humility and remember before you begin that you are addressing a message to the Eternal Father in the name of the whole holy Church, not only for the glorification of the holy Catholic faith and the forgiveness of sins, but also for the relief of the souls of the departed”;

“That the new priests be well instructed and know that they must speak with great devotion to the Eternal Father and the Most Holy Trinity, so that they may draw from the Mass the proper benefice for themselves; that they pay attention to what the words they say mean, and do not get into the habit of saying them in haste”;

“For my part, exhort him to have great reverence for the Eternal Father when he says Mass, and to address him with great devotion and reverence, saying per Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum at the end of each prayer. If he becomes accustomed to this thought, he will obtain a great benefit for his spirit.”[782]

782 C.1350, 3669, 3683. Cf. S. GINER, Ideas sobre el sacerdocio en el epistolario de San Joseph de Calasanz: AnCal 50 (1983) 337-367.

On March 17, 1588, an agreement was reached in the Chapter Hall, which the secretary Calasanz duly recorded in the Chapter’s Book of Conclusions. It concerned the special prayers that Philip II had requested from the churches of Spain for the success of the Invincible Armada. Here is the transcript:

“The Chapter was convened at the sound of the bell, as is the custom... a letter from His Majesty was read, recommending to the said Illustrious Chapter, with great entreaty, that as His Majesty has prepared a very extensive Armada for the conquest of the Kingdom of England, to accomplish the object which, with the favor of the Lord for the increase of the Catholic Faith, the extermination and punishment of the infidels and heretics is desired and intended, special prayers are said, by which, appeased from God’s wrath, God Almighty shows his goodness and mercy, and grants happy success in the said voyage. And the said Illustrious Chapter, in accordance therewith, has resolved that on the day of Our Lady, which is the 25th day of this month [the Annunciation of the Virgin Mary], there shall be a solemn and general procession through the city, all the parishes of the Ribera being notified and directed to take part in the said procession with the utmost devotion and solemnity; it was further ordained that the Blessed Sacrament shall be exposed on the high altar at the beginning of vespers on every Sunday and obligatory feast, until after vespers it shall be returned to the tabernacle in procession around the choir with due ceremony. And it was also ordained that every day after Vespers and Lauds the due commemorations of the said effect shall be held; all this shall continue to be done during the said necessity and day, whereby the Lord shall be served to give happy success and victory to Christians. Amen.”[783]

783 Cf. Arch. Cap. Urg., Liber conclusionum, f.158v (cf. Cat 195 [1977] next to p.5, without specifying the quotation).

The Great Armada sailed from Lisbon on May 20th with 130 ships and around 20,000 men. A stopover had to be made at La Coruña, and on July 12th the Invincible set sail again... which ceased to be so off the English coast at the end of the month. “Few disasters so severe are recorded in history.”[784] In Spain, a second Lepanto was probably expected.

784 P. AGUADO BLEYE, Manual de Historia de España, Espasa-Calpe (Madrid 1959), t.II, p.650.

In the meantime, i.e. from March 25th to the end of July 1588, the master of ceremonies Joseph Calasanz ensured that the agreements he had recorded in the Minute book as secretary of the Chapter were adhered to. And so, every Sunday there were special daily prayers, Eucharistic services and processions in the cathedral, as well as a large and solemn procession through the city on the day of the Annunciation, in which the surrounding towns also took part. And between candles, candelabra, pallia, censers, banners, carpets and flowers, the young master of ceremonies appeared and disappeared again.

On the warpath

It is not new in this story to speak of bandits. One of the backgrounds of Calasanz’s life in Spain is undoubtedly banditry, both in its crudest form as lawless bandits who have made looting, pillaging and crime their way of life, and in its more provisional form as people who put themselves at the service of personal or ideological bandits, also resorting to robbery, arson, extortion and murder as a means of violent persuasion. At all times, both forms of banditry have coexisted, but they became especially prevalent in the last decades of the 16th century. And Calasanz had witnessed their excesses, both in his own homeland, with the death of his brother Peter in the lands of Ribagorga, and in the disturbed monastic solitude of Montserrat.

The diocese of Urgel experienced this drama with particular intensity due to its proximity to southern France, which was being stirred up by the Huguenots at the time, as the usual aspects of banditry were joined by the fanatical raging of the heretics, who not only threatened from afar, but also made their virulent presence felt in the surroundings of Seo de Urgel. Being the bishop absent or the See vacant, it was the cathedral Chapter responsible for the armed defense, as the diocese had the characteristics of a medieval lordship in almost its entire territory. It is therefore not surprising that the “Consellers de Guerra” (war advisors) appear in the distribution of offices awarded in the so-called “Easter Chapters”‘. And it is they who, in all the long struggle with the Huguenots and bandits, convene the “council of war” to determine what is to be done.[785]

785 In the minutes of the “Capítulos Pascuales” (Easter Chapters) of 1578, written by Calasanz, we read: “Councillors of war, the Sacristan [Onofrio de Pónz], micer [Sebastian] Moles” (cf. Liber conclusionum [1570-1608], f.149-151). And here is the composition of the Council: “the council of war was assembled in which it was determined what was to be done; in which council those who were deputies are the veguer, two Dignities and a Canon of this church, the consuls and important (men) of this city...” (letter from the Chapter to the Viceroy of Catalonia, dated October 27, 1581. Cf. P. PUJOL I TUBAU, o.c., p.315, c.VIII).

Despite the poverty of the diocese, the council must supply the city with all kinds of weapons and ammunition; it must carry out work in the cathedral, which is to serve as a fortress and guard castle in case of need; it must pay spies and couriers in the service of public defense. But what it does not want is to also bear the burden of paying the soldiers, because whenever they came, they were paid by the King.[786] This was a long dispute between the cathedral Chapter and the Viceroy of Catalonia. The former insisted that the Viceroy pay them, and the latter was no less adamant that the cathedral Chapter, the bishop and the city should pay them. And it was only a matter of 60 soldiers, while some 20,000 would be setting out from the port of Lisbon to conquer a kingdom of which no one then knew what to do. The Chapter’s desperate plea was even tragically comical: “We again beg Your Excellency to show us mercy, for with 60 soldiers under the command of Captain Argensola... we would be sure to be safe against ten thousand Frenchmen.”[787] This was written in May 1583. And four years later, also in May, Calasanz wrote his first letter on behalf of the Chapter to the Viceroy, who still refused to pay for the longed-for 60 soldiers who never arrived.[788]

786 “...always that the King has sent soldiers... have been paid with the money of the King. But later Your Excellency will understand that it would be not only difficult but impossible for this church to be able to support such a heavy load having and for the same effect of our defense too many obligations, as it is the provision of harquebuses, weapons and ammunition and the works and repairs that we do every day in the church to make of it, and if it was necessary, presidium and castle of guard and spend, as much as we spend usually in couriers and spies...” (ID., dated May 9, 1583, in ibid., p.322-323, c.XXI).

787 Ibid., p.323.

788 lb., p.325, c.XXVII, dated May 25, 1587

This passive and indifferent attitude of the Viceroy led Pujol to state: “The behavior of the viceroys and, in general, of all royal officials, both judicial and administrative, who were more concerned with improving their position than with ensuring strict compliance with the law and relentlessly administering justice, left much to be desired.”[789] Perhaps it was not so much selfishness that prevented them from intervening, but the lack of human and financial resources to take care of all fronts, such as the constant threat from the Turks on the Mediterranean coasts or the French border in its easternmost passes, or the preparation and recruitment of the imposing Invincible Armada.[790] But all these reasons were not very convincing to those who felt the daily threat. For them, defending the city of Urgel against the Huguenot attack was just as important as defending the entire Catalan coast against the threat of the Turks.[791]

789 Ibid., p.287.

790 This is the opinion of Poch in his article San Joseph de Calasanz y seis obispos españoles: RevCal 12 (1957) 135. And earlier Bau had written: “The viceroys usually replied by encouraging defense, but without contributing regular troops, nor money to recruit them... The royal authority did not receive from the Principality more than the donations voted in the ‘Cortes’. In 1563, three hundred thousand Barcelonian pounds; in 1585, half a million. If this was to cover all the royal interventions and attend to the defense of coasts and frontiers, it is conceivable that the King and viceroys would disregard any small skirmish that required the maintenance of troops....” (C. BAU, Historia de las Escuelas Pías en Cataluña [Barcelona 1951] p.43).

791 The viceroy wrote to the Chapter ordering them to have the militia ready to go to defend the Catalan coast from the imminent Turkish danger, and the Chapter obeyed the orders, but noted to the viceroy “that we are on the border of France and a day’s journey from the county de Foix, where they are, like in a sure harbour, Lutherans and heretics, so enemies of our Catholic faith as the turks; and they are many in foot and in horses, always ready with the weapons” (P. PUJOL I TUBAU, o.c., p.314, c.V, dated September 10, 1581).

In reality, the Huguenots were more feared than the bandits. This can be seen from the 24 letters of the Chapter published by Pujol, which date from 1581 to 1587, before the arrival of Calasanz in La Seo. And the fear and terror of the Chapter were justified, because when they arrived, they would enter the city with fire and sword and - as good heretics - would be especially angry with the cathedral and the clergy. The news that reached them of the atrocities in the neighboring county of Foix made everyone shudder: “A few days ago - they wrote to the absent Bishop Moncada on May 25, 1582 - the Huguenots killed more than a hundred Catholic men in the said city [Foix], including a Canon, whom they burned in the middle of the square after killing him.[792] And a year later, on May 3, 1583, they said to the viceroy: “How important the defense of this city is for the glory of God and His Majesty, you may consider. If they invaded, God forbid, they would - as they did in Cerdanya - abuse the altarpieces and altars, the holy bodies and relics, and finally desecrate the churches.”[793] Surely that was enough to make anyone tremble. On the 23rd of the same month, they wrote again to the viceroy - in vain: “Every day we receive news that [the Lutheran thieves] are growing in number and threatening to invade, burn and kill.”[794] The only remedy they saw was for the viceroy to send soldiers, and if he refused, “we have no other remedy for the clergy - they told the viceroy - but to leave the church, our house, and our goods, and go to another place of safety, as we believe our predecessors did in such distresses of war.”[795]

792 Ib., p.317, c. XII

793 Ibid., p.322, c. XX.

794 Ibid., p.324, c. XXIII.

795 Ib., p.322, c. XIX.

But they did not leave. The Huguenots did not reach the city walls for the time being either. The fear of imminent attacks subsided. Occasionally there were skirmishes with bandits, who had been a cause for serious concern from time to time in the past,[796] but even then, they were considered allies of the French heretics.[797]

796 Like the band of the famous “lord” Galcerán Cadell, also allied with the Huguenots of France (cf. ibid., p.324-325, c.XXV and XXVI, and J. R. MONER, San José de Calasanz y el bandolerismo en la Corona de Aragón. AnCal 9 [1963] 149-152).

797 “...So, there are some gangs of bandits from whom we cannot expect good things, rather it is feared that they have some alliance with the Huguenots and Lutherans of France and every day they increase in people and evils, homicides and robberies” (P. PUJOL I TUBAU, Obra completa, p.321, c.XIX).

There is no doubt that Calasanz knew more or less exactly what was going on in Seo de Urgel and the rest of his own diocese from afar. But even in his own country, as we have seen, everyone was on the warpath because of the rebellious attitude of the rebels of Ribagorza. He knew, however, that he was not find a haven of peace on his way to Seo de Urgel.

Harquebuses for the canons

Among the porticoes of the main street, one of the obligatory topics of all conversations was “the bandits” Since the death of Bishop Moncada (December 8, 1586), their atrocities and arrogance had increased. The periods of the ‘vacant see’ were favorable to unrest, especially that of two years. Pujol wrote: “This long period in which the diocese of Urgel was without a prelate caused great damage to the country. The crimes, oppressions and excesses of all kinds committed during this period are unspeakable; the bandits and other misguided people were greatly encouraged by the absence of a prelate and therefore of a municipal lord, the only one who could effectively give orders to the veguer, his representative, to mobilize his people and apply justice with all severity.”[798] And the twelve letters that Calasanz wrote as secretary of the Chapter reflect in all their dramaticism the excesses of the bandits and the fears of the city’s inhabitants during this fateful time of the ‘vacant see’.

798 Ib., p.302.

In the summer of 1582, the Viceroy of Catalonia, Duke of Terranova, ordered that the Chapter of Urgel be provided with 200 harquebuses for the defense of the church. The Canons reviewed their existing arsenal and decided to purchase 70 arquebuses with their flasks and supplements and 100 pikes, which they requested from the viceroy himself, as they were convinced that his selection criteria were the best guarantee of their good quality.[799] In the spring of the following year, they returned to review their arsenal and wrote to the new viceroy, the Count of Miranda, asking him to order the selection and purchase of a hundred harquebuses with their supplements.[800]

799 Ib., p.32O, c. XVII.

800 Ibid., p.321, c. XIX.

But the canons were not only concerned with supplying the arsenal, but also with appointing the leaders of groups of tens, fifties and hundreds and assigning the places they should occupy when needed.[801] All this was not supposed to be the responsibility of the Chapter, but of the town’s consuls, but - as the canons complained in May 1583 - “the consuls of this town... behave so negligently in guarding the town that there is no zeal for war either in the guards, or in the setting up of rounds, or in the procurement of ammunition....”[802] To make matters worse, they add that the inhabitants of this town have no experience with arms and are so few that “only one hundred men can be counted in the whole city for defense, and as the town is very old, it is large and very sparsely populated.”[803]

801 Ibid., p.318, c. XIII.

802 Ibid., p.297.

803 Ibid., p.321-322, c. XX.

This condition and the lack of arms to lead harquebuses, explains perfectly the page written by Calasanz, recently appointed secretary of the Chapter, which begins as follows: “Memorial de los arcabuces que se han dejado a los señores canónigos el 13 de abril de 1587...” (Memorandum of the harquebuses that were given to the canons on April 13, 1587...). And then followed the list of all the venerable Canons with the corresponding allocation of their harquebuses and equipment, and at the end it also said: “Calasanz, a harquebus with a flask and a small flask without a bag.”[804]

804 Ibid., p.286.

In fact, the situation worsened from day to day. On May 25th, Calasanz wrote his first official letter to the Viceroy on behalf of the Chapter, to be followed by nine more - all in beautiful Catalan, of course - in which he desperately pleads for help and recounts the terrible events, almost like a chronicle of what was happening in the city. Here is an anthology of selected paragraphs:

(May 25, 1587) ...” zealous for the honor of God and his Majesty, and grieved at the tyranny of this country, and at so much blood shed in the roads, which we can demonstrate for the death of two men whom these outlaws beheaded two days ago in his Majesty’s country and in the royal road, as they returned from this town, where they had been called to give evidence...”[805] (June 25, 1587) ...” Bandits and thieves, who pass through the countryside and afflict us so much, shed the blood of the poor passengers with such horrible cruelties that we cannot cease to entreat and implore your Excellency...; it seems that the exertions that have been made in these days have made them so wild that they kill and disfigure men in pairs in different parts of this country without cause or purpose....”[806] (August 1587) “In many other letters we have warned your Excellency of the great tyranny and abuses which the robbers are committing and continue to commit in this country, and we have heard in this place of the depredations and cruelties which they have now again wrought in our town of Alós, in which they have killed two or three men and burned some [houses?] and besieged most of the inhabitants of the said town in the church...”[807] (September 1587) ...” nor do the outlaws cease to commit enormous atrocities every day, killing and dismembering people in the streets and villages, in addition to the tyranny in the streets where one cannot pass without falling into the hands of thieves who rob them... [and the Huguenots] already dare to steal in the churches, as they did in the town of Andorra, which they left without the Blessed Sacrament...”[808] (October 1587) ...”... they are already so bold and have harassed us so much that most days they come to the city gate and hunt and kill whom they will, and since their wickedness increases every day and there is so little justice here, it is certain that they will not only not let us to go out of the city, as we dare not do now, but even out of our homes ...”[809] (January 1588) “If this town, for it is without justice and - because of the new constitution - unarmed, could not defend itself against a few bandits who came to the only open gate on the eve of Epiphany and murdered two peaceful citizens there, and if we receive daily news that heretics from the border of France are eager to plunder this church, which God has built for the defense of these regions, and when we have daily examples of stolen churches located farther into the Principality of Catalonia than ours, consider, Your Excellency, the dangers that threaten us, and what might have already happened if the mountain passes were not laden with snow, because therein alone consists our defense ....”[810]

805 EGC X, p.395.

806 Ibid., p.398.

807 Ibid., p.401.

808 Ibid., p.404.

809 Ibid., p.408.

810 Ibid., p.411.

The vividness with which Joseph de Calasanz describes the gravity of the situation makes any commentary superfluous. The facts speak for themselves.

Due to the events on the eve of Epiphany, the Chapter decided to hold Compline during the day after Vespers and not at nightfall; Matins was also postponed to the next day. It also decided that two people, either clergy or at least one of them, should sleep in the sacristy of the cathedral at night to keep watch in turn.[811] And certainly, more than one night it was Calasanz’s turn as guard, for he was one of the youngest and most robust, as we shall see later.

811 P. PUJOL I TUBAU, o.c., p.306, n.62.

Despite the many reasons that prevented the Viceroy’s forces from intervening, we felt that it was not fair to leave these people to their fate, so far away and isolated, without showing a sign of goodwill and sending them at least the sixty soldiers they longed for. But nothing. And there was nothing left to do but move forward: the Cannons loaded their harquebuses and...

This is the last letter from Calasanz to the Viceroy, dated April 1, 1588, and it says: “... as we have not received to this day the remedy which we hoped to obtain from your Excellency’s hand, for so just a title and for so great a need, the distrust of some and others has reached such a pitch that in these days some Lutherans from France have passed by in the number of 20 to 30 under the command of a certain Plometa, and have shown by their words that they would do it; today, accompanied by other thieves and thugs, have come to besiege this town, so that many ecclesiastics, who keep watch for the honor of God, have been forced to take up arms, and in the melee, which has lasted from noon till night, they have killed one man of the town, but of the enemies one has been left dead on the field, and they have taken some wounded, without our knowing exactly what has happened; from which the enemies of God have shown themselves so irritated that they have remained strong until now, when it is night, forcing the city to keep constant watch and the Chapter to provide very well for the defense of the church...”[812]

812 Ib., p330, c.XXXVII; EGC X, p.415.

Perhaps the cathedral became a fortress for a day, and from the high galleries of the outer apse the arquebuses of the canons peered out and fired... And the sun went down. And the night of the first of April fell. And in these last hours of the day, Calasanz wrote to the viceroy... “now that it is night...”

On January 27 of the following year, Calasanz received the salary due to him and “took leave” of the Chapter.[813] And on the same day it was noted in the Minute book: “On January 27, 1589, Calasanz returned two harquebuses to the Chapter, one for him and the other for Rostoll, together with the bottles and small flasks.”[814] Did he ever shoot them?

813 P PUJOL I TUBAU, o.c., p.285 (cf. n.758 of this chapter).

814 Ibid., p.286. In concluding this subject of banditry in Urgel, two studies are worth remembering, one of them already cited in the previous note 796 and the other by E. SERRAIMA, Hugonotes y bandidos en el Pirineo Catalán. La actuación de San Joseph de Calasanz en Urgel (1587-1589): Estudios de Historia Moderna 4(1954)207-224.

“Vacant See”

The Chapter’s concerns during the vacant see were not only focused on the defense of the bishop’s town against the Huguenots and bandits, but were primarily aimed at pastoral care for the entire diocese. And that is to their credit. They had already been without a prelate for ten months and had little hope that a successor would be appointed relatively quickly. At the Chapter meeting on October 12, 1587, they therefore decided to carry out a pastoral visitation of the entire diocese.

The 17 archpriesthoods were distributed as follows Peter Pascual, dean of the Chapter, was appointed visitator of the archpriesthood of Cerdanya; that of Urgel or Mayor was assigned to Paul Boquet; Raphael Gomis received those of Tremp, Balaguer, Guissona, Agramunt, Sanahuja, Oliana and Pons; John Besturs received those of Sort, Tirvia and Cardós; finally, Francis Roca was entrusted with those of Berga, Bagá, Cardona, Solsona and San Lorenzo. Because of the work and effort involved in the visitation, they allocated 50 pounds each to the canons Gomis and Roca, as they had a larger number of archpriesthoods to visit, and 30 pounds each to the other three, Pascual, Boquet and Besturs, as - Calasanz made it clear in the minutes - “they did not have so much or so bad land to visit.”[815]

815 Cf. the full minutes in Liber conclusionum, f.154v (cit. in P. PUJOL I TUBAU, Noves dades, n.50).

When he wrote this, he did not yet know that Gomis would choose him as his companion to visit “so much and so bad land”, which included his town of Peralta de la Sal, which belonged to the archpriesthood of Balaguer.

Noteworthy are the recommendations that the Chapter gave to the visitators: they were not to accept or demand bribes or gifts unless they were of little value; they were urged to visit the churches and those who governed them with due rectitude; finally, they were told that “if anything was stolen from the visitators during the visitation, the Chapter will compensate them for what was stolen, but go about in everything with moderation and without ostentation.”[816] After what has been said about banditry, this reference to possible robberies and plundering by robbers and bandits cannot surprise us. Even more, it fills us with deep admiration when we remember that of the ten desperate letters Calasanz sent to the Viceroy of Catalonia asking for help against the bandits, nine were written before his journey, and the last two in October, a few days before he left Urgel.

816 Ib.

These visits became real adventures in these steep mountains, on stony and impassable paths, through frightening ravines, through inhospitable canyons and gorges, with the fear of encountering a band of bandits at every turn in this solitude. More than once they recalled the page from Paul’s letter to the Corinthians, in the old Latin of the Vulgate: “in laboribus plurimis... in itineribus saepe: periculis fluminum, periculis latronum... periculis in solitudine...” (2 Cor 11:23-27).

The Chapter’s decision was implemented immediately. It had been passed on October 12th, and by November 25th, when the Chapter met again, it had already been carried out.[817] Janer scrupulously noted the days of Calasanz’s absence from his house to withdraw his pension, and said that it had been exactly 39 days of the visit.[818] Calasanz acted as the Visitator’s secretary on this long and arduous journey, and two letters written by him and signed by the Canon Raphael Gomis have survived to this day. The first is dated in Tremp, on October 26th and the Chapter is asked to send a reply to Balaguer, where the seconddocument was signed on November 8th.

817 Cf. Liber conclusionum, f.155.

818 Cf. P. PUJOL I TUBAU, o.c., p.17.

The question that the Visitator addresses to the cathedral Chapter and which relates to the church of Tremp is not uninteresting. The then secretary of the visitation, Calasanz, would be appointed church official of Tremp a year and a half later (July 1, 1589). The letter states, “I have found that in the execution of wills the [ecclesiastical] clerk and the notary share equally the right to the pious legacies worth less than one hundred pounds; and they say that this is an ancient custom and that the notary has leased the offices with these agreements from Canon Barthomeu or the lessors.”[819] What was the Chapter’s response? Did Calasanz also benefit from these distributions when he was later an ecclesiastical official in Tremp?

819 Ibid., n.51 (full text of the letter).

From the document signed in Balaguer on November 8th, we know that five days earlier, on November 3rd, the Visitator and the secretary were in Peralta de la Sal, where the parish priest Don Joseph Texidor and the beneficiaries presented them with a request to reduce the number of masses to be held, which were very numerous (2,743), with a paltry subsidy of one ‘sou’ per mass. The parish priest of Gabasa did the same, both appealing to the poverty of the parishes.[820] Calasanz was a reliable witness to the actual situation of the clergy in his town and in Gabasa, so the Visitator, aware of the poverty of both parishes, granted the reduction and increased the salary to one ‘real’ (two ‘sous’).[821]

820 The priest of Peralta wrote: “They are so small and tenuous the distributions and earnings of the Parish of Peralta for being very less the charity of the founded masses, and the same those of devotion...”; and the one of Gabasa: “having in account the number of masses we have to say below one sou and the frailty and poverty of the Parish...” (original text in the relics room of the Native House of Calasanz, in Peralta. Edited in EcoCen 5 [1946] 7-8).

821 “... cum nobis legitime constet de paupertate benefficiatorum communitatis Peraltae ac Rectoris Gavassae... ad rationem unius regalis pro qualibet missa reducimus ita quod ex duabus missis pro charitate unum solidum tantum habentibus unam tantum missam celebrare teneantur...” (ibid.). The titles held by the Visitator are: “Nos Raphael Gomis Archidiaconus major (that is, Archpriest of Seo de Urgel) et canonicus Stae Ecclesiae Urgellen. ac pro Illi, et admod. Rdo. Capitulo Administratore mensae episcopalis sede Pastore carenti, in spiritualibus et temporalibus Vicarius Generalis et Visitator...” (ibid.).

The Visitation to Peralta shows us that they visited other towns besides the seven heads of the archpriesthood, and the same is evident from the letter written in Tremp, in which the visitator says: “Today I visited the church of Tremp and found great satisfaction both in the community [of the clergy] and in the people, and so I think there will be little difficulty in the rest of the archpriesthood.”[822] However, they were not able to visit all the parishes, as 39 days were not enough time. It must undoubtedly have been a wonderful experience for the young priest Joseph Calasanz. For the first time, he left the closed sphere of the episcopal curia and came into direct contact with real life in the parishes, with the poverty and simplicity of the rural clergy and with the misery of so many people.

822 Cf. P. PUJOL I TUBAU, Noves dades, n.51.

The General Vicar Antony de Gallart y de Mongay

At the end of January 1588, Fr. Andrew Capilla, a Carthusian, was appointed to the See of Urgel. As he and three other clergymen were taking part in the apostolic visitation of the cloistered Benedictines and the Augustinian Canons in the Principality of Catalonia and the counties of Roussillon and Cerdagne, he was initially unable to take personal possession of this see. After a few months, he decided to send Don Antony de Gallart y de Mongay to Urgel as his procurator and General Vicar of the diocese, who took over the See in April 1588.[823]

823 Cf. ID., Obra completa, p.302.

Friar Andrew Capilla was born in Valencia, as was Don Antony de Gallart. Capilla studied and graduated in theology at the University of Valencia, joined the Society of Jesus and was later rector of the San Paul College in Valencia. It is possible that for these or other reasons a friendship developed between the two Valencians, Capilla and Gallart, or their families. Capilla was also the first novice Master the Society had in the entire Crown of Aragón, in Tarragona. Capilla later left the Society of Jesus and entered the Carthusian monastery, which “had “attracted him from an early age”.” He made his profession in Scala Dei, in Tarragona, in 1570. He was successively prior of the Valencian Carthusian monastery of Porta Coeli (1574), of Scala Dei (1575), of El Paular near Madrid (1576), of Naples (1579), of Milan (1581-84) and again of Scala Dei (1584-86).[824]

824 For these and further news about Capilla see: Escritores cartujos de España, por un profeso de la Cartuja de Na. Sra. de Aula Dei, 1955 (unpublished, typewritten), Madrid, Bibliot. Nacion., B.20, CAR; F. ORTÍ y FIGUEROLA, Memorias históricas de la fundación y progreso de la insigne Universidad de Valencia (Madrid 1730) p.273-274; J. POCH, San José de Calasanz y seis obispos españoles: RevCal 12 (1957) 135-179.

Don Antony Gallart completed his full law degree at the General Estudi of Lérida in the years 1577-1584, and it is likely that he studied Arts and Philosophy there in the years 1575-1577. If so, he knew Joseph Calasanz very well during both periods, and if he only studied law, he knew him at least during the last two years in which Calasanz studied Theology in Lérida (1581-1583). Gallart then continued his studies at the same university and held a Chair in the years 1584-1587, having obtained his doctorate in law in 1584.[825]

825 Cf. J. POCH, Otro título de doctor en leyes por el Estudio General de Lérida. D. Antonio de Gallart y de Mongay (Oct. 3, 1584): Ilerda, 36 (1975) 97-106; ID., Don Antonio de Gallart y de Mongay, “bachiller en Derecho Canónico” por el Estudio General de Lérida (Aug. 7, 1581): Ilerda, 27 (1963) 8-12. In 1587 his stepbrothers “Cristóbal, Jayme and Andrew Gallart, sons of the Regent Gallart, of the second marriage” (with a Traginer) were studying at the University of Lérida. Of them, James de Gallart y Traginer was Rector of the Estudi General in the academic year 1589-1590 (cf. 3. POCH, Otro título..., p.104, n.12; Don Antonio..., p.12, n.10).

While he was studying and working as a professor in Lérida and at the same time preparing for the priesthood, he had two other brothers who were already priests: Augustine, prior of the Benedictine abbey of Gerri de la Sal, and Francis, a Canon in Tarragona since 1582. The latter died in 1603 and was buried in the Carthusian monastery of Scala Dei, where other of his brothers were also buried. In his will dated August 8, 1609, Don Antony himself decreed that “wherever death surprised him, he should be transferred to the Carthusian monastery of Scala Dei and buried there in a modest funeral next to his brothers, who, like him, had a special devotion to this house.”[826] All this leads to the conclusion that the friendship between Capilla and the Gallart brothers became closer during his second priory in Scala Dei (1584-1586) and in the following years until his transfer to the episcopal See of Urgel - during which he continued to live in this Charterhouse, except for the absences caused by his office as visitator. In 1587, Anthony also received a canonry at the Metropolitan Cathedral of Tarragona[827] and was ordained a priest there on March 12th of the following year, which brought him even closer to the Scala Dei.

826 Cf. L. B. NADAL, Episcopologio de Vich (Vich 1904) t.III, p.287-298. Cf. in J. POCH, San José de Calasanz y seis obispos españoles, p.160, n.66, and L. PICANYOL, El período español de San José de Calasanz: Rass 26-27 (1957) 80-83

827 Poch affirms that it was granted to him by Archbishop John Terés (1587-1603), as soon as he arrived in his new diocese, and insinuates that the friendship between them was born in Valencia, in 1570 (cf. J. POCH, Don Antonio de Gallart y de Mongay..., p.9).

The great esteem in which Capilla held Gallart is evident when he was appointed Procurator to take possession of the See of Urgel, adding to him the appointment of General Vicar when he had less than a month of his ordination behind him. And the honorary career that followed proves that the distinction with which Capilla honored him was not only the fruit of his personal friendship, but also of his indisputable personal values.[828]

828 On September 19, 1602 he was presented by Philip III for Maestrescuela of the University of Lérida, to whose position was attached that of canon ‘Arcediano Mayor’ of the cathedral; on March 11, 1609 he was named bishop of Elna-Perpignan, then part of Spain, and on March 19, 1612, bishop of Vich, where he died, on December 16, 1613 (cf. J. POCH, l.c.; ‘Hier. Cath’., IV, p.181).

On April 9, 1588, Don Antony de Gallart y de Mongay presented the Cathedral Chapter of Urgel with the papal Bull of appointment of the new bishop and his own authorization as Procurator to assume the office, an act he performed three days later in the cathedral with the approval of the entire Cathedral Chapter.[829] A few days later, another similar ceremony took place before the town council, at which he took the customary oath and homage as procurator to his secular master, the new bishop.[830]

829 Cf. J. POCH, Mossén Josep Calassanç a la diócesi d’Urgell: Cat 195 (1977) 4.

830 The municipal Minutes reads: “...Sir Antony Gallart, as Procurator of Most Ill. Lord Andrew Capelle, bishop of Urgell, according to the procuration and power he has shown… has taken possession in the Cathedral Church and wanting to bring further his intention has asked that as possible they would be given the customary signs and homages according what ancestors used to do...” (ibid.).

From April, when he arrived in the Seo, until Christmas Eve, when the bishop solemnly moved in, Don Antony Gallart acted with all powers except those reserved to the episcopal order. Calasanz, as secretary of the Chapter, recorded many of his decrees in the Minute book, including: the conferral of an ecclesiastical benefice in the parish of Agramunt (June 1588); others in the collegiate churches of Tremp, Guissona, Llimiana (July 1588); he appointed a new ecclesiastical official of the archpriesthood of Sort (October 1588); he granted dimissorial letters to clerics from Urgel who were to be ordained outside the diocese (December 1588), etc.[831] And among these decrees and concessions, there are two that are particularly interesting for our history: The appointment of Calasanz as rector or plébano (parish priest) of the two joint parishes of Claverol and Ortoneda, the title of which was first conferred on him on November 12, 1588,[832] and the permission signed the same day in Urgel, at the request of Francis Motes, to build a chapel or private hermitage in the hamlet of Pont de Claverol, which, once completed, was to be consecrated in due course by the parish priest of Claverol, i.e. Joseph Calasanz.[833] But we will talk about that later. Let us first note that this appointment - at least in this case - did not require the residence of Calasanz, who appointed a vicar for direct pastoral care in both villages. With this kind of benefice, Don Antonius Gallart showed his benevolence and improved the modest salary that Calasanz received for his services to the Chapter.

831 Ib. (Arch. Ep. Urgeli., I. S. Capella 1588-1592). The protocol of all these decrees begins: “Antonius Gallart, U. I. D., canonicus Ecclesiae Tarraconensis et multi Illustris et Revmi. in Christo Patris et domini Don Andreae Capella..., Episcopi UrgeIl., in spiritualibus et temporalibus Officialis et Vicarius Generalis...” (ibid.).

832 In the profession of faith made by Andrew Roger in the hands of the Vicar General, Gallart, dated November 12, 1588, the following appear as witnesses: “Reverendus Josephus Calassans presbiter atque Plebanus loci de Claverol, et magnificus Franciscus Abella, Juris Doctor, civitatis Urgelli” (Arch. Ep. Urgell., I. S. Capella 1588-1592. Cit. in Poch, o.c., p.20).

833 Cf. Latin text in J. POCH, Preséncia de Josep de Calassanç a Pont de Claverol, Cat 259 (1983) 7.

Further proof of the friendship and trust that the interim General Vicar felt for the secretary of the Chapter was given to him after the death of his brother, the abbot of the Gerri de la Sal monastery, Augustine Gallart. He had been appointed Bishop of Elna on July 27 of the same year in 1588, a seat that was to be filled twenty-one years later (1609-1612) by Don Antony Gallart himself. However, he was unable to take possession and died in the monastery on December 7, 1588.[834] From Urgel, Don Antony traveled to Gerri, taking Calasanz with him. We know the news from Janer, who carefully noted the days he was on the journey, namely six, and the reason for which he borrowed money from him.[835]

834 Cf. J. POCH, Mossén Josep Calassanç a la diócesi d’Urgell: Cat 195 (1977) 5; Hier. Cath., III, p.192

835 “Saturday, December 3, year MDLXXXVIII. This sir Juseph de Calesans owes twelve sous, that is 12 sous; they are cash for him whe he has gone to Gerri with Sir Don Anthon Gallart, for expenses” (cf. P. PUJOL I TUBAU, Noves dades, n.64). In another entry of April 25, 1589, he deducts the pension for the days he was absent because he went “to the honors of the abbot of Gerri” (ibid., n.78, and J. POCH, El mot “plebá”: Cat 247 (1982) 6.

It is likely that they traveled from the valley of the Segre to the valley of the Noguera Pallaresa via mountain paths that lead from the vicinity of La Seo to Sort and that, given the dates, they found snow on the heights.

The name Gerri de la Sal and the salt mines that justify it - there are still some - would remind Calasanz of its village, although the landscape is much more rugged and the river richer, and the Romanesque bridge, with its very high and very wide single arch, is much more monumental than the one in Peralta. Of the medieval abbey, the 12th century church with its characteristic side galleries under the eaves, and the slender bell tower above the entrance portico has remained almost intact. Nothing remains of the cloisters. Only traces of destruction and abandonment, a consequence of the catastrophic alienation by Mendizábal, who dissolved the monastery in 1835.

Arrival of the new bishop, Friar Andrew Capilla, in Urgel

The Chapter’s many requests to the Viceroy of Catalonia for reinforcements against heretics and bandits were completely useless. The danger did not abate, nor did the crimes and excesses of the outlaws cease. It was obvious that the absence of the competent authority - the bishop and territorial lord - encouraged the criminals more and more. The bishop had been appointed since the beginning of the year, but the obligations imposed on him by the King prevented him from taking the see. Calasanz wrote a letter to Philip II on behalf of the cathedral Chapter - which has not yet appeared - asking him to allow the Bishop of Urgel to enter his see. And in November he wrote another letter to the same Bishop Capilla, the central paragraphs of which are like a last desperate cry, adding new details to the drama of the letters to the Viceroys of the Principality. They need no commentary:

”...in a time like this, so full of troubles, it is a proof of the great mercy of God to give us a person of such good qualities and talents; and this is reason enough for your Lordship to show us grace to come and watch over your sheep, and face as many outrages as they suffer; for besides your city, your region, and your public roads being tyrannized and oppressed, human blood being shed with impunity, and the poor not being able to be masters of their property and wives, the Gascons and other bandits have captured and ill-treated so many priests in order to obtain larger ransoms, that the city is full of parish priests who are compelled to leave their residences to escape death or imprisonment. And as we understand that his Majesty prevents your Lordship from coming to examine what is so important to this Church, the glory of God, and the benefices of your sheep, we have written to his Majesty asking him to grant your Lordship permission to come to begin this enterprise of Residency, which is so necessary, and so we entreat your Lordship with all our sincere gratitude.”[836]

836 EGC X, p.418.

Finally, the Chapter’s wishes and hopes were fulfilled, as Monsignor Capilla announced his imminent arrival at his see in mid-December. On the 15th of the same month, the town council held a plenary session and, with the news that the bishop was already in Lérida, it was decided that the consul ‘en cap’ (first in dignity) would, according to custom, select the companions he deemed suitable and go down to Lérida to “congratulate” him”.[837] The following day, the cathedral Chapter decided to send two representatives to Lérida, namely the archdeacon Raphael Gomis and the canon Antony Paul Boquet. And on December 24th, Christmas Eve, Brother Andrew Capilla made his solemn entry into Seo de Urgel.[838]

837 Cf. J. POCH, Mossén Josep Calassanç a la diócesi d’Urgell: Cat 195 (1977) 5.

838 Cf. P. PUJOL I TUBAU, Obra completa, p.309-310 and n.69.

The General Vicar, Don Antony Gallart, stayed until mid-January 1589 to keep the new bishop properly informed about the situation and problems of the diocese.[839] And it is no exaggeration to suppose that he recommended the appointment of Calasanz as Capilla‘s familiar, not only because of the undeniable personal talents he must have noticed during the long months of living together, nor because of the sympathy and friendship he felt for him, but also because of his previous experience in this position of trust with the bishops of Barbastro and Lérida, which could enhance his merits before the new bishop, who was a beginner and without any experience in the management of a diocese.

839 Cf. J. POCH, o.c., p.5.

In fact, we know from documents that he was already a “familiar” of Capilla on February 3rd 1589.[840] On January 27th, as secretary, he wrote the official minutes of the Chapter meeting of the day in the ‘Liber conclusionum’ - his last minutes - and on the same day he resigned both offices of Chapter secretary and master of ceremonies and “took leave” of the Chapter.[841] There was also another dismissal, as his new duties as ‘the bishop’s familiar required him to stay in the episcopal palace. For this reason, he left Janer’s house on February 1st and moved into the palace.[842] In this way, he changed house and office and, in a way, also his life.

840 In the collation of an ecclesiastical benefice to the cleric of Lerida Antony Ivars, Capilla signs the document: “Datis in palatio episcopali nostrae civitatis Urgellensis die tertia mensis Februarii, anno a Nat. Dom. 1589, presentibus pro testibus Rdo. Josepho Calaçans, pbro. et Francis Pérez familiaribus nostris ad premissa vocatis specialiter et assumptis» (cf. P. PUJOL I TUBAU, o.c., p.333). With the same office he is cited as a witness in episcopal documents of February 9th and 11th and March 25th (ibid., p.334). On January 13th he is already a witness in a document of the Episcopal Register of Capilla, but there is still no record that he is a “relative”: “Josephus Calaçans, presbiter, plebanus de Claverol et rector...” (cf. J. POCH, p.334). (cf. J. POCH, o.c., p.6). And on the 21st of the same month one of the first entries of accounts of the episcopal table appears in his handwriting, which will be followed later by many others in Register 36 of the Episcopal Curia (cf. P. PUJOL I TUBAU, oc., p.338).

841 PUJOL I TUBAU, o.c., p.310. They paid his salary up to and including the 27th, and not until the end of the month: “On February 7, 1589 has received from sir Canon Cases, bursar, and it is to comply with the due salary until 27th January when he took leave “ (ibid., p.285).

842 Cf. n.734 of this chapter. The first invoice refers to the first exact year of pension: 1st June 1587 to 31st May 1588. And the second one to eight months, also exact: June 1, 1588 to January 31, 1589 (cf. ID., Noves dades, p.8 and 17).

Chapter 8

The great pastoral experience

The office of “familiar” to the Bishop of Urgel was not new to him, as he had already exercised it with two bishops, the Bishop of Barbastro and the Bishop of Lérida. But each curia had its own characteristics. However, his presence in the episcopal palace was short-lived, because Friar Andrew Capilla[843] knew how to take advantage of his pastoral qualities and youthful energy, giving him responsibility and freedom of movement for the good of the clergy and the faithful of the diocese. And that was his great experience as a priest with pastoral care. But this fruitful activity was abruptly interrupted by his trip to Rome, from which he did not return.

843 Capilla or Capella? The archivist Pujol i Tubau always writes Capella (cf. ID., Obra Completa, p.692); L. Picanyol, too (cf. El período español de San José de Calasanz: Rass 26-27 [1957] 74-79); J. Poch started using Capella as well (cf. ID., San José de Calasanz y seis obispos españoles: RevCal 12 [1957] 138-179), but after some years changed to Capilla, giving express and apodictic reasons for the change, including a letter from Capilla himself in which he signs himself thus: ‘De V. P. indigno hijo y siervo en el Señor, por comisión del P. Manuel. Andrés Capilla’” (cf. cit. in J. POCH, San Jose de Calasanz “oficial eclesiástico” de la villa de Tremp: AnCal 4 [1960] 328, n.4). The anonymous author of Escritores cartujos de España (unpublished in Bibliot. Nac. Madrid, B-20-CAR) calls him Capella, but in the very numerous editions of the mentioned works, except in one, we always read ‘Capilla’, ‘Capiglia’, ‘Capille’, according to the different languages in which they were translated. In his native city, Valencia, both versions survive today (cf. ‘Guía telef.’, in which in front of 35 ‘Capella’ there are 127 Capilla)

In the episcopal palace of Urgel

For the second time in his life, Calasanz entered an episcopal palace to live for a time with a bishop in an atmosphere of family intimacy. And when one speaks of ‘palace’ and ‘bishop’ at the end of the 16th century, the imagination can go too far. In our case, the historical data transports us to a reality that is much closer to monastic austerity than to the pomp and luxury of the palaces - including the episcopal ones - of the Renaissance and Baroque. The first time, he lived in the episcopal palace of Barbastro, which Urríes almost transformed into a strict community of observant Dominicans. The second bishop he served never set foot in his own episcopal palace in Lérida. Now he re-entered a palace whose bishop had for centuries been both temporal lord of the city of Urgel and bishop-prince of Andorra, but in reality, it was a copy of the Carthusian monastery of Scala Dei, from where Friar Andrew Capilla, his former prior, came, accompanied by two Oblates named John Artelis and Peter Brescanet, a lay brother, Friar James Monlleón, and perhaps someone else.[844]

844 Cf. J. VALLS, Primer Instituto de la santa Religión de la Cartuxa, fundaciones de los conventos de toda España, mártires de Inglaterra y Generales de toda la Orden (Madrid 1663) p.658

Biographers unanimously emphasize the holiness of Bishop Capilla’s life, stressing his deep spirit of prayer that reached ecstasy and levitation, his practices of penance, corporal mortification and abstinence, and his great generosity towards the poor, whom the two Oblates Artelis and Brescanet helped daily with alms.[845] He gave dowry to virgins and clothed many other needy people and hermits and made sure that some wheat was preserved so that the poor farmers could sow. As a good Carthusian, he longed for solitude and liked to retreat to the palace of Sanahuja, which was even more remote than that of Urgel, or near the sanctuary of the Holy Christ of Balaguer or the Carthusian monastery of Scala Dei. He even tried to get rid of the episcopate in order to retire permanently to his beloved Carthusian monastery, but Philip II would not allow him to do so.[846]

845 “Every day almost 300 people of all ages and of both sexes attended: each one was given a quarter of a loaf of bread... His confessor was given ten escudos every week by Don Friar Andrés Capella to distribute to the shameful poor” (J. VALLS, o.c., cit. in J. POCH, San José de Calasanz y seis obispos españoles, p.171)

846 These and other data of his exemplary life can be found in J. VALLS, o.c., and in Escritores cartujos de España (ms. Bibl. Nac.)

Reading these things related to Capilla, one cannot help but think of the influence - or at least the coincidence - that they may have had on the young priest Calasanz, because already in Urgel he was deeply concerned about the poor, with details that the innocent notes of Janer show us, such as the allusion to the expenses “to clothe Bernardí”, or to his faithful servant Coromines and his parents; the concern to provide the poor with wheat, as we will see later, and which we also saw in Barbastro near Urríes. It is the poor and poverty that will ultimately give full meaning to his life and future work.

In addition, there is another important aspect of Capilla’s apostolic activity, namely his writings. Of these, half a dozen were already printed before he arrived in Urgel, and it is therefore logical to assume that Calasanz read them. The three books about prayer or reflections on Sundays and feast days and the Lenten Gospels may have been of particular interest to the former master of ceremonies because of their close relationship to the liturgy.[847] There is another, however, whose theme makes us think spontaneously of the last years of Calasanz, when he was rightly regarded as a new Job due to his heroic actions. It is entitled: ‘Consolation on our pilgrimage. A book that instructs us to endure the hardships of this life with patience in order to receive the consolations of eternal life’ (Lérida 1574).

847 Libro de la Oración en que se ponen consideraciones sobre los Evangelios de todos los domingos del año y algunas fiestas principales (Lérida 1572 and 1575); Libro segundo de la Oración en que se ponen consideraciones de todas las ferias de Quaresma (Zaragoza 1577); Libro tercero de la Oración sobre los Evangelios de algunas fiestas principales de los Santos que entre año celebra la Iglesia (Salamanca 1580).

Despite his preference for solitude, his best biographer does not fail to point out that “he visited even the remotest and poorest churches in his diocese and climbed up and down mountains and valleys with much love and patience in order to see his subjects and get to know his flock.”[848] And in some of these apostolic journeys he was accompanied by Joseph Calasanz as a familiar, as on May 27, 1589, when Capilla celebrated ordinations in the collegiate church of Guissona,[849] or in the last days of June of the same year, when, recently appointed visitator of Tremp, they both went to that town, where Capilla also appointed him ecclesiastical Officer of that archpriesthood.

848 J VALLS, o.c., cit. in J. P0CH, o.c., p.173

849 Cf. J. POCH, Mossén Josep Calassanç a la diócesi d’Urgell: Cat. 195 (1977) 6

In documents from February and March 1589, other “familiars” of Bishop Capilla, such as Joseph Seix, Francis Pérez, Michael Desco and Baptist Oller, are also cited as witnesses alongside Joseph Calasanz.[850] We do not know whether they all served him at the same time or whether they took over from each other while Calasanz was there. They were all his companions and probably lived in the bishop’s palace like him. From the first days of February, Janer writes the name “mossen Juseph Calesans” in his books and adds the titles “secretari o majordom de monseñor Reverendíssim” (secretary or administrator of the Most Rev. Monsignor) and notes the expenses he incurs as such for the service in the palace. Below this is an entry of particular interest, which reads: “Monday, February 6 of the year 1589. Mr. Juseph Calesans owes, both in his own name and as steward of Monsignor Rvmo. 45 sous, I say two pounds, 5 sous, and they are for a cane (measure) and a half of fine black quicena, at 30 sous per cane, which he said he must make stockings for the pages, I say 2 pounds, 5 sous.”[851]

850 Cf. P. PUJOL I TUBAU, Obra completa, p.333-337

851 Cf. ID., Noves dades, append. V, p.17. Another reference to these pages is given by Pujol in another document from the Llibre de Consells, de 1578 a 1613, from the City Council of Urgel, ff. 151-152, which relates the funerals of Bishop Hugh A. de Moncada (+ Dec 8, 1586) and says that “accompanied by servants and pages of the bishop, and many noble people of the riverside, his body was brought to his episcopal palace “ (P. PUJOL I TUBAU, ib., App. II, p.5).

The presence of the pages in the palace makes us think of the pages of Barbastro and logically suggests the possibility that Calasanz could also be their “teacher priest” during the few months in which he acted as the bishop’s confidant. On the other hand, there are other data that sufficiently confirm the qualification of steward that Janer attributes to him, namely administrator of the episcopal table or house, such as his handwritten notes that appear in register no. 36 or in the curia’s account book and refer to the rents and leases of the episcopal estates in the months of January and March 1589.[852]

852 Cf. P. PUJOL I TUBAU, Obra completa, p.338

It is indisputable that Calasanz’s intimate contact with the extraordinary person of Capilla - and previously with Urríes and La Figuera - and the experience in the religious-spiritual environment breathed in the palace of Urgel - and previously in Barbastro - gave the young priest of Peralta a greater inner maturity and made him experience the characteristic atmosphere of religious life.

Procurator of the ecclesiastical benefice?

An erroneous reading of an incomplete document has led some to claim that Calasanz also held another curial office, that of “ general procurator of benefices”. These are the words of Mir Durán: “He [Capilla] also conferred on him the office of general procurator of benefices, as can be seen from a document dated October 31, 1588, in which the resignation of James Bertrán from his parish in the name and on the authority of the Vicar General Antony Paul Boquet “facta per Rdm. Josephum Calasanz Pbrum. civitatis Urgellensis habitatorem, procuratorem universalem ad hoc specialiter et legitime constitutum et ordinatum.” The same is written in another document dated March 27th of the following year 1589.”[853]

853 J MIR DURÁN, San José de Calasanz, gloria de la Diócesis de Urgel y honor de su clero: Memorias de un cronista, p.342. The same idea was accepted by Poch, adducing literally the whole paragraph of Mir, without quoting him (cf. J. POCH, Presencia de San José de Calasanz en la Villa de Tremp: RevCal 4 [1955] 395, n.18). But twenty-two years later he seems to leave it in ambiguous terms, saying: “Calassanç -steward of Capilla in La Seu (February-June 1589)- was “procurator” in giving parishes and benefices to clerics and piests form Urgel “ (J. POCH, Mossén Josep Calassanç a la diócesi d’Urgell (1587-159]): Cat 195 [1977] 11).

Assuming that Calasanz had held that office, Capilla could not have transferred it to him, because at that time (October 31, 1588) he had not yet arrived in Seo de Urgel. He only arrived on Christmas Eve of the same year. Canon Boquet was also not the General Vicar either, but Antonio de Gallart y de Mongay.[854] Moreover, he was not the General Vicar of Urgel, but the General Vicar of Lérida, as we read in the above-mentioned document.[855] Nor does it seem to be a question of renouncing or receiving a parish,[856] since James Bertrán was parish priest of Alcanar in the diocese of Urgel before the date mentioned (October 31, 1588) and was still so in 1594.[857] Calasanz was not the only procurator in this case, but there were several, namely Calasanz, the canon Jerome Çaportella and Andrew Roger, all of whom were not appointed by the bishop, but by the interested James Bertrán.[858] The document speaks of “collation”, “resignation and submission”, but we do not know what it is about, although it could be assumed that the parish priest of Alcanar expected the collation of a benefice in the collegiate church of Tamarite, which belonged to the diocese of Lérida, and in exchange presented the resignation of another office or benefice that he held, not excluding the parish of Alcanar itself.[859] And for these curial proceedings he appointed three procurators residing in Urgel, including Joseph Calasanz. That is all.

854 Cf. interventions of Gallart as General Vicar in the months of June-December of 1588 en J. Poch, o.c., p.4. In the famous calligraphic page of Calasanz, of the Pasqual Chapters of 1588, “Antonius Paulus Boquet” appears without any title, except the common one of “Praelati et Canonici” (cf. n.771 of the previous chapter). And Mir Durán also says that “in the middle of next October (1591) another General Vicar appears, who was Antonio Paulus Boquet, together with the said Francisco ColI” (J. MIR DURÁN, o.c., p.345).

855 The document begins: “Multum Illustri et Rdmo. Domino Illerdensi Episcopo, eiusque in spiritualibus et temporalibus officiali et vicario generali et aliis quibusvis personis tam ecclesiasticis quam aliis quibus presentes pervenerint seu fuerint quomodolibet presentate et infrascripta collatio pertineat et spectet, salutem in Domino. Noverint D. et R. V. respective quod die date presentium nos resignationem et renuntiationem per Rdum. Josephum Calassans, presbiterum, civitatis Urgellensis habitatorem, procuratorem una cum aliis et in solidum ad haec specialiter et legitime constitutum et ordinatum a venerabile Jacobo Bertran, presbitero, parrochialis...” (P. PUJOL I TUBAU, Ob. comp., p.332, n.2). The document is thus incomplete.

856 Pujol writes when introducing him: “Calassanç, on October 31, 1588, being at the service of the Chapter, received as procurator of mossén Jaume Bertrán the handing over of a parish church” (P. PUJOL I TUBAU, ib.).

857 See these two unpublished notes: dated Oct. 17, 1588, “Rdus. Dnus. Jacobus Betran (sic) pbr rector parrochialis ecclesiae loci del Canar urgelen. diec. sub invocatione ste. Margarite urgelen. qui... constituit in procuratores certos etc... illustrem dominum Hieronimum Çaportella I. V. D., Josephum Calasanz et Andream Roger pbros dicte urgelen. dioec.” (Doc. Merigó, n.58). And dated September 10, 1594: “I mossen Jayme Betran (sic) priest rector of the parish church under invocation of St. Margarita de Alcaner of the dioc. of Urgel and beneficiary of the collegiate church of the town of Tamarite de Litera...” (Doc. Merigó, n.218). Remember that Alcanar is southwest of Peralta and was probably part of its barony

858 The document in question says “procuratorem una cum aliis” (cf. n.13) and we have read the names in the previous note. That of Canon Jerome Çaportella can also be read in the aforementioned calligraphic page of the Pascal Chapters (cf. n.771 of the previous chapter)

859 In 1594 he enjoys the benefice of Tamarite and maintains at the same time the parish of Alcanar (cf. n. 15 above).

Consequently, Joseph Calasanz was not appointed “universal procurator of “ the benefices” neither by Capilla, nor by his General Vicars, nor by the Chapter. Such an office must not have existed as an institution of the episcopal curia. It was simply the case that Calasanz was appointed “procurator” either alone or together with others (in solidum) by those who intended to obtain an ecclesiastical benefice in the episcopal curia of Urgel or in another. In the previous case, the person who appoints the procurators is the parish priest of Alcanar. And we have documented other cases relating to Calasanz: Dated January 12, 1588, before the appointment of Capilla as Bishop of Urgel, Calasanz wrote a letter to Mr. John de Ager, resident in Gabasa, informing him that he had sent him the deed of transfer of an ecclesiastical benefice in favor of his brother Michael. In this case, Calasanz was acting as the “authorized representative” of Michael de Ager, the patron of the benefice and father of the aforementioned brothers John and Michael, who were all old friends of Calasanz and his family.[860] On March 27, 1589, he appears as “deputy procurator” of the procurator Andrew Sellent of Peralta de la Sal, who is procurator of Don Antony Labata, Lieutenant of Justice of Aragón, patron of a benefice in his lordship of Calladrons, granted to the clergyman John Gil.[861]

860 Cf. J. POCH, Aportación documental biográfico-calasancia: AnCal 22 (1969) 277-282. The letter of Calasanz in EGC, II, c.I.

861 Cf. P. PUJOL I TUBAU, Ob. comp., p.335, VI.

However, if the recipient of the benefice is present, he does not need a “procurator”, but it is conferred on him directly, with the ritual ceremony consisting of the imposition of a biretta. Thus, in the case of the collation of the benefice of Saint Blaise in the the collegiate church of Orgañá, Capilla confers the benefice on the clergyman James John Coromines, the servant of Calasanz, whose presence is recorded as a witness when he appears and is guessed in the protocol sentence of the episcopal document: “Your merits are recommended to us by reliable witness...”[862] Who would be a better witness than Calasanz to know his young servant and companion!

862 ...” per quendam birretum capiti tuo per nos impositum te presentialiter investimus...”. “Persone tue merita quibus apud nos fidedigno commendaris testimonio...” (ibid., p.334, V).

The office of “procurator” for benefices could therefore be held by any of the Canons or ordinary priests residing in Urgel. See, for example, Joseph Seix, Calasanz’s companion and familiar of the bishop, who, as “procurator” of the cleric Antony Ivars, received a simple benefice in the church of St. Christ of Balaguer with the symbolic imposition of the biretta on February 3, 1589, in the presence of Calasanz as a witness.[863]

863 “per quendam birretum capiti Josephi Seix, familiaris nostri, procuratoris tui, te investimus et de eodem tibi providemus” (ibid., p.333, I). Another example with the imposition of a biretta on a relative “procurator”, in Sanahuja, with Calasanz as witness (ibid., p.337, XIII).

Calasanz, teacher in Urgel?

Again, the hasty reading of a handwritten note led some people to believe that Joseph Calasanz was a teacher in Urgel, and there was almost a storm of enthusiasm about the news. Thus, Father Vidal wrote (April 3, 1935): “After the death of his father on a date somewhat later than November 8, 1586, I found Our Holy Father [Calasanz] as lector in the Study of the Seo of Urgel, 1587, because the Chapter and the town induced him to do so. There is no lack of those who say: ‘Teacher of children, and consider the ancient city of Urgel as the cradle of Pious Schools’”.[864] However, his assertion was based on a misinterpretation of an ambiguous text by Janer by the archivist of Urgel, Pujol i Tubau.[865]

864 Cf. Rass 17 (1951) 46. Fr. Poch accepted as a suggestion the idea of Fr. Vidal, in 1957 (cf. J. POCH, San José de Calasanz y seis obispos españoles: RevCal 12 [1957] 118, n.b).

865 Thus wrote Vidal, disillusioned, in a letter to Pujol, dated July 23, 1935: “Your opinion has been negative: It is impossible that our Father and Fundator would be brought by the Chapter and the City to be teacher of children on the year 1587. It is, therefore, a false reading of a very badly written note from that merchant [Janer], as you affirm” (cf. J. POCH). (cf. J. POCH, Mossén Calassanç ¿mestre d’escola a la Seu d’Urgell?: Cat 250 (1982) 3. The date of Vidal’s unpublished letter is 1935 and not 1936, as Poch’s reads by slip. We have a copy of it, by deference of Father Poch.

The first documentary information is certainly very revealing: on 29 August 1586, the Urgel town council held a meeting and proposed that a teacher be sought for the town’s school (‘lo studi’); it was recognized that the low salary was the reason why the teachers did not want to come; the consuls had discussed the matter with the cathedral chapter, which was prepared to pay ten or twelve pounds a year if the town paid as much; so the Council decided “for this year” to contribute ten or twelve pounds.[866]

866 Cf. J. POCH, oc, p 4. see the complete minutes, whose conclusion reads: “it was concluded by majority that the city should have a learned man with science and respect to have the ‘studi’. And if he is a person with quality and knoledge, that the city does not miss to give him ten or twelve pounds “ (Arch. municip. Urgel, Llibre de Consells... comensant lo any 1579, f.149).

Since Calasanz was known to have appeared at La Seo in February 1587, it could be assumed that he had been appointed by the Chapter or the Council to take over the management of the school. This assumption was joined by further information from Janer’s ‘manual’, whose confusing wording suggested that Calasanz had indeed been chosen as a teacher. The text, translated verbatim from Catalan, reads: “[1. December 1587] Antonio Janer owes to Mossen Bertomeu Neguí, parish priest of Vilamitjana, 13 pounds and they are those which Mr. Juseph Calesans received from the illustrious Chapter at the hands of the Lord Archdeacon of Andorra, payer, for what he read in the study in the year 1587 and the said Neguí gave them to me as redemption for what he owes me, the said Neguí as credit... 13 pounds.”[867] Canon Pujol seemed to understand that it was Calasanz who received the reward for having read it himself at school. But then he analyzed it better and saw that the teacher was in fact the parish priest of Vilamitjana.

867 J POCH, o.c., p.4.

However, Mosén Neguí must have only fulfilled his scholastic task during the first semester, because in the Easter chapters of the Chapter, whose beautiful minutes were written by the secretary Calasanz on April 13, 1587, we read among the long list of positions: “Mestre de estudi m°. (Mossen) Aleu.”[868] And the following year, in the corresponding Easter chapters, also written by Calasanz with the valuable work of an accomplished calligrapher, we read among the charges: “Mestre de estudi m°. (Mossen) Francesch Gener.”[869] This indicates that it was an annual and not a permanent office. These three successive teachers, all priests, rule out the possibility that Calasanz was appointed.

868 Cf. J POCH, San José de Calasanz y seis obispos españoles: RevCal 12 (1957) 126.

869 Cf. photocopy in EGC, X, p.421. The texts adduced speak of “lo studi”, without specifying further, which seems to indicate that they refer to the same building. From October 1588 to May 1589 there are a few entries in Janer’s books referring to construction materials destined “per lo studi”, “per la portalada del studi”, whose expenses are paid by the city and the Chapter (cf. P. PUJOL I TUBAU, ‘Ob. Comp’. p.486 with n.66). These references confirm the supposition that there was only one “studi” in Urgel. It should be remembered that at that time the city had no more than 1,500 inhabitants.

Here is another valuable suggestion, based on a note by Janer: “There [at Janer’s house] came the children of the landlord John Moles from the hamlet of Las Planas... who paid fifty sous a month to learn writing and arithmetic...” Who, if not Calasanz, the most educated guest in the house and possibly the most needy - we have already seen that he had no benefice and how meager his income was - should be the teacher of such students?”[870] However, there were not several, but only one, the son of John Moles, who actually lived with Calasanz in Janer’s house for three and a half months.[871] And from what he paid, it can be deduced that he only covered the cost of accommodation and not the school fees, and that he must have been a young man.[872] If the salary was paid “for him to learn writing and arithmetic” and was intended for the “teacher” Calasanz, the diligent merchant Janer would not have neglected to note in his books other amounts relating to the boy’s pension and the corresponding allocation of his “teacher’s salary” to Calasanz But there is no record of either.

870 J. M. PLANA Y SALA, Huellas calasancias: Rev. Esp. de Pedagogía, 6-7 (1944) 318-319. Misquoted in J. POCH, o.c., p.121, n.12.

871 Janer’s full text reads: “’Sunday, April XX, year MDLXXXVIII. John Molas, from Les Planes owes seven pounds. They are for the expenditure of his son, during three and a half months he stayed in this house for teaching him writing and accounts, I say VII pounds.” (P. PUJOL I TUBAU, Ob. Comp., p.523, n.329). Calasanz entered Janer’s house as a guest on June 1, 1587 and stayed until January 31, 1589 (cf. n.734 of the previous chapter).

872 If in three and a half months he paid only 7 pounds (cf. note above), he should have paid 40 sous per month (and not 50), while Calasanz or his servant paid 58.

Janer’s note seems to indicate that he was home-schooled. When it came to learning reading, writing, grammar or math like the other children, it was normal for him to live in Janer’s house and attend the public school (lo studi). But the restriction of his stay to three and a half months and the more plausible assumption that he served his apprenticeship at home suggest that he was sent to Janer expressly to learn the art of trade, which Janer undoubtedly mastered. Such cases of apprentices in various trades were normal for centuries.[873]

873 See this blacksmith apprentice contract: “I Michael Monserrat bachelor... I commit myself to the office of smith with you the honorable teacher Michael Radigales smith and blacksmith inhabitant in the town of Estadilla for time of five years.” (November 30, 1557) (Doc. Merigó, n.140). And this dialogue: “Don Peter: What? Where did you send? -Fabio: To a house of merchants in Barcelona or Valencia to learn how to do business… How they can learn to do business if they do not live inside the deals, and how to learn to have a book?...” (C. DESPUIG, Los col.loquis de la insigne ciutat de Tortosa [1557?] [Barcelona 1981] p.134).

However, it cannot be ruled out, and is even very likely, that in those winter months (January-April 1588), when Calasanz returned from the cathedral, he taught the boy from ‘Les Planes’ and Janer’s stepson, Jerónimo Gallart Tresfí, how to write and keep accounts in the evenings after dinner by the fire. And all for free.[874]

874 Canon Pujol also admitted the possibility of this magisterium of Calasanz, with the understandable echo of bells in the air: “Wouldn’t it be, by case, that this our fellow countryman [the boy from “les Planes”] in many winter evenings would have had the grace of receiving the first fruits of the prestigious teaching of who, later on, would be the mentor of the children, ten years before opening the first popular school in the Eternal City? “ (P. PUJOL I TUBAU, Noves dades, p.9). The same triumphal echo is heard in this paragraph of Plana y Sala, justified by the one we have transcribed: “The Calasanctian seed bore fruit in Rome with splendorous fruits spread all over the world; but that little seed... germinated humbly and quietly in Seo de Urgel” (J. M. PLANA Y SALA, l.c.).

There is another area of education in which Calasanz could get involved. In the cathedral there was a choir of singers made up of adults and four boys called ‘prebeners’. They had a teacher who taught them to sing, but we can not be sure if they were taught other things besides music, such as reading, writing and arithmetic. The Chapter paid the preceptor of the singing children 25 pounds a year and a sou a day to each of them for maintenance, even if they lived at home. One of these music teachers was the beneficiary and friend of Calasanz mosén Peter Rostoll, who was organist of La Seo for two years and after the end of the contract in August 1588 went to Tremp, as organist of the collegiate church. But after a year he returned to Urgel and was commissioned to “teach the four ´prebeners´ to sing”[875] There was no shortage of other good musicians in the town before Rostoll who could teach the children singers, such as the new organist Mossen Cristopher Malla, the Master of Chapel Mossen Raphael Coloma, who replaced the famous, already very old Mossen John Brudieu, and another.[876] It is therefore not plausible that Calasanz had anything to do with music and its teaching, although many years later in Rome he set up a music class in his schools to provide his pupils with future support or a professional career.[877]

875 “Mossen Peter Rostoll, beneficiat, on October 26, 1590, owes 25 pounds, for the same that he has received from the cashier, and in account of the expenditure and work teaching how to sing to the four ‘prebeners’, XXV pounds” (Racional de 1584-1591, f.259 ) (cf. P PUJOL I TUBAU, Noves dades n 25) Pujol clarifies “he has as duty the musical education and teaching of ‘prebeners’” (ibid., n.25), in which expression it can be understood that there was something more than the simple music class.

876 Cf. ibid., n.25. In the Pascal Chapters of 1587 eight “cantors de música” (singers) are named, who appear again with other charges. They were probably beneficiaries or clerics.

877 When in 1642, on a whim, the music teacher was removed from San Pantaleo, he wrote to the irresponsible Superior: “On Tuesday... or Wednesday morning, Fr. Dominic Antony will leave Rome for Florence, leaving the music class here abandoned, where many poor children learned and later earned their bread with music” (C.4003).

Nevertheless, it could be assumed that the pages of the episcopal palace of Urgel - as in other cities - served in the liturgical ceremonies of the cathedral and had their teacher and preceptor, the prebeners could attend also the classes in elementary subjects with them and also had their own music school. In this case, when Calasanz moved into the episcopal palace, the student body consisted of the pages and prebeners, if he was responsible for the care and education of these pages, as – we think – it was the case in Barbastro.

Janer’s stepson, Jerome Gallart, was ‘prebener’ of the cathedral from January 1589 to July 1590.[878] Throughout the month of January, the master of ceremonies Calasanz and the little singer Gallart therefore went together from Janer’s house to the cathedral or returned from there more than once. Calasanz left Janer’s boarding house at the beginning of February, but until the end of June of the same year 1589, when he left the Seo for good to go to Tremp, the palace’s familiar and steward, Calasanz, and his friend, the singer ‘Jeroniet’ Gallart, met again many times under the Romanesque vaults of the magnificent cathedral.

878 Cf. P. PUJOL I TUBAU, Ob. Comp, p.478.

Claverol and Ortoneda

When Pujol published his valuable study on St. Joseph Calasanz in 1921, he noted that he was first named “Rector of Claverol” on February 11, 1589.[879] The logical consequence of this was that this appointment been given to him by Bishop Capilla, who had already been in office since Christmas of the previous year. And this was also accepted by other biographers.[880] However, when a further document dated November 12, 1588 appeared, prior confirmation was ruled out, as Capilla had not yet arrived in his diocese. The appointment was therefore awarded to the Chapter.[881] But further considerations led to the conclusion that this appointment was the responsibility of the General Vicar Antony Gallart.[882] And that is just as well, because apart from the extensive powers he enjoyed as Bishop Capilla’s procurator, the decision fits in perfectly with the series of appointments and approvals he granted in those months.[883]

879 Ibid., p.333.

880 Cf. J. POCH, San José de Calasanz y seis obispos españoles, p.139 and 143; BAU, RV (1963) p.52.

881 Cf. J. POCH, Josep Calassanç, plebá de Claverol i Ortoneda (1588-1591): Cat 181 (1976) 4.

882 Cf. J. POCH, Mossen Josep Calassanç a la diócesi d’Urgell, p.5. This confirms what was already said in 1648 by Don Francisco Motes, although he was mistaken about the appointment of the official of Tremp, which he also attributed to Gallart (cf. BAU, BC, p.174).

883 Cf. n.831-833 of the previous chapter.

In the numerous documents in which he appears, he is called in various forms, such as “plébano (parish priest) of Ortoneda and Claverol”, “plébano of Claverol and Ortoneda”, “plébano of Claverol”, “plébano of Ortoneda”, “rector of Claverol”, “plébano of the village of Claverol”, etc.[884] It was not a simple non-residential benefice, like the one he had received as a cleric in Monzón. These were two parishes, miserable rural parishes, with pastoral care provided by a single priest who could be the vicar or deputy of the one who was legally the parish priest or plébano. In this way, the plebanía became a kind of benefice, as the holder received the entire payroll of both parishes and paid an appropriate remuneration to the person he chose as vicar or deputy. At first glance, this somewhat anomalous situation was permitted by the most recent Tridentine Council in exceptional cases,[885] as the person who made this appointment, Don Antony Gallart, a flamboyant doctor and professor of law in Lérida, was well aware. And when he did so, it was to reward the secretary of the Chapter and the master of ceremonies of La Seo, whose salary for both offices was clearly meager and who, due to the demands of his office, necessarily had to remain in the curia, on proper business.

884 Cf. P. PUJOL I TUBAU, Ob. comp., p.334-337 (doc. III, VI, VII, XII, XIII, XIV); J. POCH, Josep Calassanç, plebá de Claverol i Ortoneda, p.5. The old name of “plébano” and “plebanía” is equivalent to “parish priest” and “parish.”

885 “Episcopis inferiores, quaevis beneficia ecclesiastica, personalem residentiam de jure sive consuetudine exigentia, in titulum sive commendam obtinentes, ab eorum ordinariis (...) opportunis iuris remediis residere cogantur, nullique privilegia seu indulta perpetua de non residendo aut de fructibus in absentia percipiendis suffragentur. Indulgentiis vero dispensationibus temporalibus, ex veris et rationabilibus causis tantum concessis et coram ordinario legitime probandis, in suo robore permansuris; quibus casibus nihilominus officium sit episcoporum (.... ) providere, ut per deputationem idoneorum vicariorum et congruae portionis fructuum assignationem cura animarum nullatenus negligatur, nemini quoad hoc privilegio seu exemptione quacumque suffragante” (Conc. Trid, sess. VI, Decret. de residentia..., c.II).

This explains why there is not a single signature or allusion in the parish registers of Claverol and Ortoneda attesting to Calasanz’s presence at baptisms, weddings and deaths during the years he was priest of both parishes (1588-1591).[886] To be more precise, the person who was the parish priest of Claverol and Ortoneda in 1740, Don Manuel Motes, had already researched the archives and wrote in a statement:

886 In 1930-31, Fr. Picanyol was in Claverol and says “totum paroeciae archivum inspicere potuimus. In quo quidem multa regesta et libri veteres cum documentis sat antiquis asservantur, quae omni cum cura pervolvimus. In nullo tamen, ne in illis quidem, quae Sancti [Calasanz] temporibus respondent, invenire potuimus vestigium vel subscriptionem Calasanctii, per hanc paroeciam transeuntis.... In Regestis Baptismi, defunctorum, sponsorumque non apparet ipsum ibidem haec officia gessisse ab anno 1589 ad 1592.... ideoque ipsum forsan habuisse substitutum seu Vicarium, in munere supplentem” (L. PICANYOL, Memoriae S. Jos. Cal. in dioecesi Urgell.: EphCal 3 [1932] 112-113).

“...I presume with evidence that he [Calasanz was appointed Plébano de Claverol] in 1588 by the death of the Plebán Antony Berenguer de Castellgermá, Pbro. from the town of Puebla [Pobla de Segur], who baptized two in the said year in a notebook of the baptized, one on February 16th and the other on the 20th of the same; the same Plebán Berenguer baptized others in the preceding year 1587, and after the days mentioned I do not find that any Plebán baptized, but only vicars, until James Segur Pbro. of the town of Villamediana became Plebán, who baptized one as Plebán on December 10, 1591, from which I probably conclude that the vicars who baptized after Plebán Berenguer until Plebán Segur were vicars of the Vble. Patriarch [Calasanz].”[887]

887 Cf. J. POCH, Un documento inédito sobre San José de Calasanz: Argensola 42 (1960) 105 The aforementioned pleban Jaime Segur was the successor of Calasanz (cf EphCal [1932] 200-201).

Another testimony attests that in July 1588, mosén Michael Perot was in charge of the plebanías, although he was only deputy parish priest (oeconomus).[888] It is therefore probable that this priest was the intermediate regent between Berenguer and Calasanz, and even that he has been vicar of both. We also know of another of Mosén Berenguer’s deputy vicars called Joan Bonet, who lived in Claverol in a rectory that was so bad that the Visitator of 1576 ordered the local consuls to restore it under penalty of excommunication and ten pounds.[889] We do not know whether the consuls eventually obeyed - they probably did not have the means to do so - but we do know that when Calasanz came to Claverol, he did not live in the rectory but in the house of the Motes family in Pont de Claverol.

888 “The year 1588 until January 20th, was Anton Bringuer [Berenguer] of Castell Germá and he died, because on July 24th and the priest Mosén Miquel Perot bursar ruled. Therefore, until this year 1588 Saint Joseph Calasanz was not elected Plebá of Ortoneda. It is recorded in the book of Baptisms of that parish of Claverol. Ita est. Micas Plebani.... It was the year 1588. It is included in the writings of Claverol” (ibid., p.101, n.7). It is a testimony of 1791, given by the then Plébano of Claverol, N. Micás.

889 In the Liber Visitationis Officialatus Trempi... 1576, Visitator Jaime Gassol wrote: “In the said parish [Claverol] M°. Antoni Berenguer is the Rector; Resident in the said parish is M°. Joan Bonet [vicari suplent]... In the previous visit it was ordered to the consuls of Claverol that under pain of excomunión and 10 ducats made the abbey for the Vicar, and they did not do. Orders. -First, we order the consuls that from here to the next visit, the abbey for the Rector should be done, and to repair the pews of the church under pain of excomunion and ten pounds... [1576]. On June XVIIII we visit the parish of Saint Christopher of Claverol where the Rector is M°. Antoni Berenguer alias of Castellgermá... First, we order the consuls of Claverol to repair the abbey from here until the first Saint Michael of September under pain of excomunion and X pounds...” (Cf. J. POCH, Cat 195 [1977] 24).

On November 12, 1588, Calasanz was already Plébano de Claverol y Ortoneda. In December of the same year, he accompanied the General Vicar, Don Antony Gallart, to the monastery of Gerri for the funeral of the abbot, his brother, but we do not know whether he went up to Claverol. Probably not. On February 11, 1589, Janer notes in his book a debt from Calasanz, “of 18 sueldos for the mare that I left him - he says - to go to Tremp.”[890] And in April he deducts the days he was away from home, fifty in total, and clarifies that they were to go “to visit and take possession of Plebania and to the funeral celebrations of the Abbot of Gerri”, and on the three trips he was certainly accompanied by his faithful servant Coromines.[891] This journey to Tremp and Claverol lasted six days.

890 Cf. P. PUJOL I TUBAU, Noves dades, Apend. V, p.17 and n.73.

891 “Anthoni Janer gave to sir Juseph Calesans nine pounds and 14 sous; it is the refund for one month and twenty days that he was not at home (sens criat) with his servant, while he has gone to take possession of the plebania and to the funeral of the Abbot of Gerri, and the said sir Calesans has credit of 9 pounds, 14 sous” [25-April-15 89] (ibid., n.79). The “sens criat” (without servant) means that the servant did not stay at home either, then went with him. Otherwise, he would have counted his pension; moreover, if in 50 days he deducts 9 pounds and 14 sous, the daily pension works out to 3 sous 10 denarii, which was that of the two together (70 pounds a year).

From the Pobla de Segur, on the other side of the Noguera Pallaresa, Calasanz contemplated the green hill of olive trees and shrubs, with a distinctly pyramidal profile, on whose summit, at 768 meters above sea level (the Pobla de Segur is at 509 meters), the distant village of Claverol was perched like a capricious eagle’s nest. The ascent via a bridle path, which was still maintained until a few years ago, took an hour.

And he arrived. It was his plebanía. The houses, all of unplastered dark stone, like a continuation of the cobblestones of the streets, huddled around the bell tower and the church of Saint Christopher. After exactly four centuries, it seems as if nothing has changed and that everything could remain the same - even the sun and the cold - on that February day when Calasanz took possession of the parish. The master of ceremonies of Urgel Cathedral forgot what he was, so as not to attach undue importance to this official act.

He swung back onto his mare - this time he was not riding a mule - and continued on his way towards Ortoneda, several more miles of mountainous road that never seemed to end. But finally, he saw the village, which lay at an altitude of almost a thousand meters. The small church of Romanesque origin was dedicated to St. Mary and its octagonal bell tower stood until the beginning of our century. Saint Mary of Ortoneda and Saint Christopher of Claverol were his parishes. If it had been a residence, it would have been an ostracism rather than a benefice. Nevertheless, Calasanz proved that he loved the people in his double plebania and was pleased to bear the illustrious title of “plébano” of Claverol and Ortoneda.

Visitator to the archpriesthood of Tremp

Bishop Andrew Capilla’s apostolic care for the entire diocese of Urgell led him to organize a new pastoral visitation of the seventeen archpriesthoods. It was barely a year and a half since the Canons had carried out the last visitation in October-November 1587, and Calasanz had visited seven archpriesthoods in his capacity as secretary to the Grand Archdeacon Rafael Gomis.

At the end of April 1589, the bishop appointed the new Visitators, who were: Francis Capdevila for Balaguer and Agramunt; John Sala for Berga and Bagá; Vincent Vilancosa for Cardona, Solsona and San Lorenzo dels Morunys; Raphael Montella for Cerdanya; James Roig for Guissona and Sanahuja, and Michael Puig for Pons and Oliana. All the patents of these appointments bear the signature of the witness “Reverendus Josephus Calaçans presbiter, rector of Claverol”[892]

892 Arch. Epis. Urgel, Reg. 35, f.44v.

There were still five archpriesthoods to be seen, of which the mayor or de La Seo was perhaps reserved by the bishop for himself. The others were Tremp, Sort, Tirvia and Cardós, for whom two concurrent Visitators were appointed at a later date, both with full authority to proceed jointly or separately. They were Joseph Calasanz, parish priest of Claverol and Ortoneda, and Peter Gervás de las Eras, dean of Senterada, a native of Arén. There, the Saint’s sister, Elisabeth Calasanz, who was still alive, had married a Seix around 1576.[893] This last detail leads us to believe that Calasanz and Gervás had known each other for a long time, as it is more than likely that the former had been to Arén several times to visit his sister and had become friends with Gervás de las Eras. This supposed friendship prompted Capilla to appoint both of them jointly as visitators of the same archpriesthood. But we will come back to this later. For now, we are interested in the fact that on June 28, 1589, Bishop Capilla appointed Calasanz and Gervás de las Eras as visitators of the archpriesthood of Tremp.[894]

893 He died in 1591, as recorded in the parish books, burned in 1936-39 (cf. P. L. GRACIA, Arén [Zaragoza 1973] p.135).

894 Cf. P. PUJOL I TUBAU, Ob. Comp., p.335, doc. VII.

Undoubtedly, this appointment was clear proof of the personal gifts that the upright prelate recognized and valued in his young familiar of thirty-one years. Moreover, as soon as the appointment was signed, Capilla and Calasanz made their way to Tremp together, as if the bishop wanted to bless with his personal presence the beginning of the great apostolic adventure that the brand-new Visitator Joseph Calasanz was about to embark on.

The journey went quickly, for in barely two days they covered the eighty long kilometers that separate La Seo de Urgel from the capital of the old county of Pallars on roads that were not exactly easy. In fact, they were already in Tremp on June 30th, where, in the presence of both and other witnesses, a curious will was opened: that of Don Antonio Berenguer from Castellgermá, who had been the priest of Santa María de Ortoneda and rector of Claverol, the immediate predecessor of Joseph de Calasanz, who was present there. Among other dispositions, he set up a pious foundation to endow marriageable girls. [895]According to the ‘Breve Notizia’, Calasanz himself had set up a pious foundation at that time, “which provided many young girls for marriage every year.”[896] It has not been possible to confirm this fact with documents, but it is at least a plausible fact, since the case of Don Antonio Berenguer is not the only one that Calasanz could have known in these local circumstances.[897]

895 Ib., doc. VIII. Photocopy of the doc. in J. POCH, Un altre document calassanci a la catedral d’Urgell: Cat 217 (1979) 6-7.

896 Cf. BAU, RV, p.12; BERRO 1, p.65.

897 On September 3, 1521, James Fiella founded the “Santo Hospital” of Tremp, his native town, with his goods, and also instituted a Causa Pia with an annual income of one hundred pounds “for the marriageable maidens of his lineage or parentage” (Cf. M. LLEDÓS y MIR, Historia de la antigua Villa, hoy ciudad de Tremp [Barcelona 1917] p. 132-133). Calasanz’s friend, Antony Janer, also founded a Causa Pia to endow marriageable maidens, with an annual income of 25 pounds and 15 sous, leaving its administration to the Confraternity of the Blood, of Urgel (cf. P. PUJOL Y TUBAU, Nuestro Glorioso Diocesano S. José de Calasanz, Fundador de las Escuelas Pías [Seo de Urgel 1948], cit. in RevCal 12 [1957] 120, n.12). Bishop Capilla also endowed maidens (cf. n.843 of this chapter).

The Ecclesiastical Official of Tremp

On July 1, 1589, Don Andrew Capilla signed the appointment of Father Joseph Calasanz, Bachelor in Sacred Theology and Plébano of Ortoneda, as Ecclesiastical Officer of Tremp with the usual powers”.[898]

898 “Die prima mensis julii, anno a Nat. Dom. 1589, in villa Trempi. Prefatus adm. Illis. et Rmus. Dominus dom. Andreas Capella, Dei et Apost. Sedis gratie Episcopus Urgell. creavit Officialem suum in officialatu Trempi, Rdum. Josephum Calaçans, Sacrae Theologiae baccalaureum, plebanum de Ortoneda, cum solita potestate» (cf. P. PUJOL I TUBAU, Ob. comp., p.335, doc. IX).

It would be foolish to assume that this appointment was a surprise that was kept secret until this date. The position required a residence in the town and thus - in our case - the renunciation of the residence in the episcopal palace of Urgel and of the office of familiar and administrator of the bishop. So, when Calasanz left La Seo, he must have known that he would settle in Tremp, as an Official or Archpriest, and he made his favorable arrangements for removals and farewells. Capilla’s journey could also be understood as an act of deference to his dear familiar, to put him officially in possession of this new office, which was more important than that of visitator, since Tremp was one of the towns in which the bishop held full temporal and ecclesiastical rule, exercised in his name by the Official or Archpriest. Perhaps Capilla wanted to “consult” or communicate his appointment to the ecclesiastical and civil authorities before announcing it, due to ancient traditions or out of deference, because he signed it in Tremp and not in Urgel.[899]

899 All this would explain the anomaly that in the document referring to the opening of the will of Mosén Berenguer, dated June 30 (cf. n.53 ant.) Calasanz is named as witness, calling him already “Oficial de Tremp”, who signs “Vidit Çalasanz, Officialis praefatus”, being thus that his appointment is dated the following day.

There is no doubt that the taking of possession of the new ecclesiastical Official required a certain degree of ceremonial in his dual role as General Vicar in ecclesiastical matters and as Delegate, Procurator or representative of the bishop as secular lord in civil matters. In the baronies, towns and secular dominions, on the other hand, the new lord took possession of each of his estates, towns and dominions himself or -as a rule - through procurators whenever there was a change of ruler, whether through death or the cession of the previous ruler. This was also the case with ecclesiastical dominions. See in particular the taking of possession of the town of Tremp, which was made by his procurator in the name of Bishop Castellet:

“... on September 6, 1561, on the occasion of the visit of Mosén Joseph Monsuar, Canon of La Seo of Lérida, Procurator of the august lord D. Peter Castellet, Bishop of Urgel, it was agreed [in the Council of Tremp] not to grant him homage until he had sworn to the privileges, usages, practices and customs, both written and unwritten, as the other prelates, his predecessors, had done... But as soon as the executorials, the letter from Rome and the procuration and oath had been taken, due homage was paid to him by instructing the notary to enter this in the book of records, as had been done.”[900]

900 Cf. M. LLEDÓS Y MIR, o.c., p.149-150.

This is not Tremp’s Ecclesiastical Official, but a canon of Lérida who, as procurator of the Bishop of Urgel, took possession of the city.

We do not know when or who took possession of Tremp as a result of Capilla’s appointment, but it is unlikely to have happened before his official entry into La Seo on Christmas Eve 1588. It could be that he had postponed the ceremony until now and that one of the reasons, if not the main reason, for this journey was precisely to take possession of his lordship and hand it over to his Oficial at the same time.[901] In any case, “it is recorded that when the Bishop of Urgel appeared in Tremp, he was offered the keys of the town gates on a silver tray in recognition of his vassalage and lordship; the prelate accepted them and then put them back on the same tray.”[902] And so, it must have been on this occasion.

901 Poch thinks so (cf. J. POCH, S. José de Calasanz, “Oficial eclesiastico” de la Villa de Tremp: AnCal 4 [1960] 330, n.8).

902 Cf. M. LLEDÓ5 and MIR, o.c., p.157.

There is a notarial deed detailing the curious ceremony of taking possession of the town of Tremp, which was carried out on November 8, 1695 by Don John Simon Fontllonga, General Vicar of Urgel, on behalf of Bishop Julian de Cano. Although it dates from a century after the time we have described, it is not very different from the one used in 1561 with the procurator of Bishop Castellet, as we have already mentioned, and which was used until this date in 1695. Here are some paragraphs:

“On November 8, 1695, the Council of the Heads of Families was summoned and assembled by bell ringing and public notice in the Town Hall, in the presence of the Magnificent Lords D. James Guilla and D. John Prior, the Consuls, D. Joseph de Ferrer, and other respectable members of the Council, to the number of 65. Consul Clavero (custodian of the keys of the town) declared that the Reverend Dr. D. John Simon Fontllonga, Vicar General of Urgel, had the powers set forth in the ‘Council of Thirty’ to take possession of the town, and that he would be presented for that purpose. Having heard all this, those assembled agreed to give him the said possession and to go in search of him themselves. So he showed up in person... at the town hall... and declared that by virtue of the powers vested in him... the town should be given to him with all its rights and possessions. D. James Guilla, the first of the consuls, answered in the name of all: That they unanimously agreed and were willing to give him the said possession, provided he swore to them in the name of his Principal that he would observe and keep all privileges, customs and usages... The Reverend Dr. Simon ... laid his hands on the book of the holy gospels, which lay on a table, and swore to our Lord God and the four holy gospels that he would have and observe all privileges, customs and usages ... Then the splendid Lord Consul took him by the right hand and made him sit in the seat of the said Lord Consuls ... and handed him a pair of gloves as a sign of possession of civil jurisdiction; and in proof of possession [of jurisdiction] High and low criminal, pure and mixed realm, he presented him with a scabbarded sword, which this gentleman drew from its sheath and brandished it in the air in the form of a cross, saying three times, “I, Dr. John Simon Fontllonga, priest, Officer and General Vicar of the Illustrious and Reverend Father D. Julian, by the Grace of God and of the Apostolic See, Bishop of Urgel, of His Majesty’s Council, take as his Procurator the town of Tremp, the high and inferior jurisdiction, the civil and criminal jurisdiction, the pure and mixed realm, and the other rights and possessions which the Illustrious and Most Reverend Bishop of Urgel has in the town of Tremp. Thereafter, the Grand Consul gave him the Staff as a sign of the administration of justice...”[903]

903 Cf. ibid., p.155-156.

Again, it is not the Ecclesiastical Official of Tremp, but the General Vicar of Urgel who takes possession on behalf of the new bishop, as we saw in 1561 when Bishop Castellet was appointed.[904] If Capilla had not yet officially taken possession of Tremp’s town himself or through a proxy, this was the obligatory occasion to take possession of it, and probably the ceremony would have been very similar to this one. And although we do not have the protocol by which the Ecclesiastical Official took possession of his position, it seems correct to assume that it was essentially the same as the one described, since in his hands were the reins of civil and criminal jurisdiction and he was the one who had to personally respect the privileges, customs and mores of the town.

904 Poch affirms that in both cases it was the “Ecclesiastical Officer” of Tremp and therefore “the protocol of 1659 (sic, instead of 1695)... was, without a doubt, the same as the one verified by the also Officer and General Vicar of the Illustrious Msgr. Friar Andrew Capilla..., Joseph Calasanz” (cf J. POCH, o.c., p.281).

General Vicar

In some of the archpriesthoods - although not all - the Ecclesiastical Official held the title and exercised the office of General Vicar in his entire district, although there was also the title and canonical office of General Vicar of the entire diocese. For example, read this document from the end of the 16th century, in which the two offices are distinguished: “A certain John Pujol, parish priest of Balaguer, has asked as judges the bishop of Urgel or his official General Vicar. He is general vicar ‘in partibus’ only in Balaguer and its district and not in the Seu de Urgel, nor in Tremps (sic), Sanahuja, nor in Agramunt, where the said reverend bishop has special officials and General Vicars, because the one who is General is the Canon Sebastian Moles, who is and resides in La Seu Cathedral of Urgel.”[905] Joseph Calasanz, the Ecclesiastical Official of Tremp, was therefore also General Vicar of the entire archpriesthood.

905 Cf. Arch. Minist. As. Exter., Santa Sede fund, Leg. 51, no f. Canon Sebastian Moles is Judge of Appeals in the Paschal Chapt. of 1588, whose minutes Calasanz wrote (cf. P. PUJOL I TUBAU, Ob. comp., p.288-289 EGC X, p.120).

Furthermore, there is no doubt that the General Visitators enjoyed the title, honours and full powers of General Vicars during the time of their visitation. This is evident from at least some documents, such as the one signed by Calasanz in Talarn on September 18, 1589, in which he is referred to four times as General Vicar as well as General Visitator and Officer, but with the precision that the title of General Vicar and Officer depends on the fact that he is General Visitator.[906] In both positions, i.e. as an Ecclesiastical Official and at the same time as General Visitator of the Tremp officialate, Calasanz was therefore also General Vicar.

906 “Josephus Calassans S. T. B. Plebanus de Ortoneda Visitator Generalis in Officialatu Trempi et ‘eo nomine’ officialis et ‘Vicarius Generalis’ pro Adm. Illi. et Rmo. dno. Urgellen. Epis... Nos itaque Visitator Officialis et Vicarius Generalis praedictus...» (cit. in J. POCH, o.c., p.299). Translation of the whole document in BAU, BC, p.172-173, with wrong date (Sept. 28). The same is seen in this other doc., referring to a Visitator of Cerdanya, in 1586: “Franciscus Pobla, etc..., in et per totum Ceretaniae Officialatum Visitator Generalis et ‘in actu visitationis’ Vicarius etiam Generalis, etc.” (cf. EphCal 2 [1932] 57, n.3).

It is clear from what has been said that Calasanz was and was rightly called General Vicar of the Bishop of Urgel, but the title only applied to the archpriesthood of Tremp, whose Ecclesiastical Officer and General Visitator he was. Later he was appointed General Vicar of other archpriesthoods, and as such he also had the full powers of a General Vicar in these areas. But he was never General Vicar of the entire diocese, as is stated in Calasanctian biographies almost to the present day.

The ‘Breve Notizia’ merely states that the Bishop of Urgel appointed Calasanz “as his Vicar in Tremp and as Chief Judge in civil and criminal matters in the entire territory, which included 60 castles.”[907] The first witnesses to the processes spoke of “General Vicar” without specifying whether it was the whole diocese,[908] but without new clarifications it was most logical to assume that it was. in 1690 Father Augustine Passante was in Tremp and wrote from Barcelona to the biographer Father Armini: “Here the Bishop of Argel (sic, for Urgel) has an official in Tremp with the jurisdiction of Vicar over 72 parishes; in some places of the episcopal table he has not only the spiritual but also the secular.”[909] He confirmed the terse words of the ‘Breve Notizia’, but the biographer Armini, who by this time had already written his work,[910] left things as they were, saying that the bishop “appointed him ordinary judge, commonly called official, in the town of Tremp and its district..., both in spiritual and secular matters.”[911] And because he was not satisfied with this, he had him return to Urgel after his wanderings as a Visitator in the Pyrenees, and the bishop “declared him his General Vicar so that the whole diocese could enjoy the fruits of his teaching and his zeal.”[912] Talenti followed Armini’s words and allowed him to be appointed General Vicar of Tremp and then General Vicar of the entire diocese.[913] The tradition was thus consecrated and then maintained.

907 Cf. BAU, RV, p.11.

908 Cf. BAU, BC, p.171-172.

909 Direct translation of the Italian orig. (cf. RegCal 13, 6-16), not very precise in BAU, BC, p.173.

910 Cf. ARMINI, Vita, p.12 s.n., before the I.

911 Ib., p.31. In the title of chap. IX, he called him ‘Judge or Vicar of Trem and its district’ (ib., p.30).

912 Ibid., p.36-37. In doing so he did nothing but to remain faithful to what he had read in Berro (cf. BERRO I, p.63).

913 Cf. TALENTI, Vita, p.22-26.

Mir Durán confesses in 1911 that he carefully examined one of the Curia Registers of Urgel, in which this appointment should necessarily be recorded, and did not find it. However, forced by the tradition and accepting - not without confussions[914] - that there were two General Vicars, he concludes that one of them was Calasanz, “although there is no written record of it”.[915] New data convinced researchers to definitively deny the tradition and reduce it to the limits we have pointed out.[916]

914 Cf. n. 854 of this chapter and its corresponding text.

915 MIR DURÁN, o.c., p.345.

916 Cf. L. PICANYOL, Memoriae S. Josephi Calasanctii in dioecesi urgellensi: EphCal 2(1932) 57; BAU, BC, p. 170-173; J. POCH, Presencia de S. José de Calasanz en la villa de Tremp: RevCal 4(1955) 400; ID., S. José de Calasanz “Oficial Ecclesiastico” de la villa de Tremp: AnCal 4 (1960) 298-303.

Tremp: Town, collegiate church and archpriesthood

For those who come from the north, bordering the Noguera Pallaresa river and squeezed into the impressive narrow passes and gorges of these Pyrenean foothills, it may be a relief to contemplate the green and fertile plain where the town of Tremp is located. At least that’s how the tireless traveler from Jativa, James de Villanueva, felt at the beginning of the last century when he noted: “From the monastery of Gerri... i came to the town of Tremp, which belongs to the domain of the Bishop of Urgel... the fear and displeasure of the mountains we had crossed were alleviated by the sight of the valley of Tremp, called ‘conca’...”[917]

917 J. VILLANUEVA, Viaje literario, vol. 12, p.67.

A stately town of ancient splendor, it was surrounded by walls whose gates were defended by round towers, four of which are still preserved today. The protruding apse of the Romanesque collegiate church was part of the wall, as was another tower, and perhaps this is why it has remained almost intact despite the devastation to which it could have fallen victim. In fact, a fire at the end of the 14th century almost completely destroyed the venerable Romanesque collegiate church, although the apse and some other walls were preserved. Between 1638 and 1642, the current church was built using the old apse wall. However, almost two and a half centuries passed between the destruction of the Romanesque building and the construction of the current church, during which time another church had to be built, about which there is no concrete news, except for the detail that it consisted of three naves and not just one, like the current church.[918] Perhaps it was Gothic in style, given the period, and this was the temple that Calasanz knew. The current church was declared a minor basilica in 1923. Its robust bell tower, which replaced the old bell tower, was built in 1909, without much sense of proportion or harmony with the medieval ensemble of apse, tower and walls.

918 Cf. M. LLEDÓS Y MIR, o.c., p.108-109 and 171.

The Romanesque image of Our Lady of Valldeflors,[919] formerly called “Saint Mary of Pallars”, perished in the flames that consumed the medieval church. When the new church was built - perhaps in the Gothicstyle - a new image was carved out of wood in this style, dating from the late fourteenth to the early fifteenth century, which has survived to this day. In 1646, a new fire destroyed the main altarpiece, but the venerable image only suffered minor burns.[920] This is therefore the image that the Ecclesiastical Official Joseph Calasanz saw and venerated in the years 1589-1591.

919 Poch writes: “We say ‘Virgen Davall de Flors and not Virgen del Valle de Flores’, as others write. In the first form it is called by the inhabitants of Tremp (according to what we have personally ascertained); it is so stated in the “Gozos” to the Patroness of Tremp and the tradition... says... that a shepherd found the venerable image “under a rosebush in bloom”, and from there the “Virgen Davall de Flors...”, that is, “Virgin under the Flowers” in literal translation” (cf. J. POCH, Presencia de S. José de Calasanz..., p.388, n.8). And both in this article and in another one already cited in n.916 above (S. José de Calasanz “Oficial eclesiastico” de la villa de Tremp) he systematically uses this denomination. In later ones he changed it to “Verge de Vall de Flors” (cf. J. POCH, Mossén Josep Calassanç a la diócesi d’Urgell: Cat 195 [1977] 10-11). And that is the historical title, as can be seen in M. LLEDÓS Y MIR, o.c., p. 137-139, in which he quotes another historian of 1623, and writing both in Spanish translate “Na. Sra. de Valle de Flores.” Curiously, Poch, quoting these Castilian pages, changes the title on his own into “Virgen Davall de Flors” (cf. J. POCH, S. José de Calasanz “Oficial eclesiástico”..., p.332-333, n.20). In the Bull of Gregory XIII ‘Super Gregem’ (December 13, 1581), in which he grants indulgences to the Confraternity of the Virgin of Tremp, he calls her ‘beatae Mariae Vallis de Floribus’ (cf. M. LLEDÓS Y MIR, o.c., p.580-582). And in a document of Bishop Capilla, we read “intus ecclesiam collegiatam Beatae Mariae ‘Vallis Floris’ suae villae Trempi” (cf. J. POCH, Mossén Josep Calassanç a la diócesi d’Urgell, p.11). In the “goigs” edited in 1986 we read “Goigs a la Mare de Déu de Valldeflors.”

920 Cf. M. LLEDÓS Y MIR, o.c., p.108-109.

Next to the collegiate church and just opposite the side door, in front of the portico or passageway of Casa Admetlló and Alejo Creus, in the middle of Petersall street, in the building called ‘Casa Vilaró’, was, until the mid-nineteenth century, the episcopal palace where the Ecclesiastical Official or General Vicar of Tremp resided.[921]

921 Cf. J. POCH, Presencia de S. José de Calasanz..., p.385.

In 1521, the generous Canon and Dean of Barcelona Cathedral, Don James Fiella, a native of Tremp, used his possessions to found the “Santo Hospital”, which was built in Calle del Horno and which - like the hospitals of the time, was more of a hospice for poor pilgrims or passers-by, whether healthy or sick, who were cared for out of charity and was thus one of the many “pious works” to which the Christian faithful of the time were so devoted.[922]

922 Cf. M. LLEDÓS Y MIR, o.c., p.132-136.

Of greater historical significance was the Dominican convent, founded in 1490 under the name Saint James of Pallars,[923] from which Father Caspar Estevan later “removed the old name and wanted it to be called the ‘School of Christ’s Teaching’.”[924] It was located outside the city walls, on the left bank of the Riu-Tremp ravine, over which the friars built a bridge that still stands today. In the time of Father Estevan and thanks to the help and protection of Emperor Charles V and Pope Clement VII, it was elevated to the status of a College or General Studium.[925] “He did so much for it, - says Father Diago about Father Estevan - that it was almost one of the most famous in the entire Order, both in terms of the number of religious and their outstanding achievements in writing and piety.”[926]

923 Cf. M. M. DE LOS Hoyos, O.P., Registro documental, t.I (Madrid 1961) p.72-71.

924 FR. F. DIAGO, Historia de la Provincia de Aragón de la Orden de Predicadores (Barcelona 1599) f.81r. It is worth explaining the idea of the new denomination: the School of Christ was to be composed of 87 religious, of whom 15 would be priests and 72 students; the first would symbolize the 13 apostles and the 4 evangelists (of whom 2 were already apostles); the students represented the 72 evangelical disciples; there were also 33 secular students, symbolizing the years of Christ. All together they total 120, like those who made up the first community of Jerusalem, upon which the Holy Spirit came (cf. ibid.). In the Latin version it was called Schola Christi.

925 Cf. A. COLLELL, O.P., Ayer de la Provincia dominicana de Aragón: Anal. Sacra Tarrac., 39 (1966) 228, n.13.

926 FR. F. DIAGO l.c.

In those last years of the century, when Calasanz was the Ecclesiastical Official of Tremp, all the imperial glory of the ‘Schola Christi’ had faded after the death of Master Friar Caspar, “because - Friar Diago continues - without him everything was lacking, and it did not advance a step until King Philip the Second of good memory recently [1592] left him the priory of Manlleu forever.”[927] But by this time, Calasanz was already in Rome. With the new income, the days of prosperity returned and from 1610 the old General Studium was revived and dialectics, logic, philosophy, arts and theology were taught to both religious and lay people, apparently even with the possibility of obtaining a doctorate in philosophy and theology.[928]

927 Ibid., f.286. Diago ends his work “oy a 18 de deziembre de MDXCIX.” (Today, December 18, 1599). On August 13, 1592 Clement VIII extinguished and secularized the Canons Reg. of St. Augustine in Catalonia, Roussillon and Cerdagne and on the 22nd of the same month he transferred the revenues of the Priory of Manlleu, which these religious possessed, to the Dominicans of Tremp (cf. the Papal Bull in M. LLEDÓS Y MIR, o.c., p.584-586).

928 About this academic capacity we can say that Fr. Diago, in a report of 1613, is very sparing and simply writes that the friary “can support 7 friars; it has them today, namely: 6 priests and a laybrother. There is ‘a lector of Arts for laymen and two friars’” (cf. A. COLLELL, o.c., p.228). Doctor Grima, in his historical report of 1630 about Tremp says - not without a certain amount of empathy - “that from 20 years to this part Dialectics, Logic, Philosophy and Theology have been taught in the Convent of Dominicans. Theology, having always in the said Convent very learned professors to teach these faculties not only to the religious of the House and Convent, but also to all the students who wish to attend...” (cf. M. LLEDÓS Y MIR, o.c., p.165-166). Neither Grima nor Lledós, when quoting him, allude to university degrees. Madoz, in his Diccionario Geog., t.XV, p. 146-147, says that “his courses were admitted in the Universities of the Kingdom.” Passante, in 1690, wrote to Armini, after having been in Tremp: “There is a College where the Fathers can confer the Degree of Doctorate (sic) in Philosophy and Theology. The Convent is called Scola Xti” (RegCal 13, 6’-16). Poch repeatedly admits that they could give academic degrees (cf. J. POCH, in RevCal 4 [1955] 381, n.1; AnCal 4 [1960] 316-317; Cat 195 [1977] 43; etc.). Picanyol also admits the fact, invoking, without citing sources, the Cap. Gen. of the Dominicans (cf. EGC II, p.36; Rass 26-27 [1957] 62). This whole matter has special importance for the question of the later doctorate of Calasanz.

However, the oldest and most prestigious ecclesiastical institution in Tremp was not the Dominicans of the ‘Schola Christi’ outside the city walls, but the Chapter. “Since Charlemagne... the Chapter had an archdeacon as prelate, with spiritual and secular jurisdiction... This supremacy and temporal rule lasted for about four and a half centuries, i.e. from the end of the eighth century until 1257, when the dignity of archdeacon was abolished and the rule over the town of Tremp passed to the Bishop of Urgel.”[929] The Chapter consisted of eight canons until the end of the 14th century, when the Beneficiaries were admitted. With all them the Collegiate church was instituted in 1391. And the one who, in a sense, inherited the prelateship of the old archdeacon - even in its dual spiritual and temporal aspect - was the Ecclesiastical Officer, whose very title of General Vicar expressed his dependence on the diocesan bishop.

929 M. LLEDÓ5 Y MIR, o.c., p.81.

The wealth of past times was followed by economic hardship, of which Philip II gives us an impression in this letter of September 25, 1595 to his ambassador in Rome, the Duke of Sessa:

“The canons and clergy of the Collegiate Church of Villa de Tremp in the diocese of Urgel in my Principality of Catalonia have given me to understand that there are in it eight canonries with three Dignities attached to them and 26 simple benefices, all of which celebrate the divine offices uninterruptedly day and night with the same solemnity as if it were a cathedral church; and that owing to the decline and loss of a large part of the income with which it was endowed ... the said number has been reduced to only 14 persons who now reside therein, the seven canons and the other beneficiaries, who are all in great distress by reason of the diminution and loss of the said revenues, and that by the increase thereof ... they desire to obtain from His Holiness the union and permanent use of half the income of the parishes of Limiana and Orcau, belonging to the said diocese of Urgel, and such consideration that with the remaining half they may maintain the rectors of them....”[930]

930 Cf. J. POCH, Mossén Josep Calassanç a la diócesi d’Urgell: Cat 195 (1977) 43.

So it was not so much about the prestige and endowment of the benefice, as has sometimes been claimed,[931] but rather about the precarious economic situation in which the cathedral Chapter and the same Urgelitan mitre found themselves, as we have already seen.

931 “The Chapter of Tremp was the most important of all the dicese of Urgel; undoubtedly, the most endowed with income and the one with the most rights and privileges, which it held since long ago” (J. POCH, S. José de Calasanz “Oficial Eclesiastico...”, p.275).

As for Calasanz, his new posts as officer, visitator and Vicar-general of Tremp would undoubtedly mean a considerable increase in salary, but the testimony of the canon of Lérida Michael Jiménez Barber is inadmissible when he claims that Calasanz had two thousand escudos in income for such ecclesiastical posts.[932]

932 Cf. BAU, BC, p.175. Remember what was said about the rents of the Catalan dioceses and especially those of Urgel, which were around 4,000 ducats or escudos (cf. chapter 7, no. 4). How could Calasanz collect 2,000 escudi? In the cathedral of Barbastro, says Cock, “each canon has five thousand sous every year, more or less” (cf. E. COCK, o.c., p. 1368), that is, 250 escudos per year. And Calasanz, when he goes to Rome, will aspire to one of these canonries of Barbastri. The annual rent will be 170 ducats, and not 250 as Cock says. And for it he would have renounced the two thousand escudos a year that he received in Tremp?

Among the archpriesthoods of Urgel - says Mir Durán - “one of the most extensive was Tremp, which included 66 parishes with their numerous annexes, distributed among the current archpriesthoods of Tremp, Pobla de Segur, Gerri de la Sal (with the exception of the abbey with its enrolled villages, which were independent, ‘nullius diocesis’) and most of Arén.”[933] Father Passante, in his description of 1690, exaggerates a little with the numbers, saying that “it will have about 300 places between lands and villages... with the jurisdiction of the [General Vicar] over 72 parishes... Tremp is a country of 200 fires [or neighbours].”[934]

933 J MIR DURÁN, o.c., p.342-343.

934 RegCal 13, 6’-16. Trad. BAU, BC, p.173.

The reality, as far as this last figure is concerned, was much more modest, since in the census of the “fires” of 1553, the town of Tremp was attributed 113,[935] i.e. about 565 inhabitants, which is more acceptable considering that Seo de Urgel had 1,135 inhabitants according to the same census. As for the parishes, there is more consistency (72 or 66). What is certain is that this archpriesthood was indeed the most extensive, as it encompassed the impassable and mountainous area bounded to the west by the Noguera Ribagorzana, to the north by the Tahull and Bohí Pyrenean valleys, which slope down to the vicinity of Gerri; to the east by the mountain ranges of Boumort and La Conca, and to the south by that of Montsech.

935 Cf. J. IGLESIES, El fogatge de 1553, t.I (Barcelona 1979), p.75.

It is obvious that Calasanz did not have the same spiritual and temporal powers in this vast territory, as the bishop did not have them in his entire diocese. As General Vicar and Archpriest, or church Official, he had full ecclesiastical jurisdiction conferred by the bishop in the entire territory of the archpriesthood and in all parishes. But as an Ecclesiastical Official, he had all the secular powers that belonged to a manorial lordship - also delegated by his actual lord, the bishop - exclusively in the town of Tremp and its municipal territory, or perhaps even in other towns or villages of the archpriesthood that had episcopal manorial lordship, such as Vilamitjana, Galliner, Puigdelanell and Montesquiu, at least.[936] In the other places, he had to turn to the respective territorial lords to solve problems that went beyond the limits of his spiritual jurisdiction, as he made clear in a valuable letter to the secular lord of Monfalcó, Don Antony Labata, from whom he did not invoke “the secular arm”, but a simple forceful mandate to force an overbearing subject to obey.[937]

936 Cf. M. LLEDÓ5 Y MIR, o.c., p.157. See others episcopal lordships, still in 1808, in POCH, Cat 195 (1977) 13.

937 “I have received and receive from day to day so many complaints from a subject of Your Lordship of the place of Monfalcó called Sebastián Albano, who not only disregards the mandates and censures of the Church... but has even wanted to lay hands on the Vicar who is his own Pastor because he had corrected him... that I have been forced to avail myself of Your Lordship favor... as of a temporal lord to whom, in comparison he will have more fear and respect, and thus I will receive very particular mercy that by your order and commandment the said Albano returns to the obedience that he owes and reconciles and makes friendship or peace with the Vicar... From Tremp and June on the 8th of 1590... Joseph Calasanz off. of Tremp” (EGC II, c.2). Regarding its addressee, A. Labata, cf. J. L. NAVÍO, Ambiente histórico y sociaL...: AnCal 26 (1971) 215-216.

The Visitator and Ecclesiastical Official in action

We do not know exactly what journey he undertook at the end of April 1589, when he was still living in Urgel; what is certain is that he bought saddlebags made of chamois leather before he left.[938] And with these on his shoulders and accompanied by his faithful servant Coromines, the recently appointed Visitator, official and vicar general of Tremp, Joseph Calasanz, already in Tremp, wanted to begin his apostolic wanderings. But before we see him wandering through mountains and valleys, let us see how he acts in the town, starting with the heart: Our Lady of Valldeflors.

938 (April 20, 1589) “Sir Juseph Calesans, priest, owes 32 sous for a pair of saddlebags on chamois and izard. I say 1pound, XII sous” (P. PUJOL I TUBAU, Noves dades..., Apénd. V, p. 18).

Although the devotion was very old, the foundation of his Confraternity dates from November 28, 1553, under the invocation of the Nativity of Our Lady of the Valley of Flowers, in the vernacular ‘Mare de Deu de Valldeflors’. And Calasanz, parish priest of Ortoneda, joined it on September 25, 1589, paying the tribute of five pounds in five installments.[939] The new Brother of St. Mary was one of the twelve thousand who were enrolled over the centuries (until 1948), including Philip II and his prothonotary, from Tremp, Jerome Gassol.[940] This was just another part of the litany of Marian devotion that he was to develop over the course of his long life.

939 Here is the attestation: “I, the undersigned Fr. Tomás Miret of the Visitation of the Virgin, on 22-8-1809, in the second book of the Collegiate Church of Tremp, p. 37, copied verbatim what follows: “Mn. Joseph Calasans Plebá of Ortoneda enterd in this Confraternity on September 25, 1589; he has paid the first installment … until de fifth inclusive...” And the attestation continues: “In the same book I have seen four signatures of said Mn. Joseph Calasans, today our Holy Father and Fundator, from 17 7.bre of 1589 to 20 7.bre of 1590, all like this: “Vt. Calasans ofic.s.” Ita est. Fr. Thomas Miret a Visit. Virginis” (cf. EcoCen 8 [1947] 31; 3. POCH, Presencia de S. José de Calasanz..., p.398). For news concerning the Confraternity, cf. M. LLEDÓS y MIR, oc., p.137-139. The rich archives of the Collegiate suffered a looting in 1808 by the French and another with malicious burning in 1936, from which only two books of baptisms and episcopal decrees beginning in 1707 were saved (cf. J. POCH, S. José de Calasanz “Oficial eclesiástico...”, p.309)

940 Cf. P. R. OROMÍ, S.F., Novena a la Mare de ‘Deu de Davall de Flors Patrona de Tremp, de sa Conca í del Pallars (Barcelona 1948) p.33. Note the invocation Davall de Flors, also assumed by Father Poch (cf. n.77 above). Jerónimo Gassol obtained from Philip II many favors for his native village and its collegiate church (cf. J. POCH, o.c., p.306-307) under whose main altar he was buried, according to his express will (cf. A. COY Y COTONAT, Sort y Comarca Noguera-Pallaresa [Barcelona 1906], p.361. This author also calls the Virgin of Tremp “Nra. Sra. de Davall de Flors”).

We have a number of documents about his relationship with the Chapter of the Collegiate Church, which attest to his jurisdictional powers. By episcopal pardon, canons or beneficiaries who had attended choir for thirty or forty years (depending on their service) could be exempted from daily participation in some canonical hours, taking into account their age. At the request of those concerned, Calasanz granted two of them exemption without any other higher appeal, signing as Officer in one case (January 10, 1590) and as Officer and Commissioner in another (April 6, 1590).[941]

941 Cf. J. POCH, Mossén Josep Calassanç a la diócesi d’Urgell, p.10, photocopies doc. between p.14-15. One of the photoc. doc. reads Die 10 Januarii Anni 1590, but Poch translates juny (June) by mistake.

As General Visitator, he had the task of inspecting the foundations and pious works and examining their respective official books. In the book of the Confraternity of Our Lady of Valldeflors, there are at least four of his signatures on different dates,[942] and another four were discovered by a curious 18th century researcher in the administrative books of the Tremp hospital.[943] From this we can deduce the Visitator’s attention to fulfilling his duties, as the appointment was on June 28th and on July 22nd, he was already signing the hospital’s books. In both cases it can be seen that these were annual visits, which did not prevent him from visiting the hospital’s poor with a certain persistence.

942 Cf. n.97 above.

943 “On March 11, 1725, I went to the holy Hospital of Tremp, where I was allowed to see the books of the Administration of the said Hospital, in whose (sic) I found four signatures of the said Our Blessed, two on July 22, 1589. The other two on July 25, 1590, which I adored with reverence, whose signatures I imitate like this: Visitator Calasans off.is.” Letter of Antonio de Sangenís, dated July 28, 1751 (cf. J. POCH, Manuscrito inédito del siglo XVIII...: AnCal 19 [1968] 104).

Although as Visitator General he was not obliged to visit the Dominicans of the Convent of St. James, and even as Official and Archpriest he respected their canonical exception, there is no doubt that Calasanz crossed the bridge over the Riu-Tremp ravine many times to spend many hours with the Dominicans. And although he was still young, he could boast of memories of years gone by in which he had the opportunity to meet, negotiate and live with the Sons of St. Dominic on several occasions.

His first memories could date back to his childhood, as it is plausible that the Dominicans of the convent of Linares, which is near Benabarre, carried out pastoral preaching activities in the neighboring towns and therefore came to Peralta. During his student years, he undoubtedly met many Dominicans both in the faculties of the universities of Lérida, Valencia and Alcalá and in the churches and convents of these cities, which were generally closely linked to academic life. But where he became even closer to them was in the episcopal palace of Barbastro, as a familiar of the Dominican bishop Urries and participant in community life with the Dominicans who accompanied him. In Seo de Urgel he was also able to associate with them, as the parish church of San Michael, which they ran, and the outbuilding of the old hostel where they lived were right next to the cathedral, whose pulpit they occupied on certain solemn occasions.

In particular, the members of the convent of San James de Tremp, in fulfillment of the founding regulations, “went twice [a year] to preach and hear confessions in the towns and villages of the mountains of the Pallars and the Pyrenees, where there were some errors against the faith and some sorceries for lack of preachers.”[944] And during the years in which Calasanz was the ecclesiastical official of Tremp, he must have coordinated these apostolic forays of the Dominicans through the villages and towns of his extensive archpriesthood. Exactly in 1587, one year before Calasanz was appointed parish priest of Claverol, it was recorded in the parish registers that a Dominican from the convent of Tremp went up to Claverol and founded the Confraternity of the Holy Rosary.[945]

944 Cf. F. DIAGO, o.c., f.285-286.

945 Picanyol was still able to read this information in the parish archive of Claverol, now disappeared (cf. EphCal 3 [19321 110, n.1). On Calasanz and the Dominicans, cf. J. POCH, S. José de Calasanz “Oficial Eclesiastico...”, p.312-318.

Among the most remarkable celebrations that took place in the Collegiate Church of Tremp during Calasanz’s tenure was the ceremony of ordinations by Bishop Capilla on September 22, 1590. The former master of ceremonies of Urgel Cathedral arranged everything so that it would be a perfect and unforgettable act for all. On this occasion, a fifteen-year-old boy received his first tonsure. His name was Francis Motes from Pont de Claverol, of whom we shall speak later. Later he became a priest, and in 1648, at the age of seventy-three, he will evoke the venerable figure of Calasanz of these dates of Tremp: “When I was 14 or 15 years old - he said - I knew him and saw him often, for he was a close friend of my father. As if I saw him now: he was a tall man, with a venerable appearance, a brown beard, a long white face...”[946]

946 Cf. the complete letter of Motes, dated December 11, 1648, in BAU, BC, p.174-175.

In the same ordinations, ‘intus ecclesiam collegiatam B. M. Vallis Floris suae villae Trempi’, as the official record states, Bishop Capilla conferred minor orders on two young clerics from Peralta de la Sal who also became priests, as both belonged to the “community of venerable rectors and beneficiaries of the church of Peralta de la Sal in 1600 “.[947]

947 Cf. J. POCH, Mossén Josep Calassanç a la diócesi d’Urgell, p.11, and n. 241 of chapter 3 of this work.

The presence of Bishop Capilla in Tremp for the second time with the Official Calasanz is further proof of the esteem in which he held his former familiar. But the esteem Calasanz felt for Capilla was no less, for in the same year 1590 we have documentary evidence that he was at the episcopal palace of Sanahuja at least twice, since he signs as a witness in documents dated February 12th and May 14th.[948] In view of his office, these were of course not merely courtesy visits, but consultations and information about the state and problems of his archpriesthood.

948 On February 12th he signs one and on May 14th he signs two (cf. P. PUJOL I TUBAU, Ob. comp., p.336-337, doc. XI, XIII and XIV).

There is evidence of his forays through the towns and villages within his jurisdiction as General Visitator, particularly his presence in Talarn and Durro. In both cases, he was accompanied by the notary of Tremp, Louis Vidal, who drew up the documents in Latin and confirmed them with his public authority.[949] In Talarn, he signed a reduction of masses in favor of the beneficiary John Nadol from the parish of Rivert, dated September 18, 1589. And given the proximity, it is likely that Calasanz visited Talarn frequently, as suggested by the fact that he became great friends there with the Gassols, of whom he speaks in a letter from Rome dated June 1599.[950] Calasanz visited Durro, a town in the Bohí Valley in the Pyrenees, in July 1590. In 1911, the parish priest found 25 documents in the local archives, signed at the beginning of July 1590, in which some neighbors declared their debts to the clergy “coram Rvdo et Magco”. Josepho Calassans, S.T.B., Plebano de Ortoneda et Visit. Gener. in Offic. Trempi.”[951]

949 In the document of Talarn we read at the end: “De mandato dicti Dom. offic. et Vic. Gen. expeditae fuerunt per me Ludovicum Vidal, Regia auctoritate Notarium publicum per totas terras et ditiones S. C. et I. Maiestatis Philippi Domini nostri R. Castellae et dicti Domini Offic. et Vic. Gen. scribanus haec et alia propria manu scripsi» (cf. EphCal 4 [1911] 119-120). Trans. in BAU, BC, p.173.

950 “I sent the Bulls [of the canonry of Barbastro]... and directed them to Talarn to Antony Gassol who is the brother of this Gassol my friend who is here in Rome” (EGC II, c.7). Perhaps these Gassol were relatives of Jerome Gassol, from Tremp, and with their influence the one in Rome managed to work in the Spanish embassy (cf. J. POCH, S. Jose de Calasanz “Oficial eclesiástico...”, p.306).

951 Cf. J. MIR DURÁN, o. c., p.344, n. 1 and 347. In 1931 Picanyol was still able to see the documents in Durro’s archive (cf. EphCal 3 [1933] 105-107).

In both Talarn and Durro, the documents are of an administrative or canonical nature and their value lies in the fact that they confirm the presence of the Visitator in these places. However, it is possible to guess at his pastoral and reformatory actions, for which there is no lack of clear evidence. One such indication would be that given by the aforementioned pastor of Durro: “According to a credible tradition, Saint Joseph Calasanz came to this parish at the beginning of July 1590 and stayed in a house where the parish priest was staying at the time, and they still point out the room and bedroom where he rested and in whose house there is still a crucifix of great value, which they tell us that the saint gave it to him, and others that he only used it to bless and preach” to the people.”[952]

952 Cf. J. MIR DURÁN, l.c.

Identical evidence of his presence in a large number of parishes of his archpriesthood, which he visited as a Visitator in the months of September to December 1589, can be found in the notes in the books of Antonio Janer, which correspond to the ecclesiastical contributions that Calasanz collected during his visits and which he conscientiously passed on to the episcopal curia, through the commercial transactions of his good friend, the merchant of La Seo.

This is apparently how things worked: Since the previous century, a more or less voluntary tax had been imposed on parishes and ecclesiastical benefices, the so-called ‘Fourth’, which was very difficult to collect due to the difficult traveling conditions and unsafe roads from the most remote mountain parishes to the bishop’s See. Two months after his arrival in Tremp, Calasanz wrote to the Chapter on August 30th asking for someone to be appointed urgently to collect the rights of ‘the fourth’ for his entire officialate to avoid the clergy having to go to La Seo in person.[953]

953 Canon Peter Pujol i Tubau wrote about this letter: “Original letter of Sant Calasanç, written in Catalan and signed by him, addressed to the Chapter of Urgell, which was in the possession of the Barcelonian bookseller Salvador Babra, in Barcelona (Canuda, 45). I was able to make the above extract on July 29, 1922. This was evidently taken from our Chapter Archive together with other documentation (among it, six folders of letters from the 15th to the 18th centuries) of the Plandolit executors. This book also had a manuscript containing genealogies of Aragonese families, which had a plated engraving, coming from another piece, representing Sant Calasanç doing school in Rome. It bore the date 1649.” (P. PUJOL I TUBAU, Noves dades, n.90).

In view of his position as General Visitator, it was considered best if he carried out the collection himself during the visitation. And so it was. Janer’s book Manual lists the parishes or towns (in addition to the benefices and canonries of Tremp and other churches) through which Calasanz traveled as General Visitator, one by one.[954] Here is the list: Ortoneda y Claverol, Pobla de Segur, Abella, Eroles, Guardia, Montañana, Puigcerver, Salás, Paláu, Ciérvoles, Moró, Tercuy, Vilamitjana, Senterada, Mur, Figarola, Benavent de Tremp, Puigcercós, Arén, Isona, Merlí, Claret, Claravalls, Limiana, Pobleta de Beilvehí, Tarrasia, Aramunt, S. Esteve de Sarga, Noals, Castanesa, Talarn, Anx, Girveta, Sta. Engracia, Rivert, Llor, Galliner, Vallseñiu.[955]

954 Thus, Pujol affirmed: “We can see by them [Janer’s notes] the long travels done by the diligent Visitator [Calasanz] around those lands “ (ibid., p.18).

955 Cf. ibid. VIII, p.27-30.

If you locate all these villages on a local map, you can see that the eager Visitator actually covered the entire territory of his archpriesthood, from the northernmost regions of the valleys of Bohí and Castanesa to the extreme south of San Esteve de la Sarga and Limiana; from the eastern line of Ortoneda and Benavent de Tremp to the western line of Noales, Arén and Montañana. And this time the personal contact with the rural clergy and its population was much more direct, since he did not simply go as a secretary and companion of the visitator, as he had done the other time in 1587, but as a person in charge and as a pastor aware of his apostolic duties. And on new and old paths, from the valley of one Noguera to the valley of the other, through ravines and streams, on foot and on horseback, with his chamois saddlebags on his shoulder, accompanied by his notary Vidal and his servant and friend Coromines, he brought his word, his reforming encouragement and his pastoral care to the churches of his archpriesthood.

In his plebanías of Ortoneda and Claverol

Throughout his stay in Tremp, despite the fact that his titles as Ecclesiastical Official, Visitator and General Vicar were much more important and prestigious, Calasanz continued to use his title “Plébano (parish priest) de Ortoneda y Claverol” even in official documents and there is clear evidence that, although he had a parochial vicar there, he was still the actual parish priest in charge of certain matters and attended both parishes.

One of these indications is the payment of taxes for the two parishes, which was carried out by him personally, as recorded in the Janer Manual in entries from 1589 and 1590.[956] Further evidence of his pastoral care and presence in Ortoneda is a decree signed by him as Official of Tremp, in which he granted his parish permission to keep the Eucharist in the tabernacle. It is dated April 20, 1591 in the same town of Ortoneda.[957]

956 Dated July 18, 1589: “Sir Juseph Calesans owes four pounds, three sous y five denarii; they are for his letter of July 4, 1589 that I paid to Sirs don Dimas de Josa and mossen Jaume Barthomeu, recipients [in the episcopal curia] of the ‘fourth’ and excused... for the Rectory of...” (ibid.). Dated September 4, 1589: “Sir Juseph Calesans, Rector of Claverol, owes for the “forth” of his Rectory and Plebania for the month of August 1589...” (ibid.). Dated February 24, 1590: “Sir Juseph Calesans owes 36 sous and 9 denarii for the “forth” of March and escusado from Janer of 1590 fo the Rectory and Plebania of Hortoneda...” (ibid.).

957 “Tenore praesentium conceditur licentia Sacramentum asservandi in ecclesia B. Mariae de Ortoneda justissimis de causis animum nostrum moventibus, in cuius rei testimonium praesentes manu nostra scriptas concessimus. Datum in dicto loco de Orthoneda die 20 mensis aprilis anni 1591. Vt (vidit) Calasans Off. Trempi’ (cf. L. PICANYOL, Memoriae S. Josephi Calasanctii in dioecesi Urgel ...: EphCal 5 [1932] 204). The text presents some variety in J. MIR DURÁN, o.c., p.345.

His presence in Claverol was probably even more frequent and led to a deep friendship with the Motes family. Strictly speaking, it was not Claverol, but Pont de Claverol, i.e. a hamlet by the river Noguera Pallaresa, on the other side of the bridge that connects Pobla de Segur with the path - today’s road - that leads to high Claverol. And so it happened: on November 12, 1588, the title “Plébano del lugar de Claverol”[958] (parish priest of Claverol) appears next to the name of Calasanz for the first time. On the same day (November 12, 1588), the Vicar General Don Antony Gallart signed a decree in Urgel granting Francis Motes, the farmer of Claverol, permission to build a chapel attached to his house and open to the street, dedicated to Our Lady of the Rosary, and granting the “rector of the said parish church [of Claverol] the appropriate permissions to bless it once it is built”.[959] This would explain the mysterious journey that Calasanz undertook from Urgel at the end of April 1589. It lasted exactly five days, for which he bought saddlebags made of chamois leather and also asked for a hired mule to ride. [960]

958 Cf. J. POCH, Josep Calassanç, plebá de Claverol i Ortoneda: Cat 181 (1976) 4-5.

959 “et ea constructa et erecta juxta formam ín ordinario urgellensi traditam et annotatam et per rectorem dictae ecclesiae parrochialis datam benedicendam tenore presentium licentiam et facultatem concedimus” (cf. J. POCH, Preséncia de S. Josep Calassanç a Pont de Claverol: Cat 259 [1983] 7).

960 Cf. n.938 of this chapter and the following n. of Janer: (30 April 1589) ‘Sir Juseph Calesans owes ten reals for the renting of a mule and paid by his letter... on 29th of the present at a rate of 4 sous per day; to the credit of the desk 1 pound...” (P. PUJOL I TUBAU, Noves dades, n.80).

Present at this family ceremony was the fourteen-year-old boy Francis Motes, whom we already know and who testified in 1648: “At that time my father, blessed be he, with the permission of the general vicar, built the chapel of our house with a door to the public street. And the said Doctor Calasanz, who was parish priest of Claverol and Official of Tremp, blessed it and celebrated the first mass in it.”[961] Since then, when he visited his parishes, he lived in the house of Motes, as stated on October 20, 1740 by “Dr. in both rights Manuel de Motes Presbyter Pleban of St. Mary of Ortoneda and Rector of the place of Claverol and houses of the bridge of his tenure, a native of the house of Motes.” He said, “When [“the Ven. Patriarch” Calasanz] was entrusted by His Lordship de Urgel Dn. Andrew Capilla with the Archpriesthood of Tremp and visits to his diocese, he did not sojourn in Ortoneda and Claverol (but only in passing and I am convinced with evidence that according to the relation earned by the House of Motes, this was his residence in his comings and goings) ....”[962] The tradition continued, pointing to the room that Calasanz occupied in the Motes house until the flooding of the Noguera Pallaresa in October 1937 left the village in such a disastrous state that part of it had to be destroyed in order to rebuild it. The parish priest at the time, Don Mariano Maluquer de Motes, who also came from the same family, testified in 1960 that “the aforementioned Casa de Motes was therefore demolished, as was the chapel... My mother renounced it in favor of the diocese [of Urgel] with the only condition that the new chapel should be built under the invocation of Our Lady of the Rosary and Saint Joseph of Calasanz, as was the case with the old one... At present, a modest chapel, owned by the diocese, replaces the old chapel of the Motes house in Pont de Claverol.”[963]

961 Cf. BAU, BC, p.174.

962 Cf. J. POCH, Un doc. inédito ...: Argensola 42 (1960) 205.

963 See this long letter (June 1, 1960) in its entirety in J. POCH, Preséncia de Josep Calassanç..., p.5). Picanyol still saw the old house and chapel in 1931 and recalled these traditions in EphCal 5 (1932) 204-205.

It may seem repetitive to point out once again the presence of banditry in these years and in these territories of the Archpriesthood of Tremp, which was crossed from north to south and from east to west by the indefatigable Visitator Mossen Calasanz. Asking the Viceroy of Catalonia for help from his office as Secretary of the Chapter of Urgel had its value and its sense of danger, and even more so to point with the harquebuses from the high galleries of the outer apse of the cathedral. But it was quite another thing to advance on the back of a mule into the impressive ravines through which the Noguera Pallaresa flows, or to walk up and down mountain paths and tracks with the certainty that today or tomorrow, at dawn or dusk, a band of outlaws would emerge in some revolt and point their blunderbusses. No document is needed to testify to this, for we are sure that even then, and in those parts, bandits and brigands were still up to mischief. But we even have some documents that tell us about it.

At the end of May 1591, the viceroy of Catalonia wrote an urgent letter to the sub-bailiff of Pallars, in Catalan of course, from which we translate these paragraphs:

“We have learned that some thieves and bandits are entering the Ribera de Tremp and the surroundings of Boumort and Herbassavina [municipality of Ortoneda] with great freedom and whenever they please. They are few in number and you are capable of resisting them and taking them prisoner, but you do not do so, leaving them to do great harm by stealing and murdering, as they did in Benavent, in the village of Mahull, in a rich house in Claverol... Therefore, we tell you, we command and order you, with well-armed people, without imposing superfluous expenses on the towns and without eating meat for the huts, as the people who accompanied you are said to have done, to try to pursue and arrest the said thieves and bandits...”[964]

964 Cf. J. POCH, Mossén Josep Calassanç a la diócesi d’Urgell, p. 15.

Despite the threats and the raids organized against them, this and many other regions continued to be ravaged by the plague, as can be seen from this other letter from the consuls of Villamitjana, so close to Tremp, to the bishop of Urgel, their temporary master. The date is June 5, 1592, when Calasanz had already been in Rome for several months, but it reflects the same terrorizing atmosphere he had just left:

“We are so oppressed today by the ‘nerros’ [a band of outlaws] all along this riverbank that it is pitiful, and this town in particular more than any other, because they have it in their sights and are trying or planning nothing but how to finish it off and destroy it and... every day they threaten to burn all the crops that we will harvest this year, to cut down all the vines and set fire to the gates of the town, and in the last few days they have already begun to put their threats into action; they came towards the village at noon and destroyed the vineyards that seemed to them and also the green wheat fields that were planted there, and the next night they went towards Tremp, and pulled down the stone gallows of Talarn, on which ten or twelve of their gang were hanging, and threw the hanged men down the river, and set fire to the bridge of Tremp, and burned our whole mill to the wheels, there being nothing left that was worth three sous; they went round the town at dawn, and set fire to all the threshing-floors they could find. When the neighboring towns saw the great smoke rising from the threshing floors, the mill and the bridge, they set out with the sub-bailiff of Pallars to pursue the bandits...”[965] Shocking!

965 Ibid., p.16.

All this, when it happened, could only arouse Calasanz’s indignation and bring home to him the plight and misery of the poor people. It was another experience that made his heart go out to the people.

Sort, Tirvia and Cardós

Bishop Capilla must have been very pleased with Calasanz’s apostolic task as General Visitator of the Archpriesthood of Tremp, because before the end of the year of his appointment (June 28, 1589), he entrusted him and Peter Gervás de las Eras with the visitation of three other neighboring archpriesthoods. Without wishing to diminish the merits of this companion of Calasanz, the fact is that to date no documentary evidence has emerged to confirm that he actually took part in the visitation of some of the archpriesthoods he visited together with Calasanz. And at least according to the decrees of appointment, there is no distinction of powers and responsibilities between the two.

Perhaps Capilla wanted to support and strengthen the appointment of the still young Calasanz, who had no direct experience of pastoral duties, by appointing Gervás de las Eras ‘in solidum’. In fact, his personality was known and appreciated not only in the diocese of Urgel, but also in the Supreme Council of Aragon and by Philip II himself, precisely because of his zeal in improving the cultural and religious situation of the Pyrenean regions through the foundation of religious schools. We will have to deal with this subject later.

These founding projects were in fact the fruit of his wanderings through the Pyrenean strip “from the county of Cerdania to Sobrarbe, which is about twenty miles of land in length and as many in width... - Philip II wrote - and that, having wandered much in these mountains and knowing the way of life of their inhabitants...”, he was well aware of their problems and proposed remedies. And this was written as early as 1581.[966] So, although he no longer visited these lands personally, he was undoubtedly an expert on everything concerning them, and thus an advisor and teacher for Calasanz.

966 Cf. M. JIMÉNEZ CATALÁN-J. SINUÉS Y URBIOLA, Historia de la Real y Pontificia Universidad de Zaragoza, III, p.36.

On May 5, 1590, in Sanahuja, Bishop Capilla signed the appointment of Visitators to the archpriesthoods of Tremp -again-, Sort, Tirvia and Cardós, for Gervás de las Eras and Joseph Calasanz. Without forgetting that these decrees usually use a protocol phraseology that cannot be used as an objective definition of those who are appointed to official positions, they are perhaps sometimes sincere and well-deserved praise. And so we believe in this case too, as far as Calasanz is concerned. Indeed, the bishop writes in Latin, which we translate:

“Having received from the Lord a special confidence in the faith, legality, probity of spirit, ability, aptitude and expertise in the exercise of the office of Visitator, which you, the aforementioned Gervás de las Eras and Joseph Calasanz, have exercised, and in the hope that you will faithfully and conscientiously carry out what we entrust to you, and that in all this you will conduct yourselves in such a way that by your praiseworthy action the state of our diocese of Urgel will be reformed and thereby attain justice and increase; in view of the above and other reasons which justly move us, we make, erect, appoint and send you as our procurators, visitators and reformers, to you, the said Gervás de las Eras and Joseph Calasanz, and to each one of you unequivocally (‘in solidum’) to give and grant to them both and to each one of you full and absolute authority, to visit freely and completely, as often as necessary, each and every one of the churches and holy places located in any part of the archpriesthoods of Tremp, Sort, Tirvia and Cardós of this our diocese of Urgel, and the persons over whom we have the office of visitation in the said archpriesthoods...”

And he continues with the full power to pass judgments, excommunicate, suspend and remit decrees, impose fines and other penalties, imprison, convict or acquit the accused, control and legalize wills, legacies and pious works, etc. And he adds: “Try to conduct yourselves in such a way that nothing is to be found in you that could in any way offend the eyes of your divine Majesty and make you or us guilty before Him, but rather calm and acceptable...”[967]

967 Cf. P. PUJOL I TUBAU, Ob. Comp, p.336-337, doc. XII.

The new offices of Sort, Tirvia and Cardós encompassed the entire basin of the upper Noguera Pallaresa with the valleys of its headwaters, which reached the French border to the north and Andorra to the east. Today it covers practically the same area as the archpriesthoods of Sort and Tirvia, as Cardós belongs to the latter, and there are 45 parishes, more or less the same as then. They are beautiful valleys with the typical Pyrenean landscape, with very old Romanesque churches with robust square towers. But it is shocking to imagine that the visitator Joseph Calasanz came through these rugged meanders on the back of a mule. In 1931, the historian Father Picanyol visited some of these parishes in search of documents and traditions, but found nothing.[968] The wars of the 17th and 18th centuries devastated Upper Catalonia and the parish archives were looted and burned, so that the remains do not extend beyond the year 1700.[969]

968 “Consultis enim primo parochis singulis circa possibiles traditiones seu legendas ad Calasanctium spectantes, nullum potuit reperiri vestigium circa praesentiam aut Visitationem nostri Sancti” (L. PICANYOL, Memoriae S. Josephi Cal..., p.109-110).

969 Even from the little that remained in the Cardós archive “documenta antiqua Cremata probabiliter sunt a sene parocho qui demens quasi effectus visus est fere quotidie igni tradens veteres libros ac documenta paroecialia” (ibid.).

An ambition of Gervás de las Eras, to found religious schools

For the future Founder of the Pious Schools, who was convinced that the most effective means of reforming the Church and evangelizing the people was the instruction of children in school, his eager contact with Peter Gervás de las Eras and the participation and exchange of ideas regarding the founding of religious schools for the instruction of children in the Pyrenees must have been important.

In the spring of 1581, Dr. Gervás had already presented his plan to none other than King Philip II himself. And here is a summary of what it consisted of, as summarized by the King in a letter addressed to him on 20 March 1581:

“The King. I take careful note of what you, Dr. Peter Gervás from the town of Areni in the county of Ribagorza, moved by zeal for the service of God and for the general welfare of the inhabitants of the Pyrenees, which extend from the county of Cerdanya to Sobrarbe, have told us.That the inhabitants of the said mountains, are ill-instructed and with less doctrine because it is a very rugged country, which lends itself very well to crimes, which are very frequently committed there. Moreover, they have a bad neighborhood with the heretics from France, who become familiar with them. For this reason, it would be very convenient to establish a school of the Society of Jesus in the midst of the said mountains, where there would be preaching priests and teachers to instruct the boys, for which you have offered us a suitable house with a church, lands and revenues to open the said school... We believe that no one is better able than you to settle this matter... we charge and command you to seek out the said provincial and the two bishops, and after you have given them what we have written to each of them, you will negotiate with them about the said matter and try to come to a decision as soon as possible as to what is to be done, and come to our Court with it, so that, having seen it, we may provide what is most favorable for the service of God and ours.”[970]

970 Cf. M. JIMÉNEZ CATALÁN-J. SINUÉ5 Y URBIOLA, o.c., p.35-36.

On the same day, the King wrote to the Provincial of the Jesuits of Barcelona and to the bishops of Barcelona, Urgel, Lérida and Barbastro, explaining the matter to them and asking for their support and protection.[971] Specifically, it was about the foundation of a single Jesuit school in Arén, the birthplace of Dr. Gervás, which would thus become a strategic point for Aragón and Catalonia.[972] All these royal letters must have ended up in the hands of Gervás so that he could deliver them personally to each of the addressees and discuss the matter with them, which he undoubtedly did. But things became more complicated and delayed, because in April 1587, when Calasanz had just been incorporated into his diocese of Urgel, the project was still up in the air and instead of one school there was already talk of two, as can be seen from a report sent to the Supreme Council of Aragón on the date indicated, which states:

971 Cf. the letters addressed to the bishops of Barcelona and Urgel (Fr. Hugh A. de Moncada), and to the Provincial of the Jesuits, in ibid., p.36-39. To the Bishop of Barcelona, he says: “we write in this conformity to the Bishop of Urgel... and we also write to the Bishops of Lérida and Barbastro” (ibid., p.37).

972 For this foundation, the King said, “there is a hermitage or house very much to the purpose located between the said mountains on the border of Aragón and Catalonia where the said Fathers can comfortably live and leave from there, some for Aragón and others for Catalonia and do the above-mentioned effect. That house is in the town of Areny in the County of Ribagorza...” (ibid., p.37). (ibid., p. 37).

“It seems [to Gervás] that in order to achieve the desired objective it would be of great importance to establish two schools in this country: one in the town of Graus, which is in the center of the County of Ribagorza, and that it is run by the Society of Jesus... and the other in the town of Areny, which is in the same county and on the border between Aragón and Catalonia... and this college could be run by Carmelites...”[973]

973 Cf. C. RIBA Y GARCÍA, El Consejo Supremo de Aragón en el reinado de Felipe II (Valencia 1914) p.86-87, doc. 90.

The Council of Aragon pointed out that “two monasteries of Dominicans, that exist in these mountains and that the Emperor’s magnanimity has founded, could also help; “and also celebrated that two others could be opened in Arén and Graus, concluding “that Dr. Gervás go with letters to the Archbishop of Çaragoça, to the Bishop of Barbastro and to the one who will be appointed in Urgel, to speak with them about this matter...”[974] The Council’s report reached the King, who replied on May 28 of the same year, 1587, giving his approval: “His Majesty commands - wrote the Count of Chinchón to the Council - to approve the Council’s opinion by writing to the Archbishop of Çaragoça and the Bishop of Balbastro and Lérida and the elected of Urgel (if he is available), so that all may hear Gervás and tell them what they think...”[975]

974 Ibid. The two Dominican monasteries alluded to were probably that of Saint James in Tremp and that of Linares, next to Benabarre.

975 Ibid., p.87, doc.91.

New letters from the Council to the aforementioned bishops and probably new meetings by Gervás with each of them, and perhaps more than one trip to the Court, again prolonged the proceedings and took up the days and hours of the agitated Gervás, preventing him from devoting himself to the official Visitation together with Joseph Calasanz. But it is fair to assume that the fellow travelers discussed the matter more than once, even with Capilla, who was the most interested of all the bishops and the one who actually led things to concrete solutions.

In fact, on November 2, 1593, the Bishop of Urgel gave his personal opinion in a memorandum whose central ideas were the need to found a Tridentine seminary in Seo de Urgel and entrust it to the Jesuits; to support two mendicant convents “so that there would be someone to preach and teach Christian doctrine”, namely the Augustinian monastery of La Seo and the Dominican monastery of Tremp, where “the Arts and cases of conscience are read”; “as for the study for those of Ribagorça, it is sufficiently provided for what it is read in Tremp, which is near Ribagorça... and especially in Areny, I consider it superfluous to establish Studium there, since we have studium in Tremp”; he expresses little appreciation for the work of the mendicant friars “one sees that the mendicant friars in the mountains bear little fruit, because there are few among them who devote themselves to Christian teaching or preaching....”; and as a former Jesuit, he expresses his full appreciation for them: “It seems to me that apart from the Fathers of the Society, everything else is of little use to the mountain and the places where the work has to be done.”[976]

976 A. C. A., Council of Aragón, leg. 78.

The final solution: In the same Seo de Urgel, the diocesan seminary was opened in 1592 and a Jesuit school in 1599, which was named “Saint Andrew” in honor of its founder, Capilla”.[977] Although both foundations took place when Calasanz was already in Rome, there is no doubt that this founding process, some of which he witnessed, is a not insignificant prehistory in the future pedagogue and school founder, perhaps more significant than the concrete experiences he had in the episcopal palaces of Barbastro and Urgel or in the intimacy of the home of his friend and innkeeper Antonio Janer, when he taught groups of children.

977 Cf. J. POCH, San José de Calasanz “Oficial eclesiastico...”, p.341-344, n.43. The great friend of Calasanz, Antony Janer, also contributed with his donations to the foundation of the Jesuit college (cf. EphCal 37 [‘968] 112-121).

Memories and nostalgia

For an old man, there is nothing better than recalling the years of his youth, especially when he has people in front of him who listen to him with interest. And Calasanz, in his old age, felt the need to remember better times, days of happiness and success, because the evening of his life had been very bad for him. He also had his faithful children around him, who were very curious and eager to know what he had done in the lands of Spain before his arrival in Rome. And he began to count. He felt as if the air of the Pyrenees was refreshing his forehead... and his soul.

These are anecdotes that have only been passed down orally and remain in a vague atmosphere of imprecision of names, dates and places, but we can confirm almost all of them with similar cases or documented evidence.

The original ‘Breve Notizia’ states in general terms that in his office as Vicar of Tremp “he behaved exceptionally, seeing to it that the clergy lived with great observance and did not go to parties of laymen, but that he honestly relaxed among the clergy. And he appeased their discords with the utmost prudence.”[978]

978 Cf. BAU, RV, p.11.

In addition to this vague statement by Catalucci, there are the concrete cases of Caputi and Berro. The former recounts how Calasanz was walking on the outskirts of Tremp one afternoon when he saw a group of clergymen - the collegiate church consisted of seven canons and seven beneficiaries - having fun throwing an iron bar. The game consisted - and still consists - of competing in strength and skill by throwing an iron rod with sharpened ends driven into the ground. The archpriest - tall, strong, robust - stood up and was invited to join in. He threw the rod with such force that he surpassed everyone’s strength and, as the winner, he gave them the task of saying a few prayers.[979]

979 CAPUTI, Notizie historiche, vol. I, p.III, 132; BERRO I, p.62.

Berro wrote about his gifts for calming the discords among the clergy:

“He was very sorry that there was unrest among the clergy. On one occasion, when he learned that two priests had come to his court very angry over a question of money, he appeared, had them state their respective requests and reasons in writing, and then intimidated them judicially with a strict prohibition not to leave the house until they had found a formula for compromise and mutual compensation; whereupon they returned to his court the next morning in perfect accord. Joseph then gave them a paternal reprimand and sent them home without asking for a single coin for the administration of justice.”[980]

980 BAU, BC, p.181, which translates somewhat freely BERRO I, p.61-62.

Catalucci speaks again of the situation of the clergy and of the energy that Calasanz sometimes had to expend to set them on the right path. And he said:

“During a visitation through the Pyrenees, he found the clergy very unlawful, for which he issued and put into practice many excellent decrees, even imposing the penalty of excommunication on the Forane Vicars if they did not denounce the disobedient. The clergy and the people were so outraged that they wanted to kill him. But when they saw that everything was working out for the greater glory of God, they calmed down, so that the Community gave him a large quantity of cheese, thanked him and confessed that until that moment they had not known their own goodness and how high the priestly dignity was.”[981]

981 Cf. BAU, RV, p.12. Berro says that this occurred in “la Valle di Boir” (Bohí Valley) (cf. BERRO I, p.60-61).

The title “Forane Vicars” probably refers to the ecclesiastical Officials over whom the General Visitators had authority. In Tremp, Calasanz was both an Officer and a Visitator, but in Sort, Tirvia and Cardós he was only a Visitator with full authority over the Officers or Vicars, of whom we know the one in Sort was called Peter Mathias Salsedo and was appointed on October 31, 1588.[982] And there are specific cases of contemporary officials who were accused of violating their duties through abuse, even in the area of secular power.[983] And more generally, there were complaints against ordinary clergymen or laymen who were guilty of crimes against secular and spiritual jurisdiction in the diocese of Urgel.[984]

982 Cf. J. POCH, Mossén Joseph Calassanç a la diócesi d’Urgell, p.19.

983 The Official of Berga, Mossén Joan Sala, is accused before the viceroy of Catalonia, dated May 18, 1591, of damaging the seigniorial rights of the noble Michael d’Agulló, baron of Gironella (ibid.).

984 In the ‘Regestum negotiorum’ (1589-1590) of vol. 35 of the episcopal curia of Urgel, from the time of Capilla, there is a doc. which begins as follows: “Pervenit ad auditum Fiscalis Procuratoris Curiae nostrae urgellensis aliquos esse pbros et laicos nostrae jurisdictionis parum Deum et justitiam temporalem timentes, qui non verentur talia Comittere et perpetrare facinora et delicta ex quibus magnum Curiae et jurisdictioni nostrae tam spirituali quam temporali infertur praejudicium et populo scandalum...” (cit. in J. MIR DURÁN, o.c., p.342).

There is also no lack of allusions to the custom of giving cheese to judges, lawyers and jurists for their intervention in ecclesiastical trials, which is even reflected in the term “community” used by Catalucci.[985]

985 “The community [of Talarn] sent to Barcelona an arroba of dried peaches and six cheeses for the judges and lawyers who intervened in a lawsuit of the said ecclesiastics...” (Crónica de Talarn, by D. Vicent Bosch, Pbro., ed. in 1910, p.25. News of 1630). “The Community sent eight cheeses to Barcelona to give them to the lawyer and solicitor...” (ibid., year 1631).

Father Gabriel Bianchi, who was Calasanz’s secretary in the last years of his life, tells us another famous anecdote, which he assures us was told to him by the saint himself and which literally reads as follows:

“... another time, as he was passing by a beach near the sea, he saw that many sailors were failing to pull a boat ashore with ropes as they had intended. Moved by charity, Don Joseph took the same rope and brought it ashore by himself with the greatest of ease, to the great astonishment of all who saw it.”[986]

986 RegCal, 91, p.16-17. And he adds, “and telling then himself one day to me, his secretary, in time of recreation the things above mentioned...”

Bianchi was writing around 1681, some thirty-five years after he had heard the story, and he did not have to remember exactly whether it was about a seashore or simply the banks of the Noguera Pallaresa or the Segre. And most likely it was about these rivers, whose bridges - sparse and unsafe - were torn away by the violent floods and had to be replaced by boats pulled from the banks by ropes or cables. A concession made by Philip II to the town of Tremp in December 1589, no doubt thanks to his secretary Gassol, states: “His Majesty grants the university (all) and the singulars of the town of Tremp the right of charge for crossing, to maintain the bridge they own over the river Noguera in the manner provided.”[987] It is likely that this was a temporary wooden bridge for which the use of boats with the right to lease could be granted as an emergency solution. There is no lack of other evidence of such a right of charge for crossing, also with boats, in the same places around Tremp and in connection with the Noguera Pallaresa.[988]

987 A. C. A., Reg. 4317, f.273-274, quoted in J. POCH, O.C., p.10.

988 In 1674 the General Bayle of Catalonia granted the Confraternity of the Rosary of the village of Palau “the power to have and to pass a boat on the river Noguera, from the bridge of Tremp to the term of Llimiana, for the benefice of the Confraternity....” (Cronica de Talarn, year 1674, p.32). In 1690 a stone bridge was built in Tremp and in 1696 the toll was increased to cover the expenses. It lasted only 13 years, “having had to build another wooden one a little further down” (cf. M. LLEDÓS y MIR, Historia... de Tremp, p.349). And while bridges were being built, boats had to be used. It could also have been a sporting competition of ‘raiers’ (almadieros), still in vogue today in the area of Pobla de Segur, dragging rafts of logs or ‘almadias’ on the Noguera Pallaresa.

Another anecdote that is not missing from any Calasanctian biography and that Berro and Bianchi, among others remember,[989] is the following: As he was travelling through the Pyrenees one day, he came across a poor man whose overloaded donkey had fallen into a ditch and whom he could not free with shouts, sticks or blasphemies. Joseph halted his mule and sent his faithful servant Coromines, who accompanied him, to help the desperate muleteer. But it was no use. The two of them could not free the little donkey from the mire. Calasanz dismounted, took off his cassock, threw branches onto the mud, reached under the animal’s belly and carried it on his back to dry land. The villager was naturally astonished, and the priest told him with a certain mocking tone that blasphemies would not get the donkeys out of the mud. And everyone went their way.

989 BERRO I, p.62-63; G. BIANCHI, Vita... RegCal 91, p.16.

And the last swing. This is undoubtedly the incident that has given modern biographers the most food for thought, eager to purify the short real fact from the baroque appendages of historical novels. It is already mentioned in the ‘Breve Notizia’ and is taken up again by Scassellati, Fedele, Berro and Bianchi among the primitives.[990] It is the “kidnapping of the girl” as Scassellati tells it, so baroque at other times and so sober now:

990 Cf. BAU, BC, p.192-194; BERRO I, p.64-65.

“Having been commissioned by the Bishop of Urgel to make peace between two families in armed conflict over the kidnapping of a girl, a matter in which others had failed, he arbitrated it and reconciled them with great mercy.”[991]

991 Cf. BAU, BC, p.193.

Other early chroniclers such as Berro, Fedele, Bianchi and all the traditional hagiography, led by Armini and Talenti,[992] locate the event in Barcelona, and the opponents are two families of high nobility; the case reaches the ears of the King, who instructs the bishop of Urgel to try to “extinguish the fire - says Bianchi - that threatens to burn all of Spain”; The bishop commissioned his vicar general Calasanz, who - Bianchi continues - “set off in the middle of winter, through snow and mud, and arrived when the armed people were in battle formation, on the verge of a terrible fight.” Of course, he arrived, saw and won and “achieved an immediate cessation of hostilities and later a complete pacification.”[993] A movie! There are so many inconsistencies in the details that you have to rework the story to set it in other latitudes and free the characters from this noble prosopopoeia. If the case took place in Barcelona and was so loud that it reached the Court of Madrid, it is very strange that the King should have addressed himself not to the bishop of the Condal city, but to the bishop of Urgel; and still stranger that the bishop should entrust so high a royal deference to his young vicar of Tremp, Calasanz, who was entirely unknown in Barcelona. The most plausible assumption is that the case took place in one of these lost villages in the Pyrenees when Calasanz was on a pastoral visit, and that perhaps the Bishop of Urgel did not intervene at all, let alone Philip II. It would be illogical to deny this story any veracity because the details do not fit.[994]

992 Cf. ARMINI, Vita, p.38-40; TALENTI. Vita, p.27-28.

993 Cf. BAU, BC, p.194.

994 As attempts to explain the case cf. C. BAU, Historia de las E. P. en Cataluña, p.57-63; J. POCH, S. José de Calasanz “Oficial eclesiastico...”, p.352-356. Here is an analogous case, occurred in Cardós during the years in which Calasanz was Visitator of that Archpriestship, and that he could know in part: “Per Barthomeu Serdá poor man from the town of Tavasuam, diocese of Urgell, it was exposed to us how he had put a daughter of his, named Angela, in the house of Bernardí Pallás, knight of the shore of the Vall de Cardós, two years ago or even less. Pallás, oblivious of himself, did not hesitate to enjoy the said Angela and to have a son from her, and having promised to pay the dowry and other things, he refused to do them. And for that reason, it was of mercy to provide him with the opportune remedy. And because we wish that such things be remedied and punished, we tell you, order and command that after the exposition of the facts as the aforementioned Serdá has written to us, you do and oblige by the terms of justice... that the said Bernat Paliás really and actually pay the said dowry to the said Angela what he has furthermore promised… [Barcelona on 19 December 1592] The Duque de Maqueda. Dirigitur Subvicario de Pallás’” (A. C. A. Reg. 4762, f.277-27S) (quoted in J. POCH, Mossen Josep Calassanç a la diócesi d’Urgell, p.13-14).

And every time the “old saint” recounted cases like this, he felt again that the air of the Pyrenees cooled his forehead... and his soul.

Chapter 9

Toward Rome

Ortoneda and Claverol, Tremp and Seo de Urgel, plebanias, vicariates and archpriesthoods, he left everything and went to Rome. But why? The plans of God - hidden then and revealed today - intersect with apparently motivating personal interests. The hagiographers, who are not very exigent, are blinded by the supernatural source. It seems that anything is possible in the lives of “the “saints” and that God places an angel in every corner, ready to intervene with words or deeds. The biographers, however, are too demanding and look for explanations for everything, even for those things for which, humanly speaking, there may be none. But it is their duty to find them.

The last great biographer of our Saint wrote at this point in his history: “And now we are faced with the most serious problem, the most obscure unknown, the most debated subject in the life of St. Joseph Calasanz: Why did he leave Spain and set out for Rome?[995]

995 BAU, BC, p.195.

Traditional and secular hagiography, which extends to our own time, was at peace with itself and gave its answer by invoking supernatural factors. The biographers of our time sought a “more “rational” solution based on more verifiable facts.[996] But frankly, we have to admit that these “controllable” solutions are not fully convincing and that “the most “reasonable” thing to do is to give more credence to the hagiographic tradition - at least for that time.

996 Among the most critical ones see: J. POCH, S. José de Calasanz, Oficial eclesiástico, p.288-289; L. PICANYOL, EGC II, p.29-31; SÁNTHA, SJC, p.8, n.27; BAU, BC, p.195-202; ID., Historia de las E. Pías en Cataluña, p.67-68; ID., Historia de las Escuelas Pías en Cuba, p.27-28.

The dream of Joseph

Around 1672, Father Caputi wrote this wonderful page in his Notizie Storiche:

“... it is worth remembering and knowing the vision that [Calasanz] had when he was General Vicar of the Bishop of Urgel, as he himself often told me, who, curious to know something from his mouth, questioned him. Once it seemed to him that he was in Rome preaching to a group of children who looked like angels. He taught them how to live a Christian life, blessed them and then accompanied them home. And it seemed to him that many angels went with him and helped him to accompany these poor children. He ignored this vision and thought that perhaps it was just a fantastic dream. But the next morning it occurred to him that what he had seen was nonsense, because he had never intended to go to Rome. It was only many weeks later that he heard an inner voice telling him: Joseph, go to Rome; go to Rome, Joseph.[997]

997 Cited in BAU, BC, p.198, with retouches according to the original text. Cf. A. GARCÍA-DURÁN, Itinerario espiritual de San José de Calasanz de 1592 a 1622 (Barcelona 1967), p.39 and 33, n.292.

Caputi’s stories are generally novelistic in nature, the fruit of his typically Mediterranean imagination. In this case, he assures us that this revelation “he [Calasanz] himself passed on to me several times” and we have no doubt that in the two short years he lived with the Founder and even witnessed his death, he questioned him and tried to elicit something from him, and that he was therefore the keeper of many messages. But it is probable that after almost twenty-five years he did not remember the details exactly, and perhaps he did not even know how to distinguish whether what he wrote came from the lips of the Saint or from another direct witness.

The fact is that in 1659 and 1670 the same Caputi asked for copies of the Ordinary Informative Process carried out in 1651-1653,[998] in which he undoubtedly read the following statement by Fr. Francis Castelli, a faithful companion, confidant and collaborator of Calasanz since the beginnings of the Congregation:

998 Cf. S. GINER, El proceso de beatificación de San José de Calasanz (Madrid 1973), p.114-115. Both copies are preserved in the Arch. Gen. of the Order (RegCal 30 and 31). We personally checked the copy RegCal 30 with the original volume of the Arch. Secret. Vatican (Arch. Congr. Ss. Rit., proc. 2696), the variants of which we take into account when citing this process in this work.

“...And I know this because I heard it either from Father [Founder] himself or from others who heard it from him, that when the said Father was in Spain, after he had become a priest, he felt an interior voice telling him, “Go to Rome.” Many times, the same thing was impressed upon him and he answered himself: “I have no ambitions. What have I to do in Rome?” But ever more insistently and ever more often he felt the same impulse: “Go to Rome, go to Rome.” And obeying this impulse, he came to Rome. And a few days later, as he was walking through a square, I do not know what it was, he saw a crowd of misguided boys making a thousand pranks and throwing stones. And then he heard a voice saying to him, “Look, look.” And it repeated the same accents more than once, as he looked and pondered the meaning of those words, then it came to him and he said to himself, “Maybe the Lord wants me to take care of those boys.” And from that moment on, he dedicated himself to the cure for these badly behaved children...”[999]

999 Cit. in BAU, BC, p.196-197, with retouchings, according to ProcIn, p.446-448 (cf. A. GARCÍA-DURÁN, o.c., p.36).

The angels of Caputi have flown away and the dream has disappeared, but those inner voices have remained, mysterious but perceptible to those who have a certain inner ear attentive to God’s messages. And Joseph Calasanz knew about these things, for he himself tells us in a letter of 1622 with an astonishing certainty: “The voice of God is the voice of the Spirit that comes and goes, touches the heart and passes away; one does not know where it comes from and when it inspires; therefore, it is very important to be always attentive so that it does not come suddenly and pass away without fruit.”[1000] Father Berro claims to have heard him say: “...” the voice of God is a soft and gentle breeze; he who is not attentive cannot hear it, and perhaps God has placed his salvation in it, and woe to him who misses it and does not seize the opportunity!”[1001]

1000 C.131.

1001 BERRO I p.168.

Not only did credulous hagiographers of other times accept these inner voices that marked a new providential course in Calasanz’s life, but even modern biographers such as Bau, Picanyol and Sántha do not dare to deny them, which gives them a certain consistency,[1002] although at the same time they fall back on other, more “controllable” motivations. In any case, perhaps meticulous and bitingly critical investigation is not necessary to clarify whether it was a vision, a dream, interior voices or an indefinable sensation. Not even the most expressive mystics are able to identify the interior phenomena that go beyond sensory perception. And there is hardly a saint who has not perceived similar phenomena in which he received a message that he sometimes did not even know how to interpret correctly at first. Suffice it to recall the voice of the crucifix commanding the Saint of Assisi: “Francis, go and repair my church, which, as you can see, is in danger of falling into ruin.” And the saint believes that it is about restoring the small church of San Damiano;[1003] or the voice that St. Ignatius of Loyola perceives in the vision of La Storta, which he does not immediately know how to interpret.[1004]

1002 “Respectful of the ancient version of the voice and the reverie, which were undoubtedly confidences of the Saint himself, we do not ask them to withdraw” (BAU, BC, p.202). “…nor should it be denied in any way that Calasanz´ thought of going to Rome was not accompanied by some internal inspiration and even by a voice that mysteriously sounded in his ears: ‘Go to Rome.” (L. PICANYOL, EGC II, p.31. All of this [the claim to canonries] does not prevent us from believing that a certain inner voice had some part in his decision that said to him: ‘Go to Rome’” (SÁNTHA, SJC, p.8, n.27). Perhaps García-Durán is excessively critical, denying not only the vision or dream, but radically the inner voice (cf. A. GARCÍA-DURÁN, o.c. p.32-41).

1003 Cf. T. DE CELANO, Vida segunda de San Francisco, n. 10 (BAC, San Francisco de Asís, 19563, p.391-392). And Celano comments: “…and he set about the necessary reparation of the church... although the meaning of the words referred to that other Church which Jesus Christ acquired with his own blood...” (ibid., p.392).

1004 Laínez wrote of Ignatius: “…he told me that it seemed to him that God the Father impressed on his heart these words: ‘Ego ero vobis Romae propitius’. And our Father, not knowing what they meant, he said: ‘I do not know what will become of us, if perhaps we will be crucified in Rome’” (quoted in R. GARCÍA-VILLOSLADA, San Ignacio de Loyola. Nueva Biografía, BAC Major, p.440).

Calasanz’s reaction to the mysterious invitation to Rome is also characterized by confusion. He wonders why. And since the most normal thing for a cleric who decides to go to Rome is to claim some ecclesiastical benefice, he objects that he has never had such ambitions. And once he is in Rome, several years will pass without him being able to clearly recognize what the will of God and the meaning of the mysterious voice is.

His objection may seem false to us, for indeed, as soon as he arrives in Rome, he will try to obtain a canonry; and those first long years will give us the unfortunate impression of disorientation, although he will not lack for occupations. But the one and the other was perhaps only the veil that hid the agonizing search for the will of God in every respect, until he exclaimed with satisfaction and conviction: “I have already found in Rome the definitive way to serve God...”

The search for canonries

Common sense would advise Calasanz to consult his inner feelings with people who were familiar with problems of the spirit. He could not embark on the adventure of traveling to Rome alone without knowing what for. We can imagine that the wisest thing to do was to consult with Msgr. Capilla because he was a deeply spiritual man, like a good Carthusian; because of the esteem and trust he had always shown him since he had appointed him as his familiar, and because he ultimately had the decision about the trip, since he was his bishop. And at least for this last reason, there had to be a decisive meeting between the two. We will never know what they said to each other. They probably recognized the reality of the inner voice and decided to obey it. Similar to what happened to St. Paul on the road to Damascus: “What do you want me to do, Lord?” And the Lord answered, “Arise and go to Damascus; there they will tell you everything you should do” (Acts 22:10). And so Capilla could say to him in the name of the Lord, “Arise and go to Rome, Joseph; there you will be told everything you should do” (Acts 22:10).

Nevertheless, it is quite natural that this mysterious and obscure motive remained hidden. Calasanz could not announce that unforeseen journey to the four winds by saying that an inner voice had told him to go to Rome. It was necessary to look for other justifying reasons and they were found. The first was the most common: one goes to Rome to seek benefices.[1005]

1005 The bishop of Jaén wrote around 1588: “having a little ability, without finishing their studies they go to Rome to study at the Datario and with few letters and no virtue they are given the benefices” (quoted in A. GARCIA-DURÁN, o.c., p.32, n.286).

In the first surviving letter he wrote after his arrival in Rome, he said: “When I arrived, I then wanted a canonry in Urgel.”[1006] However, the wording gives the impression that this was not the primary reason for the journey, but that he began to want after his arrival. The same impression is given by the very important testimony of the priest Francisco Motes, who in his testimony of 1648 - the first to speak of this subject after Calasanz - said: “It is said that he had the intention of going to Rome to obtain a dignity worthy of his merits..., then he went to Rome... and after a year or two I heard that he had wanted a benefice in his country, I do not know which one.”[1007] He did not hear out directly on the day he passed by his house in Pont de Claverol to say goodbye, and it was the most appropriate moment to tell and explain his resignation to the people of Claverol. Moreover, it seems that even in his house, the house of Motes, there was no news of such wishes until a year or two after his arrival in Rome.

1006 EGC II, c.3.

1007 Cf. original text in A. GARCÍA-DURÁN, o.c., p.35, n.302; translated in BAU, BC, p. 174, who reads ‘suoi oneri’ instead of ‘suoi meriti’.

In the ordinary process of 1651, the Spanish painter Francis Gutiérrez, who lived with Calasanz for about six months in 1620, testified: “I have heard that Father Joseph came to Rome to get something ecclesiastical...”[1008] Another Spanish witness, Thomas Simón, said in the Apostolic Process of 1686: “Then he came to Rome where he had the representation of that bishop [of Urgel], and for he hoped to be endowed with benefices.”[1009] This last witness adds another reason and places the aspirations in second place. The trustworthy and almost always precise Berro says nothing about the inner voice, but expresses himself as follows: ...” he went to his city for a few days, not to stay, but to settle his affairs, hoping to pass [di tirarsi avanti] at the Roman court, as his virtues promised him... Once in Rome... he devoted himself to all kinds of charitable works, knowing full well that God had led him to Rome for greater things than proving himself in ecclesiastical dignities...”[1010] So, it was not these that motivated his journey to the Eternal City.

1008 Cf. A. GARCÍA-DURÁN, o.c., p.41; BAU, BC, p.199; S. GINER, o.c., p.82.

1009 Cf. BAU, BC, p.200 and original text in EphCal 17 (1948) 118; S. GINER, O.C., p.158.

1010 BERRO I, p.65-66.

The first Roman letters written to the parish priest of Peralta de la Sal from 1592 to 1599 would suffice to prove that Calasanz was seeking a canonry in Spain during all these years, as we will see later and from other documents. What we do not see clearly, however, and what is not confirmed by the testimonies cited, is that this was the ‘most important and decisive motive of his journey to Rome’, as categorized by Picanyol, Sántha, García Durán,[1011] ... among modern historians. Poch is more cautious when he proposes other motives that mitigate the decisive exclusivism of such wishes and which we must rightly appreciate.[1012] More convincing in this case, however, seems to us the critic Bau, who concludes: “Besides these more or less human and even earthly motivations, we must not ignore another impulse of a different character, perhaps less conscious, but perhaps more effective and ultimately more providential...”[1013] That is, the inner voice that told him ‘Go to Rome’...

1011 Picanyol says that from the first Roman letters “it is evident - let us say it purely without euphemism - that Calasanz did the trip to Rome to obtain an ecclesiastical prebend, like so many other Spaniards of those times” (EGC II, p.31). Sántha also agrees that by such letters “omnibus facile constat Josephum Calasanctium propterea imprimis ad Urbem appulisse, quo facilius in ipsa Curia Romana Canonicatum quemlibet.... adipisci posset” (G. SÁNTHA, De canonicatu Barbastrensi a Sto. Josepho Calasanctio obtento: EphCal 6 [1957] 138); ID., SJC, p.8, n.27. And García- Durán: “…a healthy criticism... has demonstrated ad nauseam that Calasanz went to Rome in search of a canonry” (A. GARCÍA-DURÁN, o.c., p.32-33).

1012 Cf. J. POCH, Mossén Josep Calassanç a la diócesi d’Urgell: Cat 195 (1977) 28-32.

1013 BAU, RV, p.63.

Calasanz’s ecclesiastical career took a rapid course, for at the age of thirty-four he was an Ecclesiastical Officer and General Vicar of Tremp and Visitator General of four archpriesthoods. And was not that much more than a canonry? And if he thought it was less, could not he get a canonry when it became vacant during the months of the Ordinary? Who would be more willing to favor him than Capilla? Why should he risk resigning his present offices in the hope of a canonry that would become vacant in the papal months?

The ‘ad limina’ visit of Bishop Capilla

From the middle of the 13th century (Gregory IX) the visit to Rome, ‘ad limina apostolorum’, became obligatory for the bishops, but over time it was neglected to such an extent that it was prescribed that all bishops should take an oath at their election to fulfill this obligation, the first time themselves, and on subsequent occasions through a procurator if they were prevented from doing so. But this oath was no longer kept.

The Bishop of Urgel, Fray Hugh Ambrose de Moncada (the one who ordained Calasanz as a priest), of all people, wrote a letter from Sanahuja to Gregory XIII on October 26, 1584, in which he inquired about the binding nature of this oath and said:

“From the words [of the oath] I have this doubt: whether the bishops of Spain are bound to observe the contents of the said clause, so that if we do not, we are no longer conscientiously ‘tutos’ [= in peace], or whether the general custom in these kingdoms of not going before the apostolic See, nor sending a procurator, assures us conscientiously against the form of the oath.”[1014]

1014 R. ROBRES-V. CASTELL, La visita “ad limina” durante el pontificado de Sixto V (1585-1590): Anthologica Annua 7 (1959) 149. It can be read there the text of the mentioned oath.

It is not known whether there was an answer. But in the following year, Sixtus V issued the Bull ‘Romanus Pontifex’ of December 20, 1585, in which he regulated in detail the obligation to make this visit and to take the aforementioned oath before the consecration. The visitation had to be carried out in person or, in the event of a legitimate obstacle, by a procurator, and he threatened transgressors with such serious penalties as the suspension of the spiritual and temporal administration of the diocese, the collection of the fruits of their churches and even the prohibition of entering the church until they received absolution from the Holy See.[1015]

1015 Cf. ibid., p.152-153 (the Bull in Bullarium Romanum, VIII [Napoli 1883] p.641-645).

Philip II initially delayed the acceptance of the Bull, claiming that the prolonged absence of the bishops due to the visitation would harm the churches of his kingdoms. Two years later, in December 1587, he began to open his hand and allowed them to leave one by one, and in early 1588 he let it be known that he was not opposed to all the prelates going to Rome. But now it was the bishops themselves who refused to go. They cited their poverty, old age, indisposition and illness, the dangers of the journey and even the damage their absence would do to the churches. Some appointed the priests of their diocese, who resided in Rome, as procurators. But the energetic Sixtus V announced in December 1589 “that he would not admit any delegates unless they came from Spain.”[1016]

1016 Cf. ibid., p.189, 191.

So, in 1590, it became the general rule that the bishops sent their delegates or procurators, also moved by letters of exhortation from the nuncio. According to the records in the Vatican Archives, the bishop of Calahorra was the only one who traveled to Rome in person in 1586; the others did so through a procurator, namely: 1589, Seville; 1590: Cartagena, Segorbe, Málaga, Compostela, Burgos, Tarragona, Tarazona, Huesca, Córdoba, Oviedo, Jaén, León, Zamora, Pamplona, Barbastro, Lérida, Salamanca, Ávila and Gerona; 1591: Mallorca, Valencia, Elna, Teruel, Vich, Barcelona, Badajoz, Palencia, Zaragoza and Cuenca; in 1592: Mondoñedo. The names of the procurators are known for all of them. However, there were five other dioceses whose procurators are ‘unknown’ and which carried out the visitation on an equally unknown date, but ‘before April 1592’. These dioceses were Jaca, Coria, Segovia, Sigüenza and... ‘Urgel’.[1017]

1017 Cf. ibid., p.208-211.

The first document found so far that confirms the presence of St. Joseph of Calasanz in Rome is dated February 27, 1592.[1018] It is therefore very likely that the ‘unknown’ procurator of the Bishop of Urgel, who brought the report of the ‘ad limina’ visit to Rome ‘before April 1592’, was Joseph of Calasanz.[1019] According to the Sistine Bull, Spanish bishops had to make such a visit every four years, beginning with the day of consecration, the conferral of the pallium or the transfer of the diocese. Capilla received the appointment in January 1588 and took possession by procurator in April of the same year. Around that time, four years later, the deadline for the Visitation expired. And it was precisely at that time that Calasanz arrived in Rome.[1020]

1018 Cf. G. SÁNTHA, Antiquissimum de praesentia Romana S. P. N. et eiusdem in Sacra Theologia doctoris dignitate documentum: EphCal 2 (1959) 55-56.

1019 In 1966 Poch insinuated - based on unspecified “documentary glimpses” - that the “primary motive” of Calasanz’s trip to Rome would have been to make the ‘ad limina’ visit, comissioned by Capilla (cf. J. POCH, Aportación documental...: AnCal 15 [1966] 246, n.201).

1020 In the study cited in note 1014 above, after listing a long series of Spanish dioceses that had fulfilled the ‘ad limina’ visitation, we read: “It is known that some more completed the quadrennium. It is understood that in due time, otherwise it would be indicated “pro primo et secundo”; this is what Nuncio Caetani says to Card. Aldobrandini on November 6, 1593: Coria, Jaca, Urgel: Andrés Capilla. By procurator?” (l.c., p.204).

Another important detail. The Sistine Bull required the bishops to carry out the visitation in person,[1021] but if they were legitimately prevented from doing so - and all the Spaniards found legitimate obstacles - they could send a procurator “chosen “from the guild of the Chapter, or invested with an ecclesiastical dignity, or possessing a ‘personado’, or a diocesan priest if they had no one invested with an ecclesiastical dignity or a ‘personado’...”[1022]

1021 “…personaliter ac per se ipsos visitaturos” (Buli. Rom., VIII, p.643)

1022 “…aut alium in dignitate ecclesiastica constitutum, seu alias personatum habentem; aut si hujusmodi hominem ecclesiastica dignitate et ‘personatu’ praeditum non habeant, per diocesanum sacerdotem...” (ibid.). The ‘personatus’ was an ecclesiastical dignity, without jurisdiction or office, but with benefice compatible with others.

Now, before leaving for Rome, Calasanz renounced all his offices and dignities as ecclesiastical official of Tremp, general vicar and Visitator of archpriesthoods, and even his ‘plebanías’ of Ortoneda and Claverol. But it is curious that when he gave up the latter, he reserved or established for himself a ‘personado’ with an annual income or pension of 17 pounds and a half, which he was to receive throughout his life from Don Jaime Segur, to whom he ceded the ‘plebanía’, and from his brother; a ‘personado’ that would become a ‘perpetual pious work’ after his death.[1023] This exchange between ‘plebanía’ and ‘personado’ was signed on September 6, 1591 before the notary of Tremp, Louis Vidal, who accompanied Calasanz on his pastoral visits for his archpriesthood.

1023 Thus begins the document of foundation of this pious work: “Ego Josephus Calasans olim Plebanus de Ortoneda, postmodum vero ‘Personatum’ obtinens permutatione mediante cum ipsa Plebania et ‘Personatu’ facta inter me et D. Jacobum Segur Presbyterum...” (EphCal 5 [1932] 200). We will speak of the pious work later.

Thus, when Calasanz embarked on his journey to Rome, he enjoyed no ecclesiastical dignity other than the aforementioned ‘personado’, which leads one to believe that he reserved it for himself on the advice of Capilla, who by this time had already decided that Calasanz was his proxy to fulfill his obligation of visiting ‘ad limina’. And in the absence of greater dignities - which he could obtain in Rome - it was convenient that he at least had a ‘personado’, as required by the Sistine Bull.

Procurator of the diocese of Urgel in Rome

We have already referred to the testimony of a witness who said in the apostolic process of 1686: “then he [Calasanz] came to Rome, where he had the ‘Agenzia’ of that bishop [of Urgel]...”[1024] He probably could not fully explain what this office consisted of, but it remains his testimony. He is the only one of all the witnesses in and outside the processes who gives us this information. And there is no reason to reject it, because the very ambiguity with which it is expressed is a guarantee of its authenticity. On the other hand, he was a witness to whom we must give credit for the familiarity with which he treated the Saint. His name was Thomas Simón; he came from the diocese of Vich and was sixty-eight years old at the time, thirty years old when Calasanz died. He said, “I met the Servant of God, Joseph of the Mother of God, when I was making hosts for the church of St. Pantaleo; and I was making them with a companion who was from a small village near the Servant of God’s village, and for that very reason the Servant of God himself sometimes came to our house and we talked about our domestic affairs.”[1025]

1024 EphCal 17 (1948) 118.

1025 Ibid.

The diocese of Urgel, like many others, did indeed have its procurator in Rome, i.e. the representative entrusted with the affairs of the Holy See. Here, for example, is a resolution of the Chapter of Urgel, ‘sede vacante’, in the session of July 12, 1588, at which Calasanz was secretary: “It was resolved that... all business of the Chapter to be transacted in Rome shall be entrusted as before to the archpriest major and the canon Durán, and that the said gentlemen shall write the letters to be sent to Rome and both shall sign them, and if one is absent, the other shall choose a Capitular with whom to transact the business, and that the Chapter shall notify the Procurator of Rome and that what the said gentlemen write to him shall be treated as business of the Chapter.”[1026]

1026 Quoted in J. POCH, Mossén Josep Calassanç a la diócesi d’Urgell, p.29-30.

The aforementioned Canon Rafael Durán, with whom Calasanz had much to do during his time as secretary of the chapter,[1027] was still in Urgel at the end of May 1590, as evidenced by his presence at the meetings of the Chapter.[1028] A little later, he was appointed procurator in Rome, where he seriously abused his office, whereupon he was dismissed, as recorded in these Chapter minutes of April 10, 1591, the translation of which from Catalan reads as follows:

1027 On August 25, 1587, when the See was vacant, the Chapter decided to send Canon Durán to Barcelona until Easter of the following year, so that as procurator he could deal the pending matters with the Viceroy, particularly the help against the bandits (cf. P. PUJOL I TUBAU, Ob. Comp., p.304, n.56 and 57). For this reason, Calasanz, as secretary of the Chapter, had to relate a lot with him, of which a letter from Calasanz to Durán, dated April 1, 1588, is preserved (ibid., p.329, c.XXXVI; EGC, p.413) X, and this note in Janer’s Journal: “(February 12, 1588) And plus [Calasanz owes Janer] 10 reals for the same given in Barcelona to Sir Rafel Durán, Canon, by his order [of Calasanz], 1 pound.” And Calasanz gives his approval: “Ita est. Josephus Calasanz” (ID., Noves dades, Apend. V p.15).

1028 Cf. J. POCH, l.c., p.30.

“Dismissal of Canon Durán... it was decided that, after it had become known to the Chapter that Canon Durán, now its syndic and procurator, residing in Rome, had attempted to get the archpriesthood of Andorra, already got by Mr. Antony Pau i Boquet, the new holder of that office, with great disregard and to the detriment of the said Chapter... [It was concluded] that by a public act all procurations or procuracies, syndicates or syndications which the said Chapter had granted or signed before one or more notaries were revoked and declared void, so that henceforth he would not use or attempt to use them, but that he be considered neither syndic nor procurator of the said Chapter, and that no salary be paid to him, as they have ordered and instructed me, Paul Alonso, Notary Public, Procurator and Secretary of the said Chapter, to make the record of the said revocation ‘iuxta cursum’.”[1029]

1029 Ibid.

A month later, in the Easter Chapter (May 10, 1591), the matter was discussed again and it was decided that “he should be deprived of all large and small distributions and all emoluments of the Canonry, as well as all other benefits due to his office”, with the proviso that they would be returned to him if the accusation proved to be false.[1030] There is no more concrete news following the process of this dismissal. The fact is that Calasanz renounced his ‘plebania’ of Ortoneda and Claverol on September 6 of the same year, already with a view to his journey to Rome. This suggests that from May to September the Chapter and the Bishop were looking for a solution to the problem of replacing the procurator of Rome and turned to Calasanz, who on his arrival in the Eternal City was received by Durán, whose functions as procurator he would later exercise, as Thomas Simón assures us. And there is no lack of other documentary evidence to confirm this witness’s assertion. In fact, it is recorded that on June 3, 1593, Calasanz wrote a letter to Father Michael Mir, informing him in detail about the costs of documents and Bulls to obtain the ‘pabordía’ of Mur, a church of the archpriesthood of Tremp.[1031] It is also significant that on August 10, 1594, in a matter concerning the composition of the benefices of the collegiate church of Tamarite de Litera, the church Chapter and the city council “ottorgaron y hizieron procuradores suyos (authorized and appointed their procurators) John Ulzinelles Oscen. [of Huesca,] Caspar Vitoria Illerd. [of Lérida] and Josepe Calasanz Urgelen. [of the diocese of Urgel], each of whom resided at the Roman court.”[1032] It is likely that all three were procurators in Rome for their respective dioceses, which is why they address them as persons experienced in such matters.

1030 Ib.

1031 Ibid., p.31.

1032 RegCal, 74, Doc. Merigó, n.217.

It is regrettable that the numerous letters, reports, memoranda and many other documents that must have been exchanged between the Chapter and Capilla on the one hand and the procurator Calasanz on the other have disappeared from the curial archives of Urgel or have not yet been found.

The conflictual situation caused by the behavior of Canon Durán would justify the urgency and haste of Calasanz’s journey, perhaps more than his delegation to present the episcopal report of the ‘ad limina’ visitation, at least in the sense that the latter could be carried out in a few weeks without requiring urgent resignations from positions such as the ‘plebanía‘ of Claverol, while the office of procurator had no fixed deadline and could last for many years. In any case, both tasks significantly distort the predominant meaning or motivation to be given to the desire for a canonry and, moreover, leave untouched the motivating preponderance of the mysterious inner voices.

Inappropriate moment to go to Rome

The complexity of the historical moment in which Calasanz decides to go to Rome is such that it requires a serious and compelling motivation that makes the journey urgent. It would therefore be inexplicable, not to say irresponsible and capricious, if the primary and decisive reason for the journey were personal ambition for a canonry. It seems more reasonable that he was compelled to go for one of the two reasons we have examined, and even more so for both together, i.e. the ‘ad limina’ visit and the replacement of the dismissed Canon Durán in his office as diocesan Procurator. No less reasonable would be the urgency to listen to the inner voice “Go to Rome”, which in these circumstances could be reinforced by the echo of these words: “Follow me and let the dead bury their own dead” (Mt 8:22).

During the five years that Calasanz spent in Urgel and Tremp (1587-1591), the situation in the County of Ribagorza continued to be very conflictual and dramatic. And he could not help but follow events with real anxiety, not only because of what was happening in Peralta and his sister Magdalena and other family members who lived there, but above all because of Joanna and her family in Benabarre, the capital of the county and the scene of the worst events; and also because of the relatives who lived in Arén, an equally hot zone. There is no lack of evidence of their frequent visits to Benabarre during these eventful years, which must have extended to Peralta and Arén given their proximity.[1033]

1033 In 1651, Francis Fuster, neighbor of Benabarre declared: “the deponent knew very well Dr. Joseph Calasanz named in the article for having seen and spoken to him in this village of Benabarre some times when he came to it from the town of Tremp to see Joanna Calasanz, his sister who was married to Peter John Agustí and was staying in his house” (quoted in Rass 26-27 [1957] 44).

Despite the resolutions of the Cortes of Monzón, the mandate of Felipe II and the attempt of the Bayle General of Aragón to actually bring the county of Ribagorza into the possession of its rightful lord, the Duke of Villahermosa, it was all to no avail, as the rebels led by John de Ager continued in power. The entire kingdom of Aragón demanded the intervention of the royal forces to punish the rebels. But Philip II again refused to intervene. So, the Duke and his supporters, including the Baron de la Laguna, Lord of the House of Castro and the Barony of Peralta de la Sal, decided to seize the County. At the end of May 1587, he invaded Benabarre by surprise and, after fierce fighting, managed to hand over the indomitable John de Ager, who was barbarically gored, stripped, dragged through the streets and beheaded in the Plaza Mayor by placing his head on one of the city gates. The Duke’s troops systematically plundered the houses and lands of all the supposed rebels in the city. And shortly afterwards, Calasanz, John de Ager’s home town, which is so close to Peralta, also fell. Another part of the ducal army was able to thwart the rebels by taking the town of Arén by force of arms.[1034]

1034 Cf. G. COLÁS-J. A. SALAS, Aragón en el siglo XVI. Alteraciones sociales y conflictos políticos, p.136-141.

The duke’s victorious and personal undertaking displeased Philip II, who feared losing the opportunity to annex the Earldom to the Crown. After the failure of judicial attempts to incriminate the duke as a supporter of heretics, the Court itself encouraged a reaction against the ducal forces and there was a renewed attack on the town in February 1588, but the castle was heroically defended. After a truce, hostilities resumed and in April the troops of the Count of Ribagorza, whose leaders included the Baron de la Laguna, Lord of Castro, attacked the rebels who had taken up arms in Tolva. New Catalan reinforcements supported the Tolva troops and defeated the Duke of Villahermosa’s army.

This success emboldened the insurgents, who moved to Benabarre, surrounded it and “burned down more than a hundred houses in the town and demolished many others. No house remained intact; they looted three churches and the hospital... they surrounded the fortress and kept it under siege for a month.” On May 8th, the besiegers fled because they received word that an army of three thousand men was approaching... And one of the illustrious victims of this unrest was Don Felipe de Castro y Cervellón, Baron de la Laguna, Lord of the House of Castro, loyal ally and armed defender of the Duke of Villahermosa and the Count of Ribagorza.[1035]

1035 Ibid., p.141-147; J. R. MONER, San José de Calasanz y el bandolerismo en la Corona de Aragón: An Cal 9 (1963)135-136.

A new siege of Benabarre took place in November 1588. One of Aragón’s most famous and disruptive bandits was Lupercio Latrás, then an ally of the Duke of Villahermosa. In that month of November, the governor of Aragón hunted Lupercio in vain for almost fifteen days, who finally took refuge with his men in the fortress of Benabarre. As on other occasions, he was welcomed by the duke’s supporters, who defended the castle. The governor arrived with his army and besieged the fortress at the end of November. Lupercio escaped with his men by deceitful means. On December 20th, the siege was broken and the governor’s troops entered the fortress and found 100 men and 300 women and children, “undoubtedly the inhabitants of the city”[1036] Would not Calasanz’s sister, her husband and children be among these people? Five men were executed, in addition to the warden of the castle.

1036 Cf. G. COLÁS-J. A. SALAS, o.c., p.268.

The long and dramatic history of the county of Ribagorza came to an end. The duke was summoned to Madrid. There were compromises, and finally he ceded his rights to the king, and the County was finally incorporated into the Crown. On March 6, 1591, Don Alonso Celdrán took possession of the County in the name of Philip II and destroyed the impregnable castle of Benabarre, of which a crenelated tower still stands today. The unrest of Ribagorza was over, and with it one of the most dramatic and harrowing chapters in the young life of Joseph Calasanz.

The unrest caused by Philip II’s secretary, Antonio Pérez, was no less serious. He had escaped from the prisons of Madrid in April 1590 and come to Aragón, claiming the protection of his privileges because he was Aragonese. On November 12, 1591, the royal army arrived in Zaragoza and provoked an uprising in defense of the kingdom’s privileges. On December 20, the Justice of Aragón, Lanuza, was beheaded. Further executions of rebel leaders followed in January, including Don Martín de Espés, Baron of La Laguna and Lord of the House of Castro and the Barony of Peralta de la Sal.

A few days before the royal army marched into Zaragoza, Antonio Perez had fled to France. He managed to interest the Princes of Bearn and the French King Henry IV in a planned “invasion of Spain”, which was based on a general uprising of the Kingdom of Aragón, especially the ‘Moriscos’. It did not remain an easy project, but the Bearnes’ meager army crossed the Pyrenees and reached Biescas, where they were destroyed on February 19, 1592 by the Aragonese, who had resisted the invasion in time, fearing that the whole of France would fall upon them.[1037]

1037 Cf. G. MARAÑÓN, Antonio Pérez (Madrid 1952) II, p.477-549.

At this very time, Joseph Calasanz was already on the high seas on his way to the coasts of Italy. It is therefore logical that in the last months he followed the dramatic events of Saragossa with growing concern, fearing - like the whole kingdom of Aragón - the vengeful reaction of the King, even in the baronies and lands of those who, like the Baron de la Laguna, were on the side of the defender of the ‘fueros’ (privileges of the kingdom) against the royal action. And he could not remain indifferent in the face of the threat of a foreign invasion which could sweep across the Pyrenees and devastate with blood and fire all the regions of northern Aragón where his people lived. What urgent need could not be postponed that moved him to leave his country at this very moment of fear and dread of revenge and impending war? He was still concerned about such events, as is evident when he wrote to the parish priest of Peralta on May 16 of the same year, 1592: “I wish very much to have news of this country....” And in November, he acknowledged receipt of the priest’s letter and informed him: “With your letter of September 29, which I received on November 20, I have experienced a special satisfaction and mercy, since through it I have understood the news that exists in this country; that as a native I enjoy much of its good, and its evils afflict me.”[1038]

1038 EGC II, c.3 and 4. Poch and López Navío also believe that these words of Calasanz refer to “the events of Zaragoza” (cf. J. POCH, San José de Calasanz oficial eclesiástico..., p.35O, n.56; J. LÓPEZ NAVÍO, Ambiente histórico y social..., p.214).

Apparent resignations before the time

Joseph Calasanz’s journey to Rome would cut his long life in two. It would be a journey of no return. And the hagiographers have overemphasized this cut, depicting it as a “burning one´s boats”, so to speak. It is the voice of God that urges him - Armini writes - “to leave Spain and imbue his soul with the desire for Rome...”; he feels no ambition for honors and dignities; he also has the dream that Caputi spoke of, that he sees himself surrounded by children, and he consults with men of the spirit and they advise him to make the journey. And he renounces his offices and benefices, with the means of which he founds a pious work for the poor of Ortoneda and Claverol; then he goes to Peralta and sells his fortune in favor of the poor and his sisters and nieces... “and so, completely detached from his home, from his relatives and from all that he could hope for in Aragón and in Spain, he set out for Barcelona, where he boarded a ship bound for Italy and sailed for Rome.”[1039]

1039 Cf. ARMINI, Vita, p.40-42. Talenti repeats the same version: cf. TALENTI, Vita, .28-30.

We can almost hear the tearing of the moorings as they fall into the waters of the harbor, releasing the caravel, and we can perceive the heroic severing of all the human ties that bound Calasanz to his estates, his honors, his offices, his family, his people and his homeland. It all sounds like a final farewell. It was indeed a voyage of no return, but when Calasanz left the port of Barcelona, he neither knew nor suspected this. He was thinking of returning soon. In the letter he wrote to the parish priest of his village in November of the same year, he asked him to encourage his nephew Antonio Joan Pastor, the son of his sister Magdalena, in his studies, “that as soon as I return to Spain,” he added, “I will take care of everything necessary.” And to the houses of both sisters, Magdalena and Maria, he said: “You will send greetings on my behalf to my nieces from the house of Peter Ferrer, as well as to my sister and her daughters, and you will tell them that I would like to return to Spain soon so that I can help them with what they need.”[1040]

1040 EGC II, c.4.

He intended to return soon. And the main reasons for the journey did not commit him to a very long stay; the visit ‘ad limina’ was a matter of a few days; the replacement of the procurator Durán could be temporary as long as he was in Rome or until another was appointed; obtaining a canonry could take more or less time, but implicitly included the condition of returning to occupy it personally; even the same mysterious voice “go to Rome” did not require him to sit there forever.

It is therefore incomprehensible why he had to permanently renounce their offices and benefices or dispose of their assets in favor of the poor or their sisters. This complete detachment, even from family affections, does not seem to be the fruit of an inner conversion to evangelical poverty and humility, as the hagiographers assume, based on the real fact of their journey of no return and their future sanctity. Things must have proceeded in more human and normal ways. This does not mean that his holiness and his characteristic appreciation of poverty and detachment are discredited, but merely that events are postponed in order to put them in their proper order.

In the absence of more precise documentation, it is more normal to assume that he retained his income from property and usufruct as long as he could. In Urgel we have seen that he spent much more than he received for his curial dues. In Rome we also see that he arrived well endowed with funds, because a few days later he granted an interest-free loan of 200 escudos to the Canon and friend Balthasar Compte from Tarragona.[1041] For many years, he would worry about the efficiency of his administrators in Spain and change them several times.[1042] From the beginning of his “pious work” of the Pious Schools, he will need a lot of money to cover the expenses, and the money will mainly come from Spain. It can therefore be assumed that he received some from his fortune.

1041 Cf. EphCal 2 (1959) 55-58.

1042 Cf. EphCal 6 (1959) 219-226.

As far as his benefice is concerned, we know nothing about what happened to the benefice in Monzon, which is mentioned for his ordination as a subdeacon.[1043] We do not know whether he resigned his office as an Ecclesiastical Official and General Vicar of Tremp before the journey or only afterwards, when his return was postponed. The appointments as General Visitator of the archpriesthoods of Tremp, Sort, Tirvia and Cardós offices were temporary rather than permanent, and after the voyage they no longer had any reason to exist.

1043 He probably renounced it, claiming other greater benefices in Rome, since when he applied for the canonry of Barbastro in 1594 he says that he has no other ecclesiastical benefices other than that of Fraga, non-residential, which he had obtained in Rome on February 20, 1593 (EphCal 6 [1957] 140; 11 [1960] 323-324).

The only office of which we have documentary evidence of his resignation is the ‘plebania’ of Ortoneda and Claverol, but we cannot be sure that the resignation was related to his future trip to Rome, although it is likely that this was one of the reasons. But it deserves a closer look.

The fruits of the resignation of the parishes of Ortoneda and Claverol

Don Francis Motes stated in his letter of December 11, 1648, that Dr. Calasanz “gave the ‘plebania’ and the parish of Claverol to Mn. James Segur de Vilamitjana with a ‘personado’ of 17 and a half escudos. Calasanz, and since he had to serve for pious works, he used it for the poor of his parish, without concern for flesh and blood, and so alms were given on two main feasts of the year, Easter and Pentecost, as agreed.”[1044] So, there were two different legal acts: the exchange of the ‘plebanias’ by the ‘personado’ and the establishment or foundation of a pious work for the benefit of the poor of Ortoneda and Claverol. And both are still well documented today.

1044 Cf. BAU, BC, p.174, collated with the original (RegCal 13, 1.1.).

In fact, at an unknown date, Don Bernard Rosell, parish priest of Ortoneda y Claverol, took a copy of the original Latin document on the foundation of the pious work, which explicitly refers to the previous document on the exchange.[1045] The latter was signed on September 6, 1591 before the notary of Tremp, Louis Vidal, whom Calasanz had used so often, and provided for the cession by Calasanz of the plebanias of Ortoneda and Claverol in exchange for a ‘personado’ created by Don James Segur, parish priest of Vilamitjana,[1046] and guaranteed by his brother John Segur, whose annual income or annuity was to be 17 pounds and a half. In other words, Calasanz exchanged these ‘plebanias’ for a perpetual ‘censal’ of 240 pounds,[1047] which was created by the Segur brothers and yielded an annual pension of 17.5 pounds.

1045 Published by L. Picanyol in EphCal 5 (1932) 200-201. The original by Rossell and two more copies are preserved in RegCal 13, 6-7.

1046 Don Manuel Motes, Plébano of Ortoneda y Claverol, reviewing in 1740 the parish books observed that on February 16 and 20, 1588, Plébano Antony Berenguer, predecessor of Calasanz, had two baptisms, and since those days “I do not find that any Plebán baptized but vicars until became Plebán Jaime Segur Presbo (priest) of the Town of Villamediana [Vilamitjana] who on December 10, 1591 baptized one as Plebán” (J. POCH, Un documento inédito sobre San Joseph de Calasanz: Argensola 42 [1960] 105).

1047 Don Manuel Motes defines it as a ‘censal’ in his statement quoted in the previous note: “…on the validity of two orders that were signed as a ‘censal’...” (ibid., p.107); in a notarial document of 1604, in which Calasanz appoints procurators of his “pious work”, we read: “omnes et singulos fructus decursos et in futurum decurrendos ‘census’ ad favorem dicti Domini [Calasanz]...” (EphCal 6 [1959] 224-225). The ‘censal’ was a document similar to a bank deposit, in which it was recorded that a certain person had lent another a sum of money for a determined or undetermined time, with the burden of paying him a pension or annual interest.

In a second step, Calasanz established a foundation in his will before the notary Caspar Múa with the proceeds of the aforementioned ‘censal’, i.e. that he would receive this annuity during his lifetime and that after his death it would be used for the charitable purposes specified in the foundation, i.e. to support the poor of the two villages of Ortoneda and Claverol.[1048] The administrators of the pious work would buy 15 pounds of wheat at harvest time and keep it.[1049] Eight days before Easter they would distribute half of this wheat free of charge to the poor of the two villages and the other half also eight days before Pentecost. He appointed the parish priests of Pobla de Segur and Ortoneda and Claverol as administrators, each of whom was to receive a pound for their administrative work. He also demanded that the ecclesiastical official of Tremp or the Visitator of the archpriesthood check the account book every year, in which the quantity of wheat purchased, the names of the poor served and the portion given to each individual had to be entered. The auditor also charged ten sous for his work, which together with the other expenses amounted to exactly 17.5 pounds.[1050]

1048 “Ego Josephus Calasans olim Plebanus de Ortoneda, postmodum vero Personatum obtinens permutatione mediante cum ipsa Plebania et Personatu facta inter me et D. Jacobum Segur Presbyterum de Villa Meana (sic) dimitto, et consigno post obitum meum totam illam annuam pensionem 17 librarum et 10 solidorum, quam quolibet anno tenetur persolvere ratione dicti Personatus praedictus D. Jacobus Segur principalis, et frater eius Joannes Segur, ut fideiiussor, Instrumento mediante in posse discreti Ludovici Vidal Notarii Villae Trempi die 6 septembris 1591 recepto et testificato, pro subveniendis Pauperibus in oppido de Ortoneda et Claverol habitantibus...” (ibid., p.200). In this copy, due to Don Bernardo Rossell, there is no mention of the notary Gaspar Mua, who endorses the foundation, but Calasanz testifies it in a letter of September 8, 1617, addressed to the Motes (cf. C.16).

1049 In the years 1587-1590, a load of wheat cost in Urgel about 3 pounds (cf. P. PUJOL I TUBAU, Ob. Comp. p.537).

1050 Cf. EphCal 5 (1932) 200-201.

The charitable idea of helping the needy not with money but with wheat was already used by the Bishop of Barbastro. He justified this by saying that it was easier to distribute wheat than money, because “if the rents were in money, I do not know if they would be distributed with this generosity.”[1051] Wheat was the very basis of nutrition, and therefore its supply was one of the fundamental concerns of towns and cities, especially with regard to the poor. In the ‘Chronicle of Talarn’ we read in this regard: “Year 1594. Year of the poor harvest. In Talarn, it was customary for the town council to appoint two stewards each year to buy all the wheat needed for the year’s consumption from the common fund, sell it to the poor and administer it for the town’s benefice...”[1052]

1051 Cf. ch. 6, n.517 of this work.

1052 Cf. in J. POCH, San Jose de Calasanz, Oficial eclesidstico..., p.304.

On the other hand, it was customary for the wealthy to remember the poor in their wills, leaving them not only bequests that were distributed only once, but also through ‘censales’, the fruits of which - few or many - were distributed every year, as Calasanz did.[1053]

1053 On August 25, 1546, John Calasanz, supposed brother of the Saint’s father, stipulated in his will: “I will, order and command that from my goods ten sous ‘jaqueses’ of perpetual income be founded... so that they may be distributed and alloted to the purely needy poor in each year in the town of Benabarre... for which by my undersigned executors, 200 sous ‘jaqueses’ be taken from my estate” (J. LÓPEZ NAVÍO, Testamento de Micer John Calasanz, p.20). The generosity of Joseph de Calasanz, who instituted an annual income of 17 and a half pounds, is even greater, while this Micer John leaves only half a pound.

Don Francis Motes aptly said that Calasanz intended this ‘personado’ “for the poor of his community, without regard to flesh and blood.” He could have left it as a legacy to his relatives, as others did.[1054] It was undoubtedly a gesture of charity towards the poor, but... it was not an act of personal detachment, for as long as he lived, he would collect this pension, and indeed it was so until he was no longer able to own property of his own because of his vow of poverty, and then, as he himself wrote to his friends, the Motes de Pont de Claverol, on September 8, 1617, he told them:

1054 Let us remember, for example, the founder of the Holy Hospital of Tremp, who institutes a “pious cause” with an annual income of 100 pounds “for the marriageable maidens of his lineage or parentage” (cf. n.55 of c.8).

“When I left Tremp, I left in the officers’ archives a public deed, made by the notary Caspar Mua, and a book, that it might be delivered to you after my death, in which it is ordered that every year from the house of Mn. Segur, of Vilamitjana, be charged 17 (pounds), 10 sous, to buy so much wheat and distribute it among the poor of Claverol and Ortoneda, and because I can no longer have said income, I would like it to be used for this pious work...”[1055]

1055 C.16. He took his simple vows the following year (March 19, 1618), but he expressly wanted the annuity of 1617 to be applied to the pious work.

As he founded his Pious Schools in Rome, the income from his ‘personado’ was naturally intended to cover his numerous expenses. And there were complications due to the inefficiency of his Spanish administrators, who ensured that the pensions did not always arrive on time.[1056] But there had been even more complications since 1617, when the pious cause should have been working, so on January 20, 1620, he wrote a letter in Catalan to the Plébano de Claverol, insisting again and stating with a notarial deed that he could no longer receive pensions due to his vow of poverty and that they should distribute them with the arrears according to the clauses of the foundation.[1057] However, it seems that his wish was only fulfilled after his death.[1058]

1056 See the various changes of such procurators, before the Roman notaries Panizza and Betti, in the years 1599-1609, in G. SÁNTHA, Quinque instrumenta... EphCal 6 (1959) 219-226. And an overdue debt of five years, recognized in 1610 by Canon Segur: ‘Sir Canon Seguer (sic) from the town of Tremp owes to the Rev. Community of Peralta 87 pounds 10 sous for that of mossen Calasans...” (cf. J. POCH, Tres testamentos..., p.475, n.33 ter).

1057 C.45.

1058 Cf. EGC II, p.68.

In 1740, Don Manuel de Motes, Plébano of Claverol, assured that “the above-mentioned pious work that the Vble. Patriarch [Calasanz] in the above-mentioned letter [of 8.9.1617] had such an effect that its observance continues to this day without the slightest deviation, so that in this town of Claverol it is called the Pious Work of Calasanz....”[1059] And in 1906 Coy y Cotonat wrote: “The last distribution was made by the parish priest of Pobla de Segur, Mr. Joseph Ballarín, treasurer, and in Claverol by Mr. Ignacio Vilanova, in 1833... Since that date, there is no memory of this foundation....”[1060]

1059 Cf. J. POCH, Un documento inédito..., p.107.

1060 A. COY and COTONAT, o.c., p.350. Besides this foundation, the biographers also spoke of a different one to endow poor marriageable girls (cf. Breve Notizia: BAU, BV, p.12, and what is said in ch. 8, n°. 5 and n.897 of this work). In a letter from Alacchi to Calasanz, signed in Guissona on May 2, 1638, he says: “I was told that the legacy made by Your Paternity to dress so many orphans every year...” (EHI I, p.40). Neither of these two pious works have been supported by further documentary evidence. They cannot, therefore, be denied absolutely, but it is more probable that they were supposed extensions of the so variously verified “pious work” of the wheat for the poor, as Sántha supposes with respect to the one alluded to by Alacchi (cf. ibid., n.19).

The Doctorate in Theology

In the first four surviving letters that Calasanz wrote from Rome to the parish priest of his city, he signed himself - not without a certain touch of vanity - as ‘Doctor Joseph Calasans’.[1061] The first document was dated May 16, 1592. But in the very first document, which attests to his presence in Rome and is dated February 27 of the same year, we read in Latin: “Rdo. Josepho Calasans de Peralta, Urgellensis dioc., etc., in sacra pagina doctore”,[1062] i.e. doctor of theology, as it is later explicitly stated in several writings.[1063]

1061 Cf. c.3, 4, 5 and 6.

1062 Cf. EphCal 2 (1959) 58.

1063 In the petition to Pope Clement VIII for a benefice of Fraga, made at the end of 1592 or beginning of 1593, it is presented: “orator Josephus Calasanz, presbyter Urgellensis, Sacrae Theologiae Doctor...” (EphCal 11 [1960] 309). In other petitions for benefices, from 1594 and 1596, he is named: “Magister in Theologia et in Romana curia praesens” (EphCal 6 [1957] 147-148), etc.

In many other writings relating to his stay in the diocese of Urgel, he is referred to with the title Bachelor or Professor of Theology,[1064] but in none of them does he appear as a Doctor.[1065] Particularly significant are the two appointments of Visitators made for Calasanz and Gervás de las Eras: the first, dated June 28, 1589, refers to the archpriesthood of Tremp, and when quoted states that Gervás is “Doctor of Theology and Dean of Senterada”, while Calasanz is only said to be “Plébano de Claverol y Ortoneda”[1066]; the second, dated May 5, 1590, refers to the archpriesthood of Tremp, Sort, Tirvia and Cardós, and states that Gervás is a Doctor of Theology, while Calasanz is a Professor of Sacred Theology.[1067] If Calasanz was already a Doctor at this time, it would logically appear in these official documents where this title is conferred on his visiting companion.

1064 Cf. J. POCH, Aportación documental biográfico-calasancia, p.279, n.9.

1065 In 1750 Don Antonio de Ager y Ferrer claims to have read a Latin document, dated January 11, 1588, which spoke of “Dr. Dn. Josephum de Calasanz Presbyterum...”, and he himself was surprised, since in the signature he only said “Joseph Calasanz” (cf. J. POCH, o.c., p.278). And it was a mistake, because after that date he is still called ‘Bachelor’.

1066 “Die XXVIII junii 1589 fuit expedita provisio visitandi Officialatum Trempi pro Dis. dominis Petro Gervas, Theologie Doctori, Dean of Sancta Arada, et Josepho Calaçans, plebano de Claverol et Ortoneda, et eorum altero” (P. PUJOL I TUBAU, Ob. comp., p.335, doc. VII.

1067 “…dilectis nobis in Christo Rdis. Gervasio de las Eras presbitero, sacre Theologie doctori, Decano de Sancta Arada et Josepho Calaçans, presbitero, et professori sacre Theologie, plebano de Claverol et Ortoneda, Officiali nostro in villa et officialatu Trempi...” (ibid., p.336, doc. XII).

The last time that academic titles are mentioned before his journey to Rome is in a series of documents signed in Durro on July 5, 1590, in which the initials S.T.B. (‘Sacrae Theologiae Bacchalaureus’), i.e. Bachellor in theology, are added to Calasanz’s name.[1068] From this we must conclude that he obtained the title of Doctor of Theology between July 5, 1590 and February 27, 1592, most likely in Spain, where he had completed his college studies. But where?

1068 Cf. J. MIR DURÁN, o.c., p.344, n. and 347, n. (mistakenly reads SJB, instead of STB).

The often-mentioned priest Francis Motes said in his letter of December 11, 1648 that Calasanz “went to Rome and Barcelona ‘alli Studi’”, whose last Italian expression Picanyol translated into Latin as ‘studiorum causa’[1069] and then into Spanish as ‘para los estudios’ (for the studies).[1070] The same idea is also taken up by Bau[1071] and Poch[1072]. It is quite obvious that Motes explicitly refers to the “ General Studium” or University of Barcelona[1073]. And although he did not study there, it is very likely that it was one of the universities that recognized each other’s studies, since it is recorded that in 1581 the University of Valencia included those of Barcelona and Mexico in its long list, which already included those of Lérida and Alcalá,[1074] among many others. Calasanz had studied theology in Lérida, Valencia and Alcalá and was therefore able to do his doctorate at any of these universities and at the universities they recognized, such as Barcelona.

1069 Cf. EphCal 3(1957) 112.

1070 Cf. Rass 26-27 (1957) 62.

1071 “…and to Barcelona for studies” (BAU, RV, p.60). In his previous works he wrote “and to Barcelona to the Studies” (BAU, BC, p.174; ID., Historia de las E. Pías en Cataluña, p.55), meaning “to the Studies, to the University of Barcelona”, which seemed an exaggeration to Picanyol (Cf. EGC II, p.36).

1072 Cf. J. POCH, San Joseph de Calasanz y seis obispos españoles: RevCal 12 (1957) 153-161; ID., Cuatro cartas inéditas de D. Ramón Gayá Massot: Ilerda 37 (1976) 307.

1073 The original document, today preserved (RegCal 13,1,1), is an Italian translation by Caputi of the original text of Motes’ letter, addressed to Dr. Figuerola, from Barcelona. The normal thing is to suppose that Motes, a Catalan, writes to Figuerola, a Catalan, in that language, and therefore the expression used would be “a lo Studi” (Studium), in the singular. But Caputi read it plural or left it as it was, which in Italian is plural (Studi = studies).

1074 Cf. n.432 of our chap.5.

He could not obtain a doctorate in 1583, when he finished his studies in Lérida, partly because he had to be twenty-seven years old according to the Statutes in force,[1075] and Calasanz reached this age in September 1584. On the other hand, and in view of the mutual recognition, the requirements in Barcelona could be identical to those of Lérida, at whose college - writes Father Poch - “the ‘theological licence’ (“licentia ubique docendi”) and the doctorate were awarded in a single examination, which could be taken on three consecutive days. In the specific case of the university student Joseph Calasanz, and according to our research in the archives of the centers of Huesca and Lérida (also in Tarragona and Barcelona), we believe that our student received the title of Bachellor theologian (after passing four courses in official and college examinations). To this title was added the designation of ‘Professor sacrae theologiae’ (it was not a title), after having fulfilled a certain number of “lessons” or exercises of public teaching in the subject, as prescribed by the university statutes of those years.”[1076]

1075 Cf. letter of Gayá Massot, in J. POCH, Four letters..., p.306.

1076 Cf. J. POCH, Aportación documental a la historia de la Univ. de Huesca..., p.223-224, n.168.

Motes’ statement would also have the value of extending it in the sense that he went to study in Barcelona to obtain the doctorate. The Jesuits of Bethlehem College could have awarded him the doctorate if, as I said, he had been able to attend the public courses in both Valencia and Alcalá that the Society had opened to non-Jesuits, with the ability to confer academic titles. And the College of Bethlehem had obtained official recognition of its theological studies, on a par with those of the general ‘Studi’, by a resolution of the ‘Council of One Hundred’ on October 2, 1574.[1077]

1077 “The present Council of Trentans [of the Council of One Hundred of Barcelona] called and gathered inside the (?) New of the said Council, and heard the ordinations submitted conteining in fact that the lessons the students of Theology will hear in the House of Bellem have the same value as if were heard in the General Studi of this city” (October 2, 1574). Deliberations of the Council, f. 123v. Massan Library of Barcelona.

As support and influence to facilitate the formalities and ingratiate himself with the Jesuits of the said college in Barcelona, he could undoubtedly count on his own bishop and protector Capilla, who attended the Provincial Council of Tarragona in the last months of 1591 and the first months of 1592, the first sessions of which were held in this city and the others in Barcelona.[1078] Capilla has been not only a Jesuit, but also a special benefactor of the College of Bethlehem, where he had very good friends.[1079]

1078 See his name in the list of attendees in J. SÁENZ DE AGUIRRE, Collectio maxima Conciliorum omnium Hispaniae et Novi Orbis (Rome 1693) t.IV, p.604-605.

1079 “Dom Andrés Capilla, Bishop of Urgel, who was aliquando ex nostris... on November 12, 1590 made a donation to this College [of Bethlehem] of all the pensions of that ‘censal’ that the House of the Duke of Sousa and Sesa has in the Calle Ancha of this city [of Barcelona]. It answers to the episcopal table of Urgel” (“De los bienes raíces del Colegio de Belén, de Barcelona”). (Cited in J. POCH, AnCal 4 [1960] 292.)

To this day, it is not possible to find a definitive solution to this question, in which other hypotheses with more or less solid foundations have emerged, as the universities of Lérida, Tarragona, Perpignan, Zaragoza... and even the Dominican college ‘Schola Christi’ of Tremp.[1080] But we have to agree that the most convincing hypothesis is the one that points to Barcelona as the place where Calasanz received his doctorate in theology.[1081]

1080 Among the bibliography cited so far see above all: J. POCH, San José de Calasanz y seis obispos españoles, p.153-161; ID., San José de Calasanz Oficial eclesiástico..., p.290-293; Rass 26-27 (1957) 62-64; EGC II, p.35-36; J. LÓPEZ NAVÍO, Ambiente histórico..., p.217-219. On the hypothesis of Alcalá de Henares, cf. J. POCH, Aportación doc. a la historia de la Univ. de Huesca..., p.198, n.123.

1081 And that was Poch’s last opinion (cf. Cat 258 [1983] 4-6).

Why did he decide to obtain his doctorate in theology before going to Rome? As we have already said, among the reasons for his journey, his aspiration for a canonry cannot be overlooked, specifically in Urgel, as he tells his parish priest: “I wanted at the time of my arrival a canonry in Urgel.”[1082] And it seems that one of the conditions was to have the title of doctor or licentiate.[1083]

1082 EGC II, c.3.

1083 “Before Ferdinand VII (1814-1833) no canonry of the Cathedral of Urgel was given possession if the person was not adorned with a title of nobility or with the academic degrees of Doctor or Licentiate” (J. CORTS, Historia de la Seo de Urgel [Barcelona 1953] p.160).

Contrary to all documentary evidence, tradition attributed to him the title of doctorate in both Laws and even that of Philosophy,[1084] in addition to the single and amply documented one of Theology. This certainly served him well as a prerequisite for becoming a canon, but its failure gradually made him forget his university degree as he progressed along the shining path of humility. And one fine day, he took the scissors and tore up the precious parchment, turning the strips into a kind of whip to beat the unruly students[1085] ... but without anger!

1084 Already from the first biographers, such as Catalucci in his Breve Notizia (BAU, RV, p.11), Berro (BERRO I, p.55), Fr. Jacinth (cfr. n. 264, ch. 4 of this work), etc.

1085 Fr. Scassellati declared in the process of 1651: “I have been told that he tore the diploma of his Doctorate and he made so many strips to correct the children “ (RegCal 30, p.96). It is interesting to note that, contrary to the prevailing tradition, he speaks of a single doctorate. Talenti, however, picking up the news, pluralizes it: “of the parchments of his diplomas and doctoral degrees, he torn them into narrow and long strips and knotted and made lashings for use in schools...” (TALENTI, Vita, p.126).

Farewell

On December 3, 1591, the merchant of Urgel, Antonio Janer, noted in his account book an entry of 14 pounds, 3 sous and a denari paid to him by his friend Calasanz “for what was in the Journal”.[1086] And Pujol comments: “Would this large amount be paid for the goods he had acquired on the eve of his departure for Rome?”[1087]

1086 “And December 3, 1591, 14 pounds, 3 sous, 1 denari, for what is in the Journal” (cf. P. PUJOL I TUBAU, Noves dades, Apend. V, p.21).

1087 Ib., p.20 of the text. The Appendices are paginated differently in the manuscript we possess.

This is the last documented date of Calasanz’s stay in Spain. The following date indicates that he was already in Rome on February 27, 1592, and the previous date is that of the exchange of his ‘plebanías’ by the ‘personado’ on September 6, 1591. In addition, there is another event that may have indirectly influenced Calasanz’s probable last-minute transfers. Namely, on October 19, 1591, a Council of the entire ecclesiastical province began in Tarragona, which was to end in Barcelona[1088] and in which the bishop of Urgel, Andrés Capilla, participated, although he was not present at all the sessions due to his ailments, but he followed them from his beloved neighboring Carthusian monastery of Scala Dei.[1089] The first 15 sessions were held in Tarragona until November 16th and then interrupted to continue in Barcelona at the end of the year or early 1592.[1090]

1088 Cf. Constitutionum Provincialium Tarraconensium libri quinque, Tarracone. Apud Philippum Robertum. MDXCIII, f.4.

1089 Cf. J. VALLS, Primer Instituto de la santa Religión de la Cartuxa (Barcelona 1792) P.79-80.

1090 Cf. Episcopologio de Vich, t.III (1904), p.111-112.

Calasanz’s presence in Urgel at the beginning of December fits perfectly with the dates of the interruption of the Council and makes it possible that he moved to Barcelona before or later to obtain the doctorate. Perhaps he was supported by Capilla’s recommendations, and perhaps he accompanied his bishop for a time on his retreat in Scala Dei. He was probably already preparing his journey from the time of his resignation from the parishes of Ortoneda and Claverol and therefore resigned from his functions as church Official of Tremp and Visitator in order to be free for the question of his doctorate, to accompany Capilla to Tarragona and to say goodbye to his family.

Although he intended to return from Rome, it was the most natural thing to say goodbye to his sisters and nephews, his people and his closest friends. And so, he returned to Peralta - for the last time, without knowing it - to see his sister Magdalene, who would die the following year;[1091] his husband, Antonio Pastor, and their son and daughters; his brother-in-law Peter Ferrer, the widower of her sister Maria, and their daughters. She also spoke with the parish priest Don Joseph Texidor and the other beneficiaries priests. From Peralta, he traveled to Benabarre to bid farewell to his sister Joanna, her husband Peter John Blanch and their son and daughters, and to comment bitterly on the recent events in the now defunct County of Ribagorza, hoping that a lasting peace would finally come. From Benabarre, he would travel up to Arén to bid farewell to the family of his late sister Elizabeth. And finally, sooner or later, he would undoubtedly go down to Alcampel to say goodbye to his niece Catalina Carpi, the orphan of his sister Hope, but universal heiress of his father’s house, who had no descendants from his second wife. She was a girl of about seventeen at the time.[1092]

1091 Cf. EGC II, c.5.

1092 She married John Giró on September 7, 1597, and the marriage chapters state that “the said Catharina Carpi maiden [brings to the marriage]... and the said John Carpi her father and Mary Segarra spouses and her grandmother Magdalene Abella give her and make a donation propter nuptias of all their movable goods and places...” (Doc. Merigó n.65).

Unconsciously, she was also saying goodbye to the countryside and to the lands of La Litera and Ribagorza, to the low hills that were not as dry and bare as they are now. He looked once more - and it was the last time - at the houses of his village, rooted in the ravine, and at the stone block of the old Romanesque church where the graves of his parents and his siblings John, Peter and Mary were buried. And his own house and smithy, where the forge was off, the anvil and hammers were silent and the rings still hanged on the outside walls, where the little donkeys used to be tied, waiting patiently for their turn to change horseshoes. I would also enter the valley of the salt pans again, where the sun echoed in the dense blue water and even the air breathed saltpeter. And the olive groves..., especially the one he entered one day in his childhood armed with a knife, determined to kill the devil.

Before or after saying goodbye to his family, he must have passed by the house of the Motes de Pont de Claverol, his friends, where the cleric Francis helped him celebrate mass in the family chapel and heard him say that he was going to Rome. And in his memory, as a sixteen-year-old youth, he kept the figure of this “tall man, of venerable figure, brown beard, long and white face...”[1093]

1093 Cf. BAU, BC, p.174.

Then he went down to Tremp and Talarn, where he left behind friends and collaborators, experiences, sweat and good memories,[1094] but above all moments of devout prayer before Our Lady of Valldeflors. Finally, he climbed up the Segre to Urgel, which was cold and white with snow in those December days. There were also many friends among the canons and beneficiaries with whom he could recall hours of fear, anxiety, hopes and shots of gunfire from the embrasures and high galleries of the Seo. And he silently resumed old, heartfelt conversations with the adorable image of Santa María de Urgel, laden with centuries.

1094 In a statement made in Benabarre in 1651, Tomás Pallás, a native of Tremp, said that “he knew Dr. Calasanz, a native of Peralta and Official of the town of Tremp, very well, from sight and conversation he had with him for more than two years until he went to Rome and he knows and saw... that he was very much listened to and showed signs of being a great person....” (quoted in Rass 26-27 [1957] 45). In 1666 Fr. Caputi met in the Roman church of Montserrat with Fr. James Galí, priest of Tremp, who told him “that they have great devotion all those people to the said Venerable Fr., and that they kiss with great devotion the subscriptions [signatures] that he made while he was official” (quoted in EcoCen 11-12 [1948] 92).

I could not help but walk through the narrow, dark, medieval streets and the wide, porticoed sidewalks of Calle Mayor, meeting familiar faces here and there, giving and receiving greetings, news and good wishes, to end up, almost instinctively, at the house of Antony Janer, a friend among friends.

And from the Pyrenees to Barcelona, with a view of the Mediterranean.

From Barcelona to Rome

The unbroken tradition of biographers has never hesitated to claim that Calasanz made his journey to Rome by sea.[1095] And certainly, the historical circumstances of the last months of 1591 and the first months of 1592, with the flight of Antony Perez to the south of France, the mad “Bearnese invasion” of the first of February, which we already remembered[1096], and the general tensions in Philip II’s Spain against the first Bourbon Henry IV and in favor of the Catholic League, discouraged, if not completely prevented, the journey on French soil.

1095 One of the first historians and most reliable confidants of the protagonist wrote; “he embarked to go to Rome” (BERRO I, p.65).

1096 See section 5 of this same chapter.

Crossing the Mediterranean was generally done along the coasts to avoid the fury of the open sea and the dangers of constant piracy, which undoubtedly lengthened the days of navigation. Cabotage from Italy to Spain could take more than a month when traveling with princes or great personages, who would stop at several ports on the pretext of visits, receptions and rest stops or in stormy weather, making the journey a permanent feast.[1097] At other times, they had to slow down to avoid bad weather and even anchor in unexpected ports.[1098] The normal crossing, however, was much shorter; for example, Adrian VI made the journey from Palamós to Genoa in about 10 days in 1522[1099]; Lambert of Wyts embarked in the armada of Don John of Austria in Barcelona on July 18, 1571 and “nine days later,” he says, “we reached the great and rich city of Genoa”[1100];”Father Peter de Ribeneyra, in 1574, “embarked in Genoa in a galley on November 8th and reached the coast of Catalonia on 14th”[1101] St. Ignatius of Loyola, in 1523, undertook his voyage “with such a strong wind from astern that they came from Barcelona to Gaeta in five days and nights”,[1102] although in this case it may have been a direct crossing via the islands (Balearic Islands, Corsica and Sardinia) and not along the coast. We can therefore assume that Calasanz’s journey from the Catalan coast to Genoa took about ten days.

1097 The extraordinary nuncio, Camillo Borghese (future Paul V), sent by Clement VIII to King Philip II left Civitavecchia in a pontifical galley on November 27, 1593 and arrived in Barcelona on January 2. But he stopped two days in Livorno, three in Genoa, seven in Savona and nine in Marseilles for entertainment and other reasons. The days of navigation, however, were only fifteen or sixteen (cf. J. GARCÍA MERCADAL, Viajes de extranjeros por España y Portugal (Aguilar, Madrid 1952) vol. I, p.1464-1468).

1098 Andrea Navaggero spends eighteen days from Genoa to Barcelona in April 1525, but says that “from the sixth to the twelfth we sailed very slowly, because the weather was not good”, and from Marseilles they go to the north of Corsica, arriving on the 24th at Palamós (ibid., p.840).

1099 Cf. J. LÓPEZ NAVÍO, Ambiente histórico y social..., p.222.

1100 Cf. J. GARCÍA MERCADAL, o.c., I, p. 1171.

1101 Cf. B. ALCÁZAR, S. I., Chrono-historia de la Compañía de Jesús en la Provincia de Toledo, II, p.450.

1102 Cf. R. GARCÍA-VILLOSLADA, San Ignacio de Loyola. Nueva Biografía, BAC, p.239.

From Genoa to Civitavecchia, the crossing took about one day and two nights.[1103] And from Civitavecchia to Rome, the journey was usually made on foot, covering the seventy-two kilometers in less than two days.[1104] So, roughly, our protagonist’s entire journey would take about two weeks. We know that he was already in the Eternal City on February 27, 1592, which suggests that his ship may have set sail in the first days of February.[1105]

1103 On November 14, 1643, Fr. V. M. Gavotti, Sch. P., writes to Fr. S. Pietrasanta, S. I.: “Our trip with the Galleons was good and in one day and two nights we came by the grace of God to safety from Civitavecchia to Genoa.” (FC III, p.1525).

1104 S. John of the Conception, Reformer of the Trinitarians, on his trip to Rome in 1598, disembarked in Civitavecchia and writes that on Holy Thursday “we left Civitavecchia that same afternoon on foot, liking to tread on such a holy land, or rather to enjoy it. It took us until Holy Saturday [March 21, 1598] to arrive, because there are only 21 miles, it was not much we were walking and we were very exhausted and tired from such a long journey... We entered the gates of Rome on Holy Saturday at the tolling of the bells at the beginning of the Alleluyas...” (Obras del B. John Bta. de la Concepción, t.VIII [Rome 1831] p.97). At that time the Holy Saturday Mass was held in the morning. Then it took two days, even without haste.

1105 Without so many converging testimonies, this is what Sántha believed, commenting on the new document of February 27, 1592, found by him: “Calasanctius enim die 27 mensis Februarii iam Romae commoratur et operatur, ita ut nunc iam maxima probabilitate asserere possimus eundem saltem initio mensis Februarii Barcinone solvisse sub medietatem eiusdem mensis ipsam Urbem ingressurum” (EphCal 2 [1959] 56)

It was also almost always customary to indicate Barcelona as Joseph Calasanz’s port of departure for Rome,[1106] although in reality Palamós in the north and Vinaroz in the south competed with this port as places of departure for Italy, without denying the possibility that Joseph Calasanz set foot on Spanish soil for the last time in one of these ports.[1107]

1106 Cf. ARMINI, Vita, p.42; TALENTI, Vita, p.30. Nothing is said by Berro (cf. BERRO I, p.65), nor by the Breve Notizia (cf. BAU, RV, p.12).

1107 This seems to be the idea of J. LÓPEZ NAVÍO (cf. ID., o.c., p.219-223). Shortly after Calasanz, in the first months of 1592, Jerónimo Gracián embarked in Vinaroz and arrived directly to Genoa and from there “we returned - he says - to sail to Civitá Vecchja, walking from there to Rome by land with the danger of bandits” (Fr. J. GRACIÁN, Peregrinación de Anastasio: Obras del P. Jerónimo Gracián de la Madre de Dios, ed. by P. SILVERIO DE STA. TERESA [Burgos 1933], t.III, p.113).

The dates of the voyage therefore leave plenty of scope for Calasanz to accompany his beloved Bishop of Urgel to Montserrat before embarking, where a large proportion of the participants in the provincial synod that had moved from Tarragona to Barcelona were going. The reason was the consecration of the new monastery church, which took place on February 2. As it happens, a letter that Capilla wrote to King Philip II the day after the grand inauguration ceremony has survived, in which he tells him about it. It reads as follows:

“Majesty. I received, on the 2nd of this month, at the hands of its abbot, in this Holy House of Our Lady of Montserrate, the letter of Your Majesty, on the 22nd of last month. On the day of Our Lady’s Purification, the consecration of the new church was carried out with great solemnity and great crowds, which was very successful and beautiful and in keeping with the veneration of this holy place. Today, Monday, the Blessed Sacrament was transferred from the old church to the new one in a solemn procession, which served especially to ask Our Lord for the life, health and happy state of Your Majesty, which was done. As for the rest that Your Majesty has ordered me to do in regard to the transfer of Our Lady’s image, I have heard about it from the abbot and other religious, and in order to better coordinate myself, I wanted to think more about it and will write at length from Barcelona (where all the bishops who were here will return to continue the provincial synod, which, because we were able to meet on this day, was extended to the fifth of this month), adhering as best I can to what Your Majesty orders me to do. From Our Lady of Montserrat, February 3, 1592, The Bishop of Urgel.”[1108]

1108 Cf. J. POCH, Montserrat i Calassanç, encara: Cat 252 (1982) 19. Philip II had written on January 22, 1592 to the Abbot of Montserrat: “And with respect to the removal of the Holy Image, there are many considerations that oblige it not to be done, as you very well point them out... But so that it is better to succeed, I have wanted to ask each one of the prelates in particular... their opinion and to write to them about it the letters that here go...” (ibid., p.18). (ibid., p.18). Here are those who assisted the consecrating bishop: “On Sexagésima Sunday, February 2, the bishop of Vique, Peter Jaime consecrated it, with the assistance of James Cassador, bishop of Gerona, Andrew Capilla of Urgel and Francis Robuster y Sala, of Elna, and Fray Placid de Salinas, abbot of the Monastery. The viceroy of Catalonia, Peter Galcerán, Marquis of Navarrés, was present” (VILLANUEVA, Viaje literario, t.VII, p.140-141).

The venerable image thus was in the old Romanesque church adjacent to the new church, where it remained until July 11, 1599, when the solemn transfer took place before King Philip III.[1109]

1109 F. CRUSELLAS, Nueva historia del Santuario y Monasterio de Na. Sra. de Montserrat (Barcelona 1896) p.74-75.

Calasanz’s presence in Barcelona in the first days of February to set off for Italy; the extraordinary coincidence with the dedication of the temple of Montserrat, which evoked so many personal memories in him; the fact that his own Bishop Capilla, who was so ill, was encouraged to climb the holy mountain; the opportunity to also visit the tomb of his protector and friend, the Bishop of Lérida and Visitator to the monastery, Don Caspar John de la Figuera, are weighty reasons that allow the hypothesis that Joseph Calasanz was indeed in Montserrat at that historical moment.

And once again, his intimate dialogue with the highly amiable ‘Moreneta’ (black image), which had been abruptly interrupted six years earlier in another fateful February that was better not remember, was reborn.

If the synod resumed in Barcelona on the 5th and Capilla wrote his letter to the king from Montserrat on the 3rd, it is very likely that he came down from the mountain on the 4th accompanied by Calasanz. And already in the Condal Town, the bishop would bid farewell to his beloved diocesan priest with his last recommendations, orders, greetings and blessings as he boarded a ship for the first time and let himself be rocked by the Mediterranean.

Second part

Genesis of his work

Chapter 10

The roman years of palace, of curia, and of aspirations

Full of joy and with a soul open to the surprises of the spirit, Joseph Calasanz disembarked in Civitavecchia and took the road to Rome by the Via Aurelia. Perhaps like every other pilgrim, he wore the pilgrim’s cloak and put his saddlebags of chamois leather on his shoulders, already worn out by the rain and the sun of the Pyrenees. It was mid-February and the almond trees were in bloom on the hills of Lazio.

A Spaniard in Rome

He was late for the great coronation festival. On February 2nd, while Calasanz was - perhaps - attending the consecration of the new church of the monastery of Montserrat, the episcopal consecration of Cardinal Hippolyte Aldobrandini was celebrated in Rome. He had been elected pope on January 30th under the name of Clement VIII, and on February 9, 1592, the enthronement and entering in possession of St. John Lateran took place with the usual pomp and ceremony. Surely, he did not even suspect that he would have the opportunity to witness the coronation of five successive popes.

On the other hand, it came at a good time, as the last year and a half had been fateful for Rome. Since the death of Sixtus V at the end of August 1590, four popes had occupied the chair of St. Peter’s Basilica: Urban VII (+ September 27, 1590), Gregory XIV (+ October 15, 1591), Innocent IX (+ December 30, 1591) and the newly elected Clement VIII. Most seriously, however, an epidemic was declared in August 1590, which lasted until September of the following year. If the figures are not exaggerated, some 60,000 inhabitants died, more than half the population, which was statistically estimated at 116,698 in February 1591.[1110] The exaggeration seems to be confirmed by another report from May of the same year, according to which 40,000 people died in two months.[1111] Perhaps many thousands must be subtracted from these calculations, but certainly many thousands must have been the victims if two years later, in 1593, a detailed Report gives a total number of 99,627 souls.[1112]

1110 PASTOR, vol.22, p.301. Note that in February 1591 it was still in the middle of the epidemic.

1111 Ibid., n.2.

1112 Ib., vol.24, p.344, n.1.

And since evil never comes alone, especially for the poor, the epidemic was compounded by hunger and famine, which made the price of wheat ever more expensive and even led to serious riots by the desperate population, who stormed the granaries next to the Pantheon, in the Jews’ Square and in Campo dei Fiori at the beginning of February 1591.[1113] In November 1592, the situation was still worrying and Calasanz wrote to the parish priest of his village:

1113 Ibid., vol.22, p.302-307. The ailing state of Gregory XIV prevented him from personally knowing of the deplorable state of the city. A simple parish priest, in a speech “ad Gregorium XIV P. M. de veritate dicenda”, told him: “Populus Romanus panis ac frugum precio in dies magis crescenti rerum penuria mendicare cogitur” (ibid., p.304, n.4).

“Here... we have the year very expensive and the supplies very scarce, and if they do not come from the King’s country, a very bad spring is expected; the cargo of wheat of that country will already be worth ten escudos here. After the death of Sixtus V, Rome is the most expensive city in Italy and the common people are suffering greatly.”[1114]

1114 EGC II, c.4. The wheat had to come from the lands or kingdoms of Philip II, particularly from Sicily, from where even the Crown of Aragón was traditionally supplied. In December of 1590 Gregory XIV wrote an autograph letter to Philip II in demand of wheat (cf. PASTOR, o.c., p.302). Perhaps this news given by Calasanz came from his conversations with the secret steward of the Pope, Don James de Palafox, who in all these years until the end of the century, at least, intervened in the import of wheat in Rome (cf. J. LÓPEZ NAVÍO, Ambiente histórico y social..., p.232-235).

Rome was the most expensive city in Italy and undoubtedly one of the most populous in Europe at the end of the century. The largest cities Calasanz had seen in Spain were Valencia with around 60,000 inhabitants and Barcelona with 30,000. The largest Spanish metropolis was Seville with 90,000 inhabitants.[1115] Seville’s pre-eminence was due to the fact that it was in a sense the capital of the New World, as all trade with the Indies was concentrated there; Rome’s pre-eminence undoubtedly came from the fact that it was the capital of the Catholic world. And indeed, as stated in a Report of 1605, “the city may have about 100,000 souls, of whom more than two thirds are outsiders”.[1116] And among them one more, the Spaniard Joseph de Calasanz.

1115 Cf. n.3 of c.5, applying the demographic index 5.

1116 Cf. PASTOR, vol.24, p.344, n.3. By “outsiders” we mean non-Romans.

Many of these groups of foreigners had their own national church, and in some cases even their own hospital or hospice for the poor, in addition to their country’s embassy, and it was around these headquarters that the entire colony of foreigners tended to revolve. For the Spaniards, the embassy was located in the square to which it gave their name, the Piazza di Spagna, where it still stands. And there were two churches: that of Santiago de los Españoles opposite Piazza Navona and that of Montserrat with a hospital built by Alexander VI for the members of the Crown of Aragón. Today it is the only Spanish national church, as the other was abandoned in the last century.

In the first years of his arrival in Rome, Joseph de Calasanz not only visited the embassy, but also the church of Montserrat, as it was the church of his “nation”. He may also have had memories of other priests of his origin and family.[1117] Until his death, he kept among his papers some Marian litanies with the seven joys and sorrows that were sung in this Roman church.[1118]

1117 Particularly two: the first, Antony Calasanz, who for forty years was singer of the papal chapel and dean of the same at the end of his life. He was prior of the church from 1568 to 1570 (cf. Arch. of that church, Book 5, E, f.lv; Book 1213, dates: December 3, 1568 to January 1, 1570). In the Liber mortuorum 1021 we read: “Today July 6, 1577 will be buried mossen Antoni Calasanz, dean of the Papal Chapel.” His tombstone is found today in front of the tombs of the Borgia Popes. The second Calasanz was the archpriest and prior of Santa María del Romeral, of Monzón, nephew and heir of the previous one, who attended his death and burial and paid some mandates of his uncle to this church: “today, September 6, 1577, Mgr. Bartolomew Calasanz, nephew and heir of the aforementioned Antony [Calasanz] has paid to Mr. Matheo Corvera, clavario of the said church [of Montserrat], on good account of said donation [of 600 escudos] 400 escudos...” to say the masses that Antonio Calasanz left in charge (ibid.., Book 1637, f.19). These are unpublished notes left by Fr. J. López Navío. Cf., also, J. LÓPEZ NAVÍO, Ambiente histórico y social..., p.211-212; ID., Testamento de Micer John Calasanz, p.14 and 26; J. POCH, El Fundador de las Escuelas Pías..., p.389-390.

1118 Cf. RegCal 13,23*.

The “foreigners” - more the nations than the individuals - had other protectors in Rome who were always ready to defend the interests of their protected nations before the pope in exchange for pensions, rewards and honors. These were the families of the aristocracy, whom usually included a member of the College of Cardinals. A memorandum from the Duke of Sesa, ambassador of Spain in those years, lists the nobles who received or wanted to receive Spanish pensions. They are the Colonnas, Orsinis, Contis, Sermonetas, Frangipanis, Caetanis and Cafarellis,[1119] to which we must of course add the Farneses and the Dorias, who were so closely linked to the Colonnas that they are among the great glories of Spain’s history. And Calasanz will find a splendid reception in the palace of the Colonna family.

1119 Cf. PASTOR, vol.24, p.281.

Monumental Rome at the end of the century

The splendor of imperial Rome was in some ways revived in the Baroque period, during which the new physiognomy of papal Rome was forever shaped. The most decisive phase of this long period of urban transformation began with the pontificate of Sixtus V (1585-1590) and ended with that of Alexander VII (1655-1667). Both popes, together with Popes Paul V, Urban VIII and Innocent X, contributed in particular to the embellishment of the city, with its basilicas and churches, its palaces and squares, its fountains and obelisks. Joseph of Calasanz lived in Rome during the period between Sixtus V and Alexander VII (1592-1648).

The new streets designed and built under Sixtus V had a decisive influence on urban planning in the following centuries. In addition, 121 streets were paved with bricks in just one year (1587). The two giant columns of Trajan and Marcus Aurelius were restored and isolated and crowned with the statues of St. Peter and St. Paul. The obelisks of St. Peter, St. Mary Major, St. John Lateran and Piazza del Popolo were erected. The new papal palace of St. John Lateran was built, the construction of the current Vatican Palace was begun, the Quirinal was acquired and began to be widened, the destroyed Basilica of the Twelve Apostles was restored and the adjacent Franciscan monastery was remodeled, next to which Calasanz was to spend his first Roman years. Sixtus V thus ushered in a new era of feverish building activity. Hardly a church remained unreformed, especially the large basilicas.[1120]

1120 Cf. ibid., vol. 22, p. 169-260.

When Calasanz entered St. Peter’s Basilica for the first time, probably in the habit of a pilgrim, the large medieval quadriportico at the entrance was still intact, with the gigantic bronze pine cone in the middle under its pavillion - today in the Belvedere courtyard - with the access staircase and the Romanesque bell tower. On the façade of the old basilica, the mosaic of the Redeemer shone on a golden background. And above the roofs, there in the background, towered the enormous mass of the new dome, still naked, without its lead cladding, with the barely completed lantern, but without the top of the large golden sphere and cross, which was added in November 1593. And until 1606, the five naves of the venerable Constantinian basilica remained standing, with their altars, chapels, tombs, relics, mosaics, lamps and a thousand other details that had accumulated over more than twelve centuries. The five naves of the church were enclosed by a huge wall that separated the new and old parts and was only demolished in 1615. Behind it remained the tomb of St. Peter and the papal altar or “confession”, which were enclosed in a spacious pavilion, the “Santa Casa”, which Bramante had built at the beginning of the demolition work to protect them and keep them accessible during the very long reconstruction work. It was precisely in the summer of 1592 that the “Santa Casa” was demolished and work began on the main altar of the basilica, which was completed and solemnly consecrated in 1594.[1121]

1121 Cf. ibid., vol.24, p.310-314.

Clement VIII’s building and renovation activities up to the end of the century were also evident in the complete redesign of the transept of St. John Lateran, the restoration of the mosaics of the central nave of St. Mary Major, whose venerable painting ‘Salus Populi Romani’, which was to become one of Calasanz’s favorite paintings, he crowned with a diadem of diamonds in 1597. The churches of Santa Maria della Scala (1592), San Nicola Tolentino, San Giuseppe de Capo le Case, San Bernardo alle Terme, San Giovanni dei Fiorentini (1600) and the Chiesa Nuova (1599) were also built; the foundation stone of San Andrea della Valle (1591) was laid. And the desire for renewal also encouraged many cardinals to restore their titular churches.

The basilicas and churches were not the only buildings that Clement VIII promoted, for in 1596 he completed the new Vatican Palace, which he was the first to occupy, and at the same time continued work on the other great papal palace, the Quirinal; the beautiful façade of the central palace of the Capitol was built and the third and last, next to the Araceli, was begun, which was to complete the magnificent square designed by Michelangelo. Another of the most famous Roman squares, Piazza Navona, was paved at that time (1600); it already had the two monumental fountains at the ends, but without statues (1574), while the central one was still missing; neither the baroque church of St. Agnes, nor the great Palazzo Pamfili that houses it, nor the Palazzo Braschi existed. And to make the new and old streets and squares easier to walk through, it was decided that they should be cleaned weekly. It was also forbidden to keep pigs in the inhabited part of the city, as until then (1599), as in many European cities, they roamed freely in the streets.[1122]

1122 Cf. ibid., p.316-325, 343-353.

The great poet Torcuato Tasso, who arrived in the Eternal City in May 1592, also belonged to this splendid world of papal Rome at the end of the century. He was praised, lauded and celebrated by the Pope and his nephews, cardinals and nobles like a revived Dante, whom they wanted to crown with laurels on the Capitol, like Petrarch in other times, but he died in the spring of 1595. And it is likely that on that April afternoon, when his body was brought down from the monastery of San Onofrio to Santo Spirito in Sassia for his funeral and then back up again, Joseph Calasanz - a lost poet! - was among the entourage of cardinals, curials, university professors, scholars and poets, nobles, priests and religious.[1123]

1123 Cf. ibid., p.301-306.

Perhaps it was there in Urgel, in conversation with his friend Peter Rostoll, the organist of the cathedral, or with the already retired and famous composer and chapel master, the Limousin John Brudieu (+ 1591),[1124] that he learned the names of two other universal geniuses. And it was invaluable luck to find them both in Rome: Peter Louis de Palestrina and Thomas Louis de Victoria, and to hear their immortal music sung in the Roman basilicas. The former died on February 2, 1594 and was buried in the Vatican. The latter arrived in Rome around 1565, in his twenties, and stayed at least until 1594.[1125]

1124 Cf. A. DELLA CORTE-G. PANNAIN, Historia de la música, Labor (Barcelona 1950) P.292 and 325; J. FORNS, Historia de la música (Madrid 1948) t.II, p.58 and 180.

1125 Cf. A. DELLA CORTE-G. PANNAIN, O.C., p.291; J. FORNS, o.c., p.61-65.

But Rome at the turn of the century was something else. On the newly paved streets, which were cleaner than before, and in the squares where obelisks, fountains and churches sprang up like a spring blossom, many children ran, played and begged because there was no room for them in the schools. Until...

Welcome by two Canons

On May 16, 1592, Calasanz wrote his second letter to the parish priest of Peralta de la Sal, saying: “I have a seat in the house of Cardinal Mark Anthony Colona in the company of a canon of Tarragona named Baltasar Compte, who is very dear to the said cardinal and through whom I have come to his house.”[1126] In May of the same year that he arrived, he was already staying in the Colonna family palace, located in the Square of the Holy Apostles, next to the basilica of the same name. But when he arrived, he was received by the canon of Urgel, Rafael Durán, the dismissed Procurator of his diocese, whom, as we have already seen, he was to replace.[1127] He lived in the aforementioned Square of the Holy Apostles and Calasanz stayed in his house for a short time. Father Berro told us the reason for his departure and assured us that “this was communicated to me by our father.” And so it was:

1126 EGC II, c.3.

1127 Cf. ch.9, n.4.

“...once, when he came home, he found the canon talking through the window to a woman whose window looked out on the same courtyard of the house; and as soon as the woman saw him, she said, ‘Speak more quietly, Mr. Canon, who comes here who cannot see women’.” And as he could not pretend that he had not heard, our Joseph answered the woman, “You do not say that well, for I esteem you more highly than the canon. As you know, we all have a soul and a body, and there is no doubt that the soul is nobler than the body. I value your soul and want you to be a good Christian, pious, chaste and very holy; but the canon wants you in a different way. The woman lowered her eyes and, not knowing what to say, drew back. And then, seeing that his exhortation to the canon to leave this bad relationship was useless, our Joseph left this residence and went to another place.”[1128]

1128 BERRO I, p.67.

It is obvious that the canon to whom Berro alludes and whom he does not name is not Balthasar Compte, as Talenti and Bau, among others, suspected,[1129] because this happened at a time when Calasanz was not yet living in the Colonna palace.[1130] And it is Compte who helps him by taking him from the house of Canon Durán and bringing him to the Colonna Palace, where he lives. And it is not that the canon of Tarragona was more virtuous and exemplary than that of Urgel, because if the latter was removed from office and deprived of his benefits by his own Chapter for his ambition and abuse of power, the same happened to Compte, whose intrigues, entanglements and embezzlement of the goods of the cathedral and the Chapter of Tarragona earned him lawsuits, legal proceedings, confiscation of his emoluments and even a few days in the Chapter prison.[1131]

1129 Cf. TALENTI, Vita, p.33; BAU, BC, p.207. In the excessively free translation of Berro’s text, he introduces the name “D. Baltasar” where Berro says only “Canon.”

1130 “At a time when he was not yet living in the palace of the said Eminence”, but “he was in a house with a Spanish Canon, living in the square of S. Apostoli. “ (BERRO I p.67).

1131 In 1581 he was already in Rome, being a Canon of Girona, according to the Libro de difuntos of the Church of Montserrat, where Francis Castello was buried on March 17, 1581, being present among others “lo revd. mossen Baltasar Compte, canonge de Sant Feliu de Girona” (cf. J. LÓPEZ NAVÍO, Ambiente histórico y social..., p.239). He later obtained a canonry in Tarragona and in 1591 he returned to Rome, commissioned by his Chapter to settle a lawsuit in the Rota Auditory, which had been going on for years, between the archiepiscopal ‘Mensa’ and the Chapter of Tarragona on the one hand and the municipality of Reus (where Compte was from) on the other. He abused his office, obtaining the entrustment of the abbey of Bagá, embezzled funds from the church of Tarragona, sued his Chapter and the fruits or earnings of his canonry were seized. He returned to Tarragona in 1595 and his violent reactions earned him being locked in the dungeon of the Chapter (cf. J. POCH, Mossén Josep Calassanç a la diócesi d’Urgell: Cat 195 [1977] 34). He was later named subcollector of the spolios and rights of the Holy See in his diocese, but he was not a faithful administrator and a new process was instituted against him in 1602-1603, The Nuncio in Spain and the Cardinal Secretary Aldobrandini speak of the “turbulent character of the subcollector Compte”, “charges against the abbot Balthasar Compte”, “abuses in the collection of accounts and salaries”, “summary of items defrauded by the subcollector” (cf. J. LÓPEZ NAVÍO, o.c., p.239-240). Other details in J. POCH, Baltasar Compte, canonge del capítol de Tarragona: Cat 218 (1979) 16-30.

However, Calasanz says that he was “much loved and favored by the said cardinal” (Colonna). At this point, in 1592, he had probably not yet provided any evidence of his trickery. Nevertheless, he seems to have been a man who was always involved in money matters and the resulting lawsuits. And perhaps he entered the Colonna palace for this reason, as it is known that Cardinal Mark Antony had economic interests in Tarragona, whose cathedral Chapter was responsible for collecting the ecclesiastical rents he enjoyed in Spain.[1132] Perhaps he arrived in Rome with such income and the cardinal kept him in his palace for five years (1591-1595), employing him in monetary matters.[1133]

1132 Cf. J. POCH, o.c., p.28.

1133 Poch affirms: “Almost five years (1591-1595) Compte remained at Colonna Palace” (I.c., p.34). A treatise is attributed to him, precisely on ecclesiastical revenues, entitled De Ecclesiasticorum redituum origine ac jure, which others say is by his relative Antonio Marsilio, called the Colonna of Bologna, to whom the Cardinal ceded the archbishopric of Salerno (cf. Biografía eclesiastica completa, t.IV, p.22).

On the other hand, it is not difficult to explain the personal relationship between Calasanz and Compte if we consider that one of the most important figures in the Cathedral Chapter of Tarragona at the time was Don Antony de Gallart y de Mongay, a close friend of the saint, and his brother Francis was also a canon, both very close friends of Bishop Capilla and avid visitors to the Charterhouse of Scala Dei,[1134] where the aforementioned bishop resided in the last months of 1591, alternating his rest time with participation in the Provincial Council. It could very well be that the Chapter of Tarragona, through the Gallart family, knew about Calasanz’s trip to Rome and gave him the money of Cardinal Colonna to give to Compte. In fact, the first evidence we have of Calasanz’s arrival in Rome is a request for money from the insatiable canon to the newcomer: on February 27, 1592, he asks him to lend him 200 escudos “gratis et amore”, i.e. without interest. And the prudent lender demanded a notarized document with the guarantee of a beneficiary from Tarragona and two witnesses.[1135] Perhaps this favor would gain him access to the Colonna mansion.

1134 Cf. Rass 26-27 (1957) 81-82.

1135 Cf. EphCal 2 (1959) 58.

In the Colonna’s palace

Hardly a trace remains of the palace he knew, as it was almost completely remodeled around 1730, leaving some of the most magnificent pieces intact, such as the famous Galleria Colonna, which was converted into a museum and built between 1654 and 1665.[1136] From Caputi’s information, however, we know that Calasanz occupied two rooms adjoining the Basilica of the Apostles, whose windows or lattices overlooked the Chapel of the Blessed Sacrament, which - as he says - “was a great comfort for him because he was closer to his beloved Lord and could pray whenever he wanted”[1137] This detail does not allow us to locate these rooms precisely, as the current basilica was completely renovated by Francesco Fontana and his father Carlo in 1702-1714, of which only the entrance portico from the end of the 15th century remains.[1138]

1136 T. C. 1., Guida d’Italia del T. C. L Roma e dintorni (Milano 1965) p.257.

1137 Cf. the text quoted in EcoCen 13-14 (1949) 23. Also in Montserrat he occupied a similar room “from where with great spiritual pleasure he heard the Mass that a chapel opposite was sung every day at dawn” (Breve Notizia: BAU, RV, p.11. Cf. BERRO I, p.59).

1138 Cf. T. C. I., o.c., p.259.

There are numerous testimonies that unanimously state that Calasanz was admitted to the palace to exercise the functions of theologian to Cardinal Mark Antony Colonna and spiritual father or chaplain of the whole house, of which the first and one of the most sober testimonies was Father Catalucci in his ‘Breve Notizia’:

“It was known that his kindness was recognized by His Emm. Cardinal Antony Colonna, who took him into his court as his theologian and as the spiritual father of his entire household. And the esteem in which he held him was so great that he ordered the prince, his nephew, never to leave the house without first obtaining the blessing of Father Joseph Calasanz.”[1139]

1139 Cf. BAU, RV, p.12; BERRO I, p.67.

Of the various witnesses at the Ordinary Process of 1651-53, those relating to the Colonna family itself are worthy of mention, such as Father Scassellati, who said, “Lady Anna Colonna told me that he was regarded as a saint in the house of the Cardinal, her uncle, and that they were proud and boasted that he was in their house, and I have many times seen the Constable and his wife come to San Pantaleo to greet the said Father.”[1140] And Lady Laura, widow of Sir John Baptist de Ariccia, related to the Colonnas, Caetanis and della Valle, explained: “When the said Father was staying at the house of Cardinal Mark Antony Colonna, my uncle and cousin of my father, Cardinal Colonna used to send the said Father Joseph to visit Lady Victoria della Valle Caetana, my mother, on his behalf, to see if she needed anything...”[1141]

1140 Cf. BAU, BC, p.209.

1141 Ibid., p.210. See also the testimonies of don Peter de Massimi, Br. F. Noberano, Frs. Morelli, Fedele, Biscia, Bianchi and Armini (cf. ibid., p.209-213).

Of course, the witnesses emphasize his virtues and spiritual qualities, together with his gifts and titles as a man of science, to justify his choice as theologian and spiritual father of the Colonna family. And we do not doubt the truth of these assertions, because the recognition and esteem of these new protectors of Calasanz coincide perfectly with the feeling of the bishops of Barbastro, Lérida and Urgel, who also elected him “familiar” and, in addition, honored him with other positions and distinctions. This development is entirely logical.

Nor should we underestimate the importance of the picaresque scene of the canon and the girl flirting at the window to celebrate the moral integrity and firmness of the priestly attitude of this man who, at thirty-five, is still young and who reacts as if he had been twenty-one years old confronting the procacity of a lady from Valencia. The words of this young Roman girl: “Keep your voice down, canon, the one who can not see women is coming”, indicate that she had tried more than once to approach the newcomer without success. And in the end, the harassed man has to flee this house, just as he did the first time in the city of Turia.

On the other hand, as we shall see, these vague sentences of the witnesses praising the virtues of the new theologian and chaplain of the Colonna family are a simple outline of the deep piety and tireless charity that Calasanz displayed during these years, so rich in holiness and decisive for his whole long life.

Theologian of Cardinal Mark Antony Colonna

When Joseph Calasanz arrived in Rome, there were two cardinals in the Colonna family: Mark Antony and Ascanius. The first had received the cardinal’s hat from the hands of Pius IV in 1565, the second from the hands of Sixtus V in 1586.[1142] Mark Antony lived in the family palace on Apostles’ Square and it was he who called Calasanz to him and appointed him his theologian, as the testimonies already mentioned explicitly prove.[1143] The young Ascanius, who was two years younger than Calasanz, lived in the recently completed papal palace in the Lateran with the express permission of Gregory XIV, because he was archpriest of the adjacent basilica and in order to maintain it properly.[1144]

1142 Cf.PA5T0R, vol.16, p.327 and vol.21, p.214, respectively.

1143 Cf. BAU, BC, p.207-213.

1144 Cf. the pontifical document, signed on March 4, 1591, in PASTOR, vol.22, p.379, doc.45.

Calasanz was thus in the service of Cardinal Mark Antony until he died on March 13, 1597 in his ancestral home of Zagarolo near Palestrina, where he was transferred, already terminally ill. This old cardinal was always one of the most conspicuous figures in the Sacred College, especially in the conclaves in which he was twice proposed for the tiara without being awarded it, namely after the deaths of Sixtus V and Urban VII in the second half of 1590.[1145] Those who vehemently opposed his candidacy had their reasons, because - according to Pastor - “his worldly life did not seem suitable for the highest ecclesiastical dignity and even less so if, as it seems, he had illegitimate children.[1146] He was certainly a very learned man and for this reason was appointed Apostolic Librarian by Clement VIII, in which office he was succeeded after his death by none other than the extremely learned Cardinal Cesare Baronio.[1147] He stood out among cardinals who were very kind and supportive of the arts,[1148] and he was also liberal and generous towards the poor.[1149] In a word, he was reminiscent of those great cardinals of the Renaissance who peacefully reconciled the splendor of their princely lineage with the dignity of the Roman purple; luxury, worldliness and amorous lapses with piety, sacred ceremonies and generous charity; culture and love of art with politics, intrigue and diplomacy.

1145 Cf. PASTOR, vol.22, p.266-271 and 283-287. During the last long conclave, which lasted 57 days, the supporters of Cardinal Simoncelli’s candidacy made use and abuse of the famous “Prophecy of Malachi” to force his election, without succeeding. It was later published in Venice in 1595 (cf. ibid., p.293).

1146 Cf. PASTOR, o.c., p.266 and n.2.

1147 Cf. PASTOR, vol.24, p.294.

1148 Ibid., p.345.

1149 Cf. CIACONIUS, Vitae et res gestae Pont. Rom et S. R. E. Cardinalium, vol.III c.946; MORONI, Dizionario Eclesiastico, vol.13-14, p.305; Biografia ecclesiastica completa, t.IV, p.22.

Among other duties and responsibilities of the Curia and within the Roman Congregations created or reorganized by Sixtus V in 1588, he was one of those of the Index, together with four other cardinals, namely his relative Ascanius Colonna, Jerome della Rovere, Philip of Lenoncourt and William Allen. In order to conscientiously fulfill their difficult task of watching over orthodoxy, they were authorized to ask the universities of Paris, Bologna, Salamanca and Louvain for help and “to invite theologians, canonists and other academically trained persons to participate in their work and allow them to read forbidden books so that they can help them.”[1150] This recommendation would justify the cardinal’s decision to admit Calasanz as a theologian in his own house - in addition to the norm or custom that cardinals had their own advisory theologians - especially when he knew that he had just obtained the degree of Doctor of Theology and that he had also studied canons and law in the General Studium of Lérida.

1150 Cf. PASTOR, vol.21, p.227.

The fact that an edition of the ‘Index’ of forbidden books appeared in the Vatican press in 1596[1151] suggests the likelihood that Joseph Calasanz, as theologian to Cardinal Colonna the Elder, was involved in its preparation.

1151 Index librorum prohibitorum. Romae. Apud Impressores Camerales. Cum Privilegio S. Pontificis, ad Biennium. MDXCVI.

Chaplain of the palace

The oldest biographical tradition states that the Cardinal appointed him not only as his theologian, but also as “spiritual father of his entire household.”[1152] This brief message has been expanded to include a valuable detail about one of the ways in which Calasanz fulfilled this task, which was that “every Saturday afternoon in the sacristy [of the Basilica of the Holy Apostles] he held a very devout conversation with the family of His Eminence Cardinal Colonna, with the express order of His Eminence that no one should be absent.” Two Franciscan conventuals living in the monastery at the time testified to this to Father Sylvester Bellei in 1625, and the latter questioned the saint personally about it, who told him that such sermons or talks were indeed “given “by a secular priest and - according to Father Bellei - he would not tell me that it was he who preached, since he always used to hide his virtues under the ashes of holy humility.”[1153]

1152 Cf n.1139 above.

1153 Italian text of the declaration made in 1678 by Fr. Silvestre Bellei (RegCal, 2,6) in A. GARCÍA-DURÁN, Itinerario espiritual..., p.51-52, n.357. The conventual Fathers were Jacopo Montanari of Bagnacavallo and Santi Sala of Rimini, of whom we will speak later.

This mission of the palace chaplain or “spiritual father” of the family must be understood in the context of the task of educating the prince, which is attributed to him by some biographers. There are a number of process witnesses who recall Calasanz’s stay in the house of Cardinal Mark Antony Colonna, but they do not allude to his special relationship with the princes, who were nephews of the cardinal.[1154] Later, others speak of nephews - in the plural - entrusted to Calasanz as tutor or spiritual father,[1155] but they betray their dependence on Catalucci and Berro, who spoke only of a nephew and his uncle’s order, demanding Calasanz’s blessing or greeting when entering or leaving the house.[1156] Talenti and Tosetti also mention only one nephew and call him Philip, alluding exclusively to his spiritual or Christian upbringing.[1157] The nephews who lived in the Colonna palace were two: the eldest, heir to the family titles and fortune, was Mark Antony, son of Fabricius (+ 1580) and grandson of the great hero of Lepanto, all of them Dukes of Paliano. He was born in 1575 and was therefore about seventeen years old when Calasanz entered his house. He died in 1595, already married and with a son just a few months old, who died as a child in 1609. He was therefore not yet of preceptorial age. His brother Philip (1578-1639) was then about fifteen years old, and when his brother and young son died, he became the universal heir to all the glories, titles and estates of his family, including that of Constable (of Naples), as he was called in Rome.[1158]

1154 See the declarations of Peter de Massimi, Fr. Scassellati, Laura Caetani, Br. Noberano. Fr. Morelli, Fr. Fedele, Fr. Biscia (BAU, BC, p.209-210).

1155 “…in addition to the assistance he gave to the education of the nepotes of Cardinal Colonna. He held the Servant of God in such high esteem that he ordered his nephews not to enter or leave the house without kissing his hand” (Fr. Bianchi, 1690). “…he was also assigned the office of spiritual Father of his nephews, who did not go in or out without permission. And then he began to be called Father Joseph” (Armini, 1691). But in 1686, when he wrote his Vita he says nothing about this, besides confusing both cardinals, Marcantonio and Ascanio; cf. o.c., p.45-46 and 76). “…those same Lords [Colonna] given as above under his custody, never dared to leave home if they did not first go to the same Servant of God to take the blessing” (P. Benito Quarantotto, in 1690). Cf. the first two texts in BAU, BC, p.213, and the third in A. GARCÍA-DURÁN, o.c., n.356.

1156 Cf. Breve Notizia (text of n.1139 above); “and ordered the Prince his nephew, that in the exit and return to the palace, he should always go to kiss the hand to our D. Giosepe “ (BERRO I, p.67).

1157 “…he gave him the spiritual instruction of the little Prince D. Filippo Colonna, his great-grandson, in Christian piety” (TALENTI, Vita, p.34 and 35, 36, 46, 49); “the Christian spiritual instruction of the young Prince D. Filippo Colonna his great-grandson...” (Tosetti, Compendium, p.31).

1158 Cf. BAU, BC, p.207-208; J. LÓPEZ NAVÍO, Ambiente histórico..., p.241.

It was undoubtedly Prince Philip who, from his age of fifteen, enjoyed the special attention or spiritual assistance of Calasanz, whom he cherished all his life. He visited him many times when he was already General of the Pious Schools, and even then, he maintained the old reverent custom of kissing his hand.[1159] In reality, this was not a new task in his sacred life, but rather a harmonious continuation of his previous experiences as preceptor of the pages in the episcopal palaces of Barbastro and Urgel. Nor can it be categorically ruled out that he also dealt with Prince Philip and even others, as in the past, about Latin and bookkeeping at the Colonna House, which had always been so cultured in art and literature.

1159 Fr. Quarantotto says in the Process of 1690: “I remember that each year, having been accustomed to come to the feast of San Pantaleo, the same Lord Contestabile and others of the Colonna House of that time, cognitively and with bows, never left if they did not first reverence and kiss the hands of the Servant of God, Father and Founder, commending themselves to his prayers; and they did this either in the Sacristy if they found him there or even in his room going there on purpose to use this act of reverence and esteem” (A. GARCÍA-DURAN, o.c., p.51, n.356).

With the young Cardinal Ascanius Colonna

When the old Cardinal Mark Antony died on March 13, 1597, the young Cardinal Ascanius undoubtedly took his place in Colonna Palace and left his residence in the Sistine Lateran Palace, for he was the oldest man in the whole family and thus responsible for its fortunes and for the protection of his two nephews, the nineteen-year-old Philip and Mark Antony (the heir to the house), who was only two years old. Ascanius was the brother of Fabricius, father of Philip and his deceased brother Mark Antony. So, When Cardinal Ascanius moved into the palace in the Square of the Apostles, he must have confirmed Calasanz in his role as theologian - in this case in his personal ministry - and spiritual father of the family. In fact, it is documented that when Calasanz was admitted to the Archconfraternity of the Stigmata of St. Francis on July 18, 1599, he explicitly mentioned that he lived “in the house of Cardinal Colonna”[1160]

1160 “Don Giuseppe Calasantio, Priest of the diocese of Urgelle in the House of the Illmo. Cardinal Colonna on July 18, 1599” (Nome de Fratri della Compagnia di S. Francesco)., 1594-1661, f.47, G, cit. in G. SÁNTHA, Operositas atque industria Calasanctii in Archiconfraternitatibus. SS. Stigmatum...: EphCal 9-10 [1959] 328-329).

A late tradition, which extends to our own time, claims that Cardinal Ascanius and Calasanz had already met in Alcalá de Henares, as they were fellow students at the university. But we have already seen that the documentary evidence refutes this.[1161] It was therefore neither this reason that justified Calasanz’s entry into the service of the Colonna, nor his remaining after the old cardinal who had taken him in had died.

1161 Cf. ch.5. n.386.

At the end of 1600, Cardinal Ascanius travelled to Spain on a special mission entrusted to him by the Pope to the King and was appointed Viceroy of Aragón, a post he took up on July 19, 1602 and held at least until March 1605, when he was still in Zaragoza. He also remained in Spain during the two conclaves in spring 1605, in which Leo XI and Paul V were elected. His name does not appear among the conclavists.[1162] During this long absence of Cardinal Ascanius in Spain, Calasanz decided to leave the Colonna Palace, as he had already laid the foundations for his work and wanted to devote himself fully to it, and he moved to the headquarters of his Pious Schools. According to the authoritative voice of Father Berro, this move took place in 1602.[1163]

1162 Cf. J. LÓPEZ NAVÍO, Ambiente histórico..., p.243-249. PASTOR, vol. 25, p.6-12, 24-32.

1163 In speaking of the transfer of the schools to the Palazzo Vestri he says: “and this was necessary to be done in 1602...” and “in this house [Palazzo Vestri] was transferred completely our D. Giuseppe Calasanz, leaving the Palazzo of the Emo. Ascanius Colonna” (quoted by A. GARCÍA-DURÁN, o.c., p.96, n.490-491).

Some biographers believe that Cardinal Ascanius travelled to Spain in 1602 after being appointed Viceroy of Aragón and that Calasanz took advantage of the excuse to leave his palace.[1164] According to reports, however, he stayed on for another two years (1600-1602), during which his entrusted “pupil”, the twenty-two to twenty-four-year-old Prince Philip, remained at the head of the family. Under these circumstances, it can be assumed that Joseph de Calasanz’s presence at his age of forty-three to forty-five assumed in some ways the character of a guardianship and responsibility that went beyond his clerical functions, for which Prince Philip was later to show him great appreciation and gratitude.

1164 Among the recent ones cf. BAU, RV, p.92; A. GARCÍA-DURÁN, o.c., p.96.

While living in one of the most splendid palaces in Rome, in the shadow of one of the oldest families, he remembered that he was the son of the blacksmith of Peralta, and in 1593 he sent the church of his village a chalice - we remember again - with this allusive inscription on the foot: Pro ferro aurum et argentum. 1593 (gold and silver instead of iron). It was almost ironic.

Procurator of Urgel

The matters in which Joseph de Calasanz had to mediate in his function as procurator of the diocese of Urgel were probably not few or of little importance. We have already referred to issues concerning the allocation of ecclesiastical benefices and economic regulations in which he intervened from Rome, such as the ‘pabordía’ of Mur in the Tremp officialate or the composition of benefices of the collegiate church of Tamarite de Litera.[1165]

1165 Cf. ch. 9, n.998.

It is very likely that he also intervened in another matter concerning the beneficiaries of the collegiate church of Tremp - his own - in which Philip II was personally interested, no doubt moved by the entreaties of his beloved prothonotary and advisor Jerome Gassol, from Tremp. The King recommended the matter to his Roman ambassador, the Duke of Sessa, in a letter dated September 25, 1595, from which we take these paragraphs:

“The canons and clergy of the collegiate church of the town of Tremp... have given me to understand that... they are in great distress... as they have lost a large part of the income with which they were endowed... and that for their increase... they desire to obtain from His Holiness the union and permanent use of half the income of the parishes of Limiana and Orcau, belonging to the said diocese of Urgel, and such consideration that with the remaining half they will be able to maintain the rectors of these parishes... I therefore charge and command you to do this in my name, together with His Holiness and such other persons as it may concern, you will endeavour...”[1166]

1166 Cf. complete letter in Cat 195 (1977) 43.

From 1592 until the end of the century, Bishop Capilla endeavoured to found a school for boys and a conciliar seminary in La Seo de Urgel, entrusting both institutions to the Jesuits. To finance the first institution, the bishop himself contributed a generous sum from his own peculium, to which was added a testamentary donation from Calasanz’s great friend, the Urgel merchant Antony Janer.[1167] However, the economic basis of the seminary was based on the use of the leasehold of the property of the abolished Benedictine monastery of San Saturnino de Tavérnoles and its priories of San Peter de Vellánega and San Salvador de la Vedella, for whose cession of goods it was necessary to apply to Rome, and which was granted by Clement VIII in 1592.[1168] And it is likely that Calasanz intervened as diocesan procurator for these and later proceedings, since the Roman ambassador, Duke of Sessa, also intervened in all this, as can be seen from these paragraphs of a letter addressed to him by Philip II on March 28, 1592:

1167 Cf. J. POCH, Tria documenta urgellensia episcopi Andreae Capilla: EphCa 3 (1968) 110-121. In addition to the document of foundation and endowment of Capilla (10-11-1599) and the testamentary legacy of Janer, two photographs of what was once the so-called “Colegio de San Andrés” of the Jesuits are published.

1168 Cf. P. PUJOL I TUBAU, Estatut de regim interior del Seminari de la Seu d’Urgell (any 1600): Obra completa, p.179.

“The establishment of the seminary of Urgel can be regulated in the form requested by the cardinals of the Congregation... A letter has been written to Bishop Capilla to inform him whether he in turn will give the reward requested... As soon as his reply is received, you will be informed of the decision that will be taken...”[1169]

1169 Cf. Cat 195 (1977) 42.

Since both institutes were to be entrusted to the Jesuits, although the main interested parties were the superiors of the province of Aragon, who had to accept both foundations, it is not impossible that some care also had to be taken in Rome before Father General Claudio Aquaviva, through the procurator Calasanz.[1170]

1170 In the act of foundation (10-11-1599) there is in fact the license obtained from Father General Claudio Aquaviva (cf. J. POCH, Tria documenta..., p.117).

Trial against Bishop Capilla

We have assumed that one of the reasons for Calasanz’s trip to Rome was to present the report on the visit ‘ad limina’ as Capilla’s personal procurator. And according to the explanations given, everything seemed to be in order. But without being able to explain the reasons for this, it is a fact that in the minutes of the Chapter of December 14, 1594 - almost three years after the arrival of Calasanz in Rome with the alleged report - we read with bewilderment the accusation of the Chapter of Urgel against the bishop for not having duly complied with the regulations of Sixtus V regarding the visit ‘ad limina’. We translate from the Catalan text:

“The chapter was convened... After taking note of the report of the Grand Archpriest and the vote of the doctors of Barcelona on the ‘motu proprio’ of Sixtus V, ‘De visitandis liminibus Apostolorum’, in which it was decided that, in view of the fact that the bishop has fallen under the sanctions of the said motu proprio and that the Chapter has the ‘iusquesitum’ [right] to collect and administer the fruits of the episcopal table from the day on which the bishop fell under the said suspension, and in view of the fact that the procurator of Rome [Calasanz?] has received a monitorio from the Auditor of the Apostolic Chamber for the execution of the said penalties, it was decided and the person of Canon Coll was chosen to appear at Sanahuja or wherever the bishop is, together with the notary of the Chapter, and to deliver to the said bishop the above-mentioned monitorio and the ‘motu proprio’ according to the form of the said votes and opinion; and to draw up the minutes and send them in duplicate to Rome, expressed in public form.”[1171]

1171 Cf. Cat 195 (1977) 32.

The Monitorio reached the bishop, who - according to the minutes of the Chapter of January 12, 1595 - greatly regretted that this matter had been brought against him and proceeded in his own way to prevent the execution of the penalties threatened against him. The Canons, for their part, decided with rare unanimity to take action against the bishop and even took precautions against possible reprisals or harassment from the bishop or other judges.[1172]

1172 Ib.

As there are no further documents, we do not know how the matter ended, although it is easy to assume that the bishop survived the situation with the support of Philip II, whose esteem and trust he deserved. On the other hand, there is every indication that the pastoral zeal of the Chapter was exaggerated, as Capilla had followed the usual course of action of the other bishops of the province of Tarragona in this matter.[1173]

1173 “We have not found until 1862 any testimony that any bishop of Tarraconense personally fulfilled the obligation of the ‘ad limina’ visit. The excuses are of very different kinds and can be presented in the form of letters from the bishop to the Pope, or in the XVI - XVII century, in the form of a medical attestation of lack of health” (J. M. MARQUES, Relationes ad limina de la Provincia eclesiástica tarraconense en el Archivo Vaticano. Anal. Sacra Tarrac. 47 [1974] 212, n.10).

However, it is worth asking whether Calasanz actually intervened as procurator in Rome in this unpleasant matter. If so, he would not have done anything personally against Capilla, whom he undoubtedly held in high esteem. He would have limited himself to fulfilling his duty, dealing with the monitorio on name of the Chapter and trusting that matters would be resolved in favor of his bishop, on whose name he himself had presented the relationship ‘ad limina’. But, one could also assume that Calasanz was no longer diocesan procurator at this point, partly because he had received the appointment as Penitentiary Canon of the cathedral of Barbastro on June 17, 1594, while the first meeting of the Chapter of Urgel in which this matter is mentioned took place on December 14th of the same year. Is it reasonable that, as canon of Barbastro, he continued to hold the office of procurator of the Chapter of Urgel after six months? The negative answer seems to us to be the most acceptable, so that from then on, he would be excluded from all proceedings relating to this procuratorship.[1174]

1174 Our suspicion may be corroborated by this paragraph from a letter of the Duke of Sessa, very pertinent: “His Holiness ordered that the Chapters send to their business persons who are not obliged to reside and ‘that they change them more often’...” (Cat 195 [1977] 41)

This violent clash between the Chapter and Capilla shows us that there was no great harmony between the two, as was generally the case in this place, where the Canons, apart from the many privileges and exemptions they enjoyed, felt themselves to be the true representatives and leaders of the Church of Urgel.[1175] It is also believed that Calasanz himself had difficulties with the Chapter and therefore went to Rome to obtain a canonry, on the advice of Capilla, who wanted to see him as a Canon to counteract the influence of others.[1176]

1175 “It is not surprising that they often turned against the bishop on duty, and although the written correspondence was usually respectful, the Chapter often became the Bishop’s prosecutor and hammer, and it considered itself the representative of the Church of Urgel because of its permanent character.” (L ROURERA Pau Duran (1582 1651) [Barcelona 1987] p.28).

1176 “Mossén Peter Pujol affirmed that the departure to Rome of Calasanz had to be attributed to difficulties with the Chapter. Perhaps Capilla wanted him to be a Canon to counteract the influence of others” (ibid., p.29).

The suppression of the Canons Regular of St. Augustine in Catalonia

It is possible that Calasanz intervened not only as diocesan procurator but also, in a sense, as a special envoy of bishop Capilla in the very serious matter of the suppression of the Augustinian Canons Regular throughout the Principality of Catalonia and the counties of Cerdanya and Roussillon. This was part of the religious policy of Philip II, who was concerned about the reform of the old orders. This was discussed at the Courts of Monzón in 1585, and there we saw Calasanz as a “familiar” of Bishop La Figuera in connection with the reform of the Augustinian cloistered of the Crown of Aragón and the Benedictines of Montserrat”.

Parallel to these reforms, the King obtained apostolic Bulls for the reform of the cloistered Benedictines of the Congregation of Tarragona and the aforementioned Canons Regular. They were appointed Apostolic Visitators in 1585: Fray Andrew Capilla, then prior of the Carthusian monastery of Scala Dei; don Peter Benedict Santa María, Canon of Barcelona and later bishop of Elna (1586-1588); don James Agullana, Canon of Gerona, and the master Friar Raymond Pascual, prior of the Dominican convent of Saint Catherine in Barcelona. As soon as the visits were completed, the protocols were sent to Rome. And after a careful examination, it was decided to completely suppress the Canons of Saint Augustine in the entire territory of Catalonia, Roussillon and Cerdanya.[1177] The state of laxity that these Canons had reached must have been frankly deplorable, and so it is recognized in the Bull, which comes to the very serious conclusion that there was no hope of reform.[1178] The suppression affected the three great abbeys of Santa Maria de Solsona, San Peter de Ager and San Vincent de Cardona in the diocese of Urgel, two others in the diocese of Vich, one in the diocese of Elna, four in the diocese of Gerona and three in the diocese of Barcelona. The apostolic nuncio, the Archbishop of Tarragona, John Terés, and the bishop of Urgel, Fray Andrés Capilla, were charged with carrying out the abolition.[1179]

1177 Cf J POCH S José de Calasanz y seis obispos españoles: RevCal 12 (1957) 169-171; ID., S. José de Calasanz “Ofcial eclesiástico” de la villa de Tremp: AnCal 4 (1960) 326, 329, 341 (n.42); Rass 26-27 (1957) 76.

1178 “…qui quidem visitatores... deprehenderunt canonicos ipsos gravissimis morbis laborare ac vitam licentius agere multaque passim contra Regulae observantiam admittere ac denique canonicalis disciplinae, nedum normam sed ne quidem ullum illius vestigium usquam retinere.... ut in illis... iam nulla prorsus supersit spes fructuosae reformationis” (‘Bullarium Romanum’ IX p 580 584).

1179 Ib. An almost complete translation of this Bull can be found in D. COSTA Y BOFARULL, Memorias de la ciudad de Solsona y su Iglesia, ed. Balmes (Barcelona 1959), Vol. I, p.328-329.

The Bull was dated August 13, 1592, just six months after the arrival of Calasanz in Rome, but even before its promulgation, consideration was given to what should happen to the abbeys, priories, churches and other ecclesiastical properties. And if some of them were to become secular collegiate churches, it had to be decided who the new canons or beneficiaries would be. For example, on August 22, eleven days after the signing of the Bull of Dissolution, another Bull was promulgated, creating the secular collegiate church of Cardona at the request of the Dukes of Cardona and establishing the number of prebendaries, the rules for provisioning, the rights of presentation, etc.[1180] And it can be assumed that Bishop Capilla was not left out of all this, not only because he was one of the three executors of the letter of suppression, but also because the collegiate church of Cardona fell within his diocese. It is therefore plausible that Capilla had recourse to his diocesan procurator in Rome, Joseph de Calasanz, for the rulings in this matter.

1180 Cf. Bullarium Romanum, IX, p.609-613.

Dismemberment of the Diocese of Urgel

Closely related to this problem was another, much more serious one, namely the creation of the diocese of Solsona. It was in fact a response to Philip II’s desire to revitalize the border region of the Pyrenees with new dioceses, as they were smaller and could be better protected by the new bishops against the real or perceived intrusion of Huguenots or Lutheran ideas. “The diocese of Urgel,” the king wrote to his Roman ambassador, the Duke of Sessa, “is so large and is situated in a country so rough and a frontier for heretics that, after much thought has been given to what remedy might be devised , that it might be better administered and with less labor, it has been concluded that none would be so suitable as to divide this diocese and erect and reinstate a cathedral church of the monastery of Our Lady of Solsona, being of all others the most convenient and practical.”[1181]

1181 Cf. Diccionario de Historia Ecles. de España, vol. IV, p.2503.

The royal request was granted by Clement VIII, who created the diocese of Solsona in a Bull dated August 1, 1593.[1182] The Bull was not published, however, as those responsible for the extinction and secularization of the Canons Regular opposed it, “in particular the bishop of Urgel, who was deprived of Solsona and the relevant territory of his diocese in order to give it to the newly established diocese, and whose projects were thwarted, as he undoubtedly felt that he could use the income of the monastery of Solsona for the benefit of the cathedral of Urgel or for other purposes that seemed appropriate to him.”[1183] The secret could not be kept for long, however, and Luccas Soriguera took advantage of the moment when he was in Rome and, on February 21, 1594, asked the Pope for one of the twelve canonical posts that had been specified in the Bull establishing the diocese, and was granted it. On August 4 of the same year, Don Louis Sans, Canon of Barcelona was officially named new bishop.[1184]

1182 Cf. D. COSTA Y BOFARULL, o.c., p.335 and Apend. XXIX.

1183 Ibid., p.336. Among these purposes should be placed the foundation of the Jesuit college and the Conciliar Seminary.

1184 Ibid., p.336-339.

The Bull establishing the diocese stipulated that it was to be separated from the dioceses of Urgel and Vich. On May 8, 1595, Clement VIII issued another Bull in which he entrusted this delicate task to the Archbishop of Tarragona, the bishop of Tortosa and the Apostolic Nuncio, who delegated it to the Abbot of the Monastery of Poblet. The division was approved on December 23, 1597 and included the incorporation into the new diocese of 258 churches with their respective territories that had been separated from the diocese of Urgel, as well as the deaneries of Cervera and Tarrega, which belonged to the diocese of Vich. The two bishops and their respective councils appealed, but their appeals were rejected. Nevertheless, the prelate of Urgel and his Chapter filed a lawsuit, which lasted until 1623 and finally resulted in only 114 churches being annexed and the other 144 remaining for the diocese of Urgel.[1185]

1185 Ibid., p.344-346.

In this complicated process, which affected the entire diocese of Urgel and whose final resolution depended on Rome, it is logical to assume that Calasanz intervened while maintaining his functions as diocesan procurator, at least until mid-1594, when he received the canonry of Barbastro.

The really strange thing - we emphasize - is that since Joseph Calasanz’s departure from Urgel, we do not have a single document that brings him into direct contact with the Chapter or with bishop Capilla. How is it possible that no crossed letter between Calasanz and Capilla has survived? And as far as we know, there is also nothing - at least not published - that documentarily clarifies the position of the bishop and the Chapter of Urgel in this very long legal dispute about the dismemberment and the possible intervention of the procurator in Rome, Joseph Calasanz.

The first failure of the candidate for the canonry

Barely three months after his arrival in Rome, on May 16, 1592, Calasanz writes a letter to Don Joseph Texidor, parish priest of Peralta, in which he informs him:

“Through the steward Escala de Benavarri I have written to you of the success of my journey and my arrival in Rome and to this day, thank God, I am well and trust in his favor to prove myself well in this land. Then I tried to get a canonry of Urgel and the secretary of the Spanish ambassador favored me greatly and gave me the grace of the said canonry through a secret steward of the Pope and I had it, without knowing it, for more than fifteen days. But the Datario, because I was new at Court, did not wish me to be provided for that time, and offered that he would grant me the grace at the first opportunity. The secretary and even the steward regretted this very much and suggested that as soon as they heard of a vacancy they would go out with their intention. I trust that I shall not lose the post if it should become vacant, for besides them the Pope’s steward has shown me a great favor through a Carthusian monk, my friend and his relative. I have a seat in the house of Cardinal Mark Antony Colonna... I know that, when the opportunity presents itself, he will also show me mercy.”[1186]

1186 EGC II, c.3.

The letter is a faithful reflection of the circles that characterize all Courts, including the Vatican, in which a series of characters and personalities move and to which one must go in order to obtain something. In this confusion, it is not easy to find the right thread among so many loose ends. Perhaps he put some letters of recommendation from his own bishop, Gallart or someone else in his saddlebags before he left Spain. If one of the aims of the journey was to secure a canonry - which is undoubtedly the case - he could not arrive empty-handed, even if he later found someone as influential as the end of the thread. And it is possible that this person was precisely the steward Escala de Benabarre, a man Calasanz trusted and perhaps already knew in the village where his sister Joanna lived with her family.[1187] The steward Escala, who was already retired, recommended him to the acting secret steward, who recommended him to the ambassador’s secretary, and the ambassador did the rest.

1187 In Libro de Matrimonios de Benabarre, 1°, f.3, we read: “On September 10, 1567 they were married... the magnificent Ramón Calasanz with Gracia Scala....” LÓPEZ NAVÍO, based on this news, proposes the hypothesis - very plausible - that the Scala named by Calasanz was the brother of the bride, with which a certain relation of kinship between the Calasanz and the Scala of Benabarre is discovered. But even without kinship, it is easy to relate Joseph Calasanz with the steward Escala, whether he knew him personally in Benabarre or if he had only recommendations when he left for Rome. It is probable that Escala returned to Spain when the Pope of whom he had been a steward died (cf. J. LÓPEZ NAVÍO, Ambiente histórico..., p.225).

This first chain of influences introduces us to the Aragonese Calasanz, who relied on Aragonese people, starting with Escala from Benabarre. There seems to be no doubt that the secret steward was James de Palafox, an Aragonese cleric and beneficiary who was in Rome from at least 1584 to 1606 and was appointed secret steward by the newly elected Clement VIII, a position he held until the pontiff’s death.[1188] Returning to Spain, he left the clergy and married his cousin Ann de Blanes y Palafox in 1610. After the death of his elder brother without succession, he inherited his estates in 1613 and became the second Marquis of Ariza.[1189] The following year, he wrote to Calasanz and asked him to found a Pious School for his lands when they were not even a religious congregation. This first letter was followed by others, to which Calasanz replied hopefully, which makes us certain that the friendship between the two dates back to the Roman years of the Marquis, who was then the secret steward and supporter of the candidate for the canonry.[1190]

1188 Ibid., p.229-238. As soon as he was elected Pope, Clement VIII appointed several secret stewards, according to custom, and among them there were three more closely linked to the service of the pontiff, who were Francis de Dietrichstein and Guido Bentivoglio, both future cardinals, and the Aragonese James de Palafox, misnamed Palafei by Pastor (cf PASTOR, vol.23, p.57-58). Dietrichstein was later a close friend of Calasanz and the introducer and great protector of the Pious Schools in Germania, which led some authors to suppose that he had been the “secret steward” named in the letter of Calasanz (cf. BAu, BC, p.214; BAU, RV, p.66; L. PICANYOL, EGC II, p.32). Although the hypothesis cannot be categorically denied, it seems more acceptable that it was Palafox because of what we will say later. He was highly esteemed by the Pope, as it is proved by the fact that he was twice commissioned to deliver the red biretta to the Spanish cardinals Bernardo de Rojas y Sandoval in 1599 and Antonio Zapata in 1604, besides entrusting him for several years with the steps to obtain wheat from the granaries of Spain (cf. J. LÓPEZ NAVÍO, l.c.).

1189 In one of his trips to Spain he had a natural son, born on 24-6-1600, and named don John de Palafox y Mendoza, whom he recognized and legitimized after marrying Ann de Blanes. He was the famous and controversial bishop of Puebla de los Angeles (México) and then of Burgo de Osma, staunch opponent of the Jesuits, ascetic writer, whose process of beatification was initiated. The second Marquis of Ariza was also a ‘Comendador’ of the Order of Santiago (cf. L. DE SALAZAR Y CASTRO, Los comendadores de la Orden de Santiago [Madrid 1949] vol. I, p.135-136).

1190 The two letters of Calasanz to the Marquis can be found in EGC VIII, p.451-453; EphCal 2 (1954) 39-41; EphCal 1 (1965) 6-10. From them it can be deduced that the Marquis wrote to Calasanz at least three letters, now lost. Although they do not accept decisively that it was Palafox instead of Dietrichstein, as López Navío does, they consider it probable A. García Durán (o.c., p.47, n.343) and Sántha (EphCal 1 [1965] 8).

The “Pope’s secret steward”, the Aragonese Palafox, intervened with the ambassador’s secretary, Peter Ximénez Murillo, also from Aragón,[1191] who - according to Calasanz - “favored me greatly.” Indeed, he had found the right path, because the person who held all of Spain’s ecclesiastical benefices was the ambassador, in this case the Duke of Sessa, Don Antony Fernández de Córdoba, who held the office from 1592 to 1603. And so extraordinarily quickly that the Datario, Lucio Sasso,[1192] annulled the appointment, with much feeling on the part of the protectors, the steward and the embassy secretary, as Calasanz says. The Chapter of Urgel lost a canon,[1193] thank God, but the universal Church gained a Founder.

1191 In the Book of Sessions of the Congregation of the Roman church of Montserrat, “the secretary Peter Ximénez Murillo” appears several times from 1593 to 1604, “Dms. Petrus Ximenez Murillo secretarius legationis catholicae” (cf. J. LÓPEZ NAVÍO, o.c., p.227-228). He also appears in Vatican documents (cf, for example, PASTOR, vol. 23, p. 496, doc. 50). He returned to Saragossa, where already in 1605, he appears married to a daughter of the Justicia de Aragón, don Urbano Ximénez de Aragües (cf. J. LÓPEZ NAVÍO, o.c., p.228, n.20).

1192 The datario prepared and dated the granting of graces, especially benefices and dispenses. Sasso was appointed by Urban VII and served until November 1593 when Clement VIII made him a cardinal (cf. Hier.Cath. IV, 4; MORONI, Dizionario, art. Dataria y Sasso; J. LÓPEZ NAVÍO, o.c., p.22).

1193 Picanyol made inquiries in the books of the Chapter archives of Urgel about vacancies and new appointments of canons from the end of 1591 and the whole of the first half of 1592, but he got nothing out of them (cf. EGC II, p.32).

It was a failure, but as he was the first, he was not discouraged. He was already prepared for the second attack, because the first two patrons were joined by the Pope’s butler, Count Hercules Tassone,[1194] to whom he had gained access through a Carthusian, “my friend and his relative”,” as Calasanz says. And since he was a Carthusian, it is easy to imagine the long hand of Friar Andrew Capilla who, in addition to being a Jesuit and professor of the Roman College in Rome, was a Carthusian Visitator to the province of Lombardy and Prior of St. Ambrose in Milan and St. Martin in Naples.[1195] He still relied on a “third way”, which was perhaps the most effective, namely the intercession of Cardinal Mark Antony Colonna.[1196]

1194 He was first ambassador to Rome for the Duke of Ferrara; he then embraced the ecclesiastical state and Gregory XIV appointed him palace steward in 1591, where he remained, Clement VIII having created him no less than Patriarch of Constantinople. He died on December 17, 1597 (cf. MORONI, o.c., vol. 41, p.262, and PASTOR, vol. 23, p.57).

1195 Cf. F. ORTÍ Y FIGUEROLA, Memorias históricas de la fundación y progreso de la insigne Univ. de Valencia, p.273.

1196 There is a relationship between the Cardinals Colonna and Tassone, since already in 1597 the poet Alessandro Tassone was secretary of Cardinal Ascanius in Rome, and then follows him to Spain when Ascanius is named Viceroy of Aragón (cf. J. LÓPEZ NAVÍO, o.c., p.239).

Second failure of a canonry in Urgel

And indeed, on November 25, 1592, he wrote to the parish priest of Peralta:

“Cardinal Colonna, in whose house I am, gave me the grace of the vacant canonry of Urgell on account of the death of Sorribes and later we found that he had died in the month of the Ordinary and therefore it had no effect. Now he is taking steps for another one, I do not know where it will end. I could have him in Albarrazín, or in Teruel, but because they are so far away, I did not want to ask. May Our Lord direct it to his service. The canonry of Raxadell of Lérida was established for one of the same city, at the request of the Embaxador. I received word very soon via Barcelona...”[1197]

1197 EGC II, c.37.

Undoubtedly, in this long paragraph, in which a new failure in Urgel is mixed with a disappointment in Lérida, two refusals for Albarracín and Teruel and a vague hope that, as he says, “I do not know where it will end”, the most correct sentence is: “May Our Lord direct it to his service.” And that is exactly what he did, even if it will take him at least another five years to clearly recognize what this ‘service’ was.

There is no doubt about it: Calasanz wanted to return to Urgel with a canonry. And for the second time he got it, but... it was not a papal month![1198]

1198 The collation of the benefice depended on the month in which the holder had died. The vacancies in certain months were at the mercy of the Pope and the others at the mercy of the dioceses: “Regula nona Cancellariae Apost. reservantur Romano Pontifici certa officia. v.g. canonicatus ecclesiarum cathedralium octo mensibus papalibus, i.e., Jan., Feb., Apr., Mai., Jul., Aug., Oct., Nov. vacantia. In favorem Episcoporum residentium (id quod nostra aetate sine dubio regulariter obtinet) simpliciter alternativa mensium inter Rom. Pontificem et Episcopos est introducta, ita ut Rom. Pontifici collatio competat mensibus Jan., Mart., Maii, Jul., Sep., Nov., reliquis autem mensibus episcopis sit propria” (F. X. WERNZ, ‘Jus decretalium’ [Rome 1899] t.II, p.454). The ‘Regulae Cancellariae Apost.’ were reduced to 72 by Nicholas V and each Pope used to promulgate them the day after his election. The one remembered was the ‘Regula nona’.

In fact, Sorribes had died in June 1592 and June was the month of the Ordinary.[1199] And one wonders in amazement: If it was up to the bishop to grant the canonry, why did not he give it to Calasanz if he held him in such high esteem? And the answer was in part well known to Calasanz, for as secretary of the Chapter of Urgel, he had written in the Minutes on January 8, 1589, what we translate:

1199 Regarding this canonry, Picanyol writes: ...” the documents of Urgel consulted by me about this canonry do not agree, at least at first sight, with the words of Calasanz. From the quoted Liber conclusionum from Urgel the Canon Maciá de Sorribes died in Puigcerdá on the lasts days of June and the vacancy was filled on 12 April 1593 with the person of James Baget, by virtue of the Bull from Clemente VIII; we can see that the provision of that canonry was competence of the Pope, non of the ordinary” (EGC II, p.38). What is seen is that there is in fact a papal Bull of concession, but not that it was of papal competence, since the month of June was the month of the ordinary. The anomaly must have another explanation. Perhaps there was a conflict between the bishop and the Chapter - in spite of the agreement that we will discuss later - and Rome was called upon to decide. The delay is suspicious, for if Calasanz was denied the canonry in November 1592, why was it not awarded until April of the following year? Something similar happened later in Barbastro regarding a canonry disputed and also requested by Calasanz: “Jus collationis eiusdem - e sententia oratoris - principio Episcopus et Capitulum communiter habuere; ast discordia inter Episcopum et Capitulum de eodem canonicatu conferendo exorta, vacatio canonicatus adeo est protacta, ut omne ius conferendi ad Sanctam Sedem sit devolutum” (EphCal 6 [1957] 141). Nor is Poch correct in saying that Sorribes died “at the end of 1592 or the months of January-October 1593” (Cat, 195 [1977] 34), since the letter of Calasanz is dated November 25, 1592 and speaks, logically, of the death of Sorribes.

“Agreement on the options, with the bishop. The Chapter was convened, etc. Considering that the bishop, to avoid litigation and worry, he agrees to grant the Chapter three options, if any dignity or office becomes vacant during the months in which it is the turn of the said bishop to present it, they have resolved to accept the said agreement during the lifetime of the said bishop. And they want to be sanctioned in a protocol and remain in the power of Mosén Gari, the notary of the Chapter.”[1200]

1200 Cf. Cat 195 (1977) 32.

This was a real abuse of authority. And we assume that the bishop had to submit to this for the sake of peace, although we do not know if they mean that of the six months of the Ordinary, three are available to the Chapter, or that every time there is a vacancy in the time of the Ordinary, the Chapter has the right to present a list of three candidates.

After two unsuccessful attempts, Calasanz is not interested in the canonries of Urgel. And while he was taking new steps, he received news of the death of Caspar Agostí, holder of a benefice in the parish of Fraga. He had died in November, the papal month. Calasanz submitted the first corresponding request, which was granted on February 20, 1593.[1201] The ease with which he received it did not depend on curial influences in this case, but rather on family connections. His brother-in-law from Benabarre, Peter John Blanch, alias Agostí, belonged to the Agostí family de Fraga, patrons and with the right to grant two benefices in the parish of San Peter.[1202] The benefices amounted to 24 gold escudi per year, which, together with the 17.5 escudi of Claverol’s personado that he enjoyed, amounted to 41.5 escudi, a not insignificant amount considering that the dues for his services in the Colonna palace and for his office as diocesan procurator could be enough to cover his personal expenses for maintenance and normal life.[1203]

1201 Cf. G. SÁNTHA, Primum beneficium ecclesiasticum a S. Josepho Calasantio in Urbem ingresso obtentum: EphCal 11(1960) 306-3 12.

1202 In Llibre dels benifets of the diocese of Lérida, to which Fraga belongs, it is recorded that the Agostí had the right of presentation for the “Beneficium S. Mariae Veteris in Ecclesia S. Petri Ville Frage” and the “Beneficium Sancti Martini et Augustini....” From 1485 to 1576 (the book ends in 1590) they present it: Francis Agostí, Caspar Agostí, Joan Agostí, Melchior Agostí, Elizabeth Agostí, Philip Agostí and Vincent Agostí (cf. J. POCH, o.c., p.36). In addition, on August 25, 1563, another well-known personage, the papal singer Antony Calasanz, buried in the Roman church of Montserrat, of whom we have already spoken, had the same benefice as Calasanz.

1203 Let us remember that in Urgel for his positions of secretary of the Chapter and master of ceremonies he received 60 escudi per year and spent 70 for his full pension and that of his servant in the Janer house.

It was not so easy to obtain a benefice in Rome, for if it is true that it was a bottomless pit,[1204] it was also a ceaseless flood of requests and recommendations that flowed - in our case - to the Duke of Sessa. And one of the most eager and demanding was Philip II, who went so far as to put a stop to the demands of his own ministers, as is clear from this eloquent letter:

1204 In the Constitutions of the Italian Discalced Carmelites, in 1597, they introduced the vow “not to claim ecclesiastical dignities” and defined Rome as “omnium ecclesiasticarum dignitatum parente” (quoted in A. GARCfA-DURÁN, o.c., p.31, n.286).

“The King. Duke of Sessa, cousin, member of my council and my ambassador. [By my previous letters] You have seen the inconvenience that can result from negotiations in which my ministers habitually ask for (...) Benefices at this Court without my permission, urging you on in a way other than is right, and you will know if for being pleasing, favors have ever been granted to someone who does not deserve it. To avoid this, I have ordered that no minister shall solicit or accept anything for himself or others at this Court without first giving me an account and obtaining my permission. And for this reason, I have ordered letters to be written to the ministers of Italy with the tenor you see in the copy, and I order and command you to keep your hand on it, that if anyone should attempt anything to the contrary, the business will not go forward. And do not do anything at the request of any of them without my order in this matter, for those who are convenient I will send you a communication as usual, and you will inform me of the receipt of this communication and of your intention to carry it out. From San Lorenço, September 23, 1595, I, the King. Francisco de Idiáquez, Secretary.”[1205]

1205 Cited in J. POCH, o.c., p.42. See texts of letters from the king asking for benefices in 1592 and 1593, as well as the aforementioned royal letter to the Count of Chinchón two months before (ibid., p.41-42).

Three Canons for the same canonry

More than a year before this letter, Calasanz received a Brief from Clement VIII dated June 17, 1594, granting him a canonry in the cathedral of Barbastro with the prebend of magistral and penitentiary, with an annual pension of 170 gold ducats. This position had become vacant due to the death of Jaime Spluga in March 1594, the papal month.[1206] We do not know exactly who the patrons were, but we can think of all those Calasanz had named on previous occasions: James de Palafox, Peter Ximénez Murillo, Hercules Tassone, the anonymous Carthusian and Cardinal Mark Antony Colonna.

1206 Cf. the supplication of Calasanz and the pontifical concession in G. SÁNTHA, De canonicatu Barbastrensi a Sancto Josepho Calasanctio obtento: EphCal 6(1957)147, n.10. The Bull of new erection of the diocese (June 18, 1571) “institutes two archdeaconries with the titles of Barbastro and Funes, and two canonries, ‘one with the title of lector and penitentiary for a master in sacred theology’ [which is the one granted to Calasanz], and the other with the title of doctoral for a doctor in canon law, which were to be provided in competition, according to the provisions in force, and endowed with two hundred escudos to each of these four benefices. According to the new plan, the cathedral church was to be composed of the four aforementioned dignities, thirteen canons, a vicar and twelve ‘racioneros’” (España Sagra-da, t.48, p.45).

It had been too easy for him. With that, Barbastro crossed his path again. Perhaps he had fewer friends there than he thought among the Canons. But he undoubtedly witnessed the disagreements between the cathedral Chapter and Bishop Philip de Urríes over the filling of vacant dignities and canonries in the months of the Ordinariate, which forced an agreement or concordance - as in Urgel in 1589, in which it was stipulated that “the bishop and the cathedral Chapter would fill them alternately, both attending the collation and appointing the Dean as Vicar general of the bishop for this purpose and, in his absence, as his deputy. Sixtus V confirmed this agreement by his Bull, which was issued in Rome on the calends of May 1585.”[1207]

1207 Ibid., p.50. The conflictive tension between bishop and chapter is characteristic throughout this second epoch (1571-1851) of the diocese, as A. Lambert writes in defining it as “modest diocese of Pyrenees where the restoration of worship, the reorganization of the resources of the churches, the ‘traditional resistance’ – not always whith success - to the claims of the Chapter seemed to have kept the attention of its bishops” (Dict. d’Histoire et Géogr. Ecciés., vol. VI, c.608).

Canon James Spluga died in March 1594. It was a papal month, but according to the Bulls establishing the diocese in 1571, the prebends of the magistral, the penitentiary and the doctoral were to be awarded competitively. And so it was done. Three candidates were presented: Doctors James Castillo, Peter Latorre and Peter Navarro. The vote took place on April 27. The bishop, Don Michael Cercito (1586-1595), opted for Dr. Castillo, but the majority of the canons voted for Dr. Latorre, who took possession of the canonry. The third pretender, Dr. Navarro, was excluded. However, the disagreements continued and the Metropolitan Tribunal of Zaragoza was called upon. But without waiting for its verdict, Dr. Latorre, angered by these disagreements, resigned his canonry to the Pope and joined the Capuchin Order.

In the meantime, Calasanz, who was advised and supported by his protectors in Rome and was certain that the benefices of Barbastro belonged to the Pope for he had made them vacant in a papal month, asked for them to be granted to him on June 27 of the same year, 1594. But he probably already knew at that time, or learned in the following months, what was happening in Barbastro. And in order to defend his acquired rights against intruders and disobedients, he obtained a “monitorio” from the Holy See, which was signed on September 27 by the apostolic protonotary, referent of both Signatures, auditor general of the apostolic chamber, ordinary judge of the Roman Curia, etc., named Camillo Borghese (later Paul V). Later, his help will be more effective to make Calasanz the Founder of the Pious Schools than to make him canon of Barbastro now. A monitorio was a very long document of bombastic and threatening style, peppered with censures and excommunications against anyone who dared to defy the orders of the Holy See, and for of its extreme seriousness it was mainly used against kings and emperors in unexpected situations and was therefore usually ineffective.

On the same day, September 27, Calasanz packed the angry letter and sent it by post to his brother-in-law in Benabarre to give him instructions. And at the same time, by the same post, he wrote another letter to the parish priest of Peralta, in which he wrote, among other things:

“With the present ordinary I have sent Peter Joan Blanch, my brother-in-law, a monitorio of the Auditor of the Camera, to leave me the possession of a canonry that has become vacant in the cathedral of Barbastro... and because it is necessary that the one who takes it should be cleric, you will do me a favour if the said brother-in-law asks you to accompany him to the said town... And if the cathedral Chapter grants possession, which I assume it will, so as not to expose themselves to the danger of being excommunicated and summoned to Rome in person, you will ask the canon Louis Torres and others who are my friends to make me present until I am able to go. The possession cannot be refused, for even if they apply to the Pope, he will not hear them unless they first obey the letter with which the Monitorium of the Auditor of the Chamber is sent...”[1208]

1208 EGC II, c.6. The full Latin text of the monitorio in EphCal 4 (1950) 106-112, and the translation of the first half in C. BAU, Historia de las E. Pías en Cataluña p.70-71.

The letters arrived, but the parish priest of Peralta did not want to interfere. A new procurator had to be found and the appointment had to be renewed from Rome. Don Peter Vicent, Prior of Roda, accepted and travelled to Barbastro with Peter John Blanch. He presented the Bulls to the Chapter on January 14, 1595 and then the monitorio to the intruder Castillo, and when the latter and his procurator rejected it, he presented it to the Chapter on February 4th. The monitorio was very badly received. There were protests, especially from the procurator of the pretender, Dr. Castillo. The monitorio and the papal Bulls were regarded as obreptitious and subreptitious because the collation of the magistral and penitentiary canonry was episcopal and not papal right. The Chapter prepared to send a procurator to Rome to justify its reaction to the papal documents.[1209]

1209 Cf. BAU, RV, p.67-68. Perhaps this emboldened attitude of the Chapter was supported by precedents such as the one revealed in this letter of Philip II to his Roman ambassador, the Duke of Sessa, dated May 20, 1592: “there was in that Court who impetrated surreptitiously the said Archdeaconries and Canonries of the cathedral of Balbastro... And later some other pretensions and differences have been continued between the impetrants and those named by me... Lately it is known that one... has brought his Bulls and presented them to the Official of the Bishop of Balbastro. Having had news of this, I have ordered to write to the said Bishop and his Chapter, that the possession not be given, nor the Bulls be executed... That the graces of these prebends obtained surreptitiously be revoked and that they be provided in the persons I have named or will name.... You will see to it that they do not proceed against the Bishop and Council of Balbastro for the opposition they have placed to the execution of the Bulls presented by Francis Espluga” (J. POCH, Mossèn Josep Calassanç a la diòcesi d’Urgell: Cat 195 [1977] 46-47).

Third and final failure: He will not be a Canon

The marginalized pretender Dr. Navarro goes to Rome and asks for the canonry on the grounds that it is still vacant. Although the election initially fell to the bishop and the cathedral Chapter, the controversy between the two lasted so long that the right of appointment fell to the Holy See, and on June 9, 1595, the Pope granted him the canonry. Navarro returns to Barbastro with Bulls and threats. The Chapter rejects them for the same reasons as before. Navarro protests against the rejection before a notary and instructs him to repeat the protest regularly so that the right does not lapse.

On August 15, the Bishop of Barbastro dies and his candidate and protégé, Dr. Castillo, feels helpless. On the other hand, the resignation of his opponent Dr. Latorre and his entry into the Capuchins rendered the pending legal dispute in Zaragoza meaningless. He also travels to Rome to ask for the canonry, pointing out in his plea that after Spluga’s death there were two chosen ones, himself and Doctor Latorre, who took possession of it; but without waiting for the judgment of Saragossa, he placed the canonry in the hands of the Pope, who has had the right to confer it ever since. And of course, he asked for it to be granted to him. And the Pope granted it to him on December 4th of the same year.

However, the legal dispute was now between Castillo and Calasanz, which once again put Navarro on the sidelines. Another eight months passed and Calasanz returned to the prosecution, drafting a new plea in which - at least from the pen of the lawyer who drafted it - a contemptuous and unjustifiably differentiating tone towards Castillo can be seen,[1210] reflecting the tension and verbal excesses which had occurred in this long and lamentable legal battle. It is said that while waiting for the future verdict, Calasanz, faced with the possibility of both being denied the right to the canonry, asked that it be granted to him again. And it was granted to him on August 27, 1596.[1211]

1210 A lawsuit has been filed “’inter devotum’ Sanctitatis Vestrae oratorem Josephum Calasans ‘presbiterum’ Urgellensis Civitatis vel diocesis in sacra theologia magistrum ex una, et quemdam Jacobum Castillo assertum clericum, partibus ex altera... oratori vestro apostolica, adversario vero predictis ordinaria auctoritate provisum seu quoad fructum ordinarium provideri mandatum existit” (G. SÁNTHA, o.c., p.148, n.11). Also Castillo was ‘presbyter and doctor’ and had ‘apostolic’ Bull of provision, and not only ‘ordinary’ approval of his bishop.

1211 Cf. supplication and concession in ibid.

The other two opponents did not give up, and Barbastro also showed no signs of agreeing to the appointment, and in the meantime the legal dispute and the costs continued. Nevertheless, a year and a half passed and at the end of 1597 the three parties to the dispute reached an agreement: The canonry would remain with Dr. Navarro, the outcast, to whom Calasanz and Castillo ceded their rights, subject to an annual pension of 30 ducats for Castillo and 36 for Joseph Blanch, Calasanz’s nephew, to whom Navarro would also give a further 60 ducats as compensation for the costs of the lawsuit. The pope approved the concord on January 1, 1598, although the letter was delayed until May 27, when it was dated.[1212]

1212 Ib., p.149-152, n.12. The document also states that Calasanz’s nephew, Joseph Blanch, already enjoyed two non-residential benefices, whose annual fruits were 24 gold ducats one of them in Benabarre (Lérida) and 60 escudos the other in Eresue and Sos (Barbastro).

The irony of life! Dr. Navarro took possession of the disputed canonry on 1 August 1598 and enjoyed it for only one year. He died on September 4, 1599. Nor was Calasanz any luckier, as neither his nephew, the lucky one, nor his father took excessive care to collect the reserved annuity, with Calasanz himself suffering the consequences, who had ceded the costly annuity to the nephew on the condition that “he would have the good will - he wrote to the parish priest of Peralta - that I could use the said annuity for eight years for a pious cause that I intend to do.”[1213] The pious cause was the Pious Schools, which were already in the process of being established. But he was unable to collect a single penny of this unfortunate annuity, which was the result of so many disappointments and failures, the last of which he lamented in the above-mentioned letter to the parish priest of his town: “...since I have this correspondence with my relatives, may God bless it... and I would be glad if the money came into your hands rather than those of my brother-in-law or my nephew, for I do not know what to think of someone who has been worth nothing to me for so many years.”[1214]

1213 Letter dated June 27, 1599 (EGC II, c.7).

1214 Ib. For all this long subject of the canonry of Barbastro the most documented and definitive study is that of Sántha, cit. in n.1206. With the light he provides, the previous ones by Picanyol (EphCal 4 [1950] 103-105; EGC II, p.41-44) and Bau (BC, p.217-221; Historia de las E. Pías en Cataluña, p.69-73) are conditioned; and the later ones by Bau (RV, p.66-70) and A. García-Durán (o.c., p.45-65) are illuminated.

But at this point, when he wrote these lines on June 27, 1599, he had already made up his mind: he would never become a Canon, nor would he opt for a residential benefice. If a simple benefice was offered, he would accept it in order to do his “pious work”, but only if it was worthwhile. And he had already discussed all this with the Datario, as he told the parish priest of Peralta in the aforementioned letter:

“The Datario, knowing that I do not want a benefice of residence, has offered to give me simple benefices when the opportunity arises, and so about a month ago, without asking him, I was told that he had given me a benefice of 80 ducats, and then we found that it was not worth twenty, and so I told him to give it to someone else, that he would give it to me” on another occasion.”[1215]

1215 EGC II, c.7.

That opportunity never came. But Calasanz still had to say his last word about canonries.

Chapter 11

The Rome of the saints

More and more immersed in the captivating atmosphere of Rome, not that of the Caesars or Baroque monumentality, but that of piety and charity, the aspirant to the canonical office gradually forgot such pretensions. He embarked on a new path towards a conscious encounter with what was initially perhaps a mysterious voice or just a premonition. In those years at the end of the century, various attitudes and feelings mingled in Calasanz’s soul: worries about a secure and dignified future, religious concerns, the search for the meaning of his own life and the will of God. And from this state of uncertainty and spiritual deepening, a clear and overwhelming knowledge of his own vocation emerges. As soon as it is uncovered, everything becomes conditioned and subordinate.

A kind of conversion

There are saints whose lives are split in half by a key date or event that marks a before and after of their “conversion” The most typical example is St. Paul and his fall from his supposed horse. Other famous examples are St. Augustine and St. Ignatius of Loyola. In these cases, conversion involves a radical change from a disordered or sinful life to a life of devotion to God and service to the Gospel. With other saints, the interior phenomenon of “conversion” is not as loud and conspicuous, primarily because they have no previous life of disorder and sin. They are honest, good, even exemplary people, but there comes a decisive moment when it seems that God touches their soul and they begin to change, but without abruptness. These are not flashes of lightning from Sinai, but rather a dawn whose gentle light intensifies until the fullness of noon. And then God takes them away, as if in a fiery chariot.

The life of Joseph Calasanz follows a path of goodness, of honesty, of exemplarity until those early Roman years and the last years of the century, when that dawn breaks in crescendo and one realizes that the finger of God has already touched his soul. It is wonderful to see that even in these good and honest men there is this mystical moment of the finger of God, of “conversion”, and that they were not saints from the womb.

The traditional hagiographers liked to present a Calasanz “without blemish or wrinkle” from Peralta. And when they saw him arrive in Rome - even after reading his first letters - they discarded any claim to ecclesiastical dignities and quickly made him renounce those that his protector, Cardinal Colonna, had procured for him.[1216] Without being so extremely detached and without going into detail, Berro said with more elegance that Calasanz “devoted himself to all works of charity, knowing full well that God had brought him to Rome for greater things than to improve himself in ecclesiastical dignities.”[1217]

1216 Recall the testimonies concerning the voice-dream that calls him to Rome and his admiration because he had no pretensions (cf. ch. 9, n.995). Armini writes that Cardinal Mark Antony Colonna “remained very much edified by his modesty, for the detachment that he knew from any pretension to dignity”, and when the canonry of Barbastro became vacant he got it “thinking of doing him something pleasing....” Giuseppe remained confused, and ... humbly requested to receive his excuses showing not interested in that dignity, saying that he left Spain without thinking to go back ... and very soon he gave [the canonry] to Dr. Peter Navarro” (ARMINI, Vita, p.46-47). According to Talenti, Canon Compte and Cardinal Colonna obtained for him first the canonry of Urgel and then that of Barbastro, behind the back of Calasanz, who, knowing that in Barbastro there was a lawsuit, being “extremely detached from litigations, he deemed it opportune to renounce it, without offending the Cardinal. ...”, which “consented to the renunciation, with the proviso, however, that in his memory he place some pension, either for himself or for whomever he wished of his own. So he executed it all contentedly, renouncing it to Doctor Peter Navarro” (TALENTI, Vita, p.40-41).

1217 BERRO I, p.65-66.

The testimonies of these three witnesses, all Spaniards and friends of the saint, are not only more truthful and objective, but also much more moving and exemplary. The elderly priest Don Francis Motes said: “Then he went to Rome... and after a year or two I heard that he had applied for a benefice in his country, I do not know which one. And after he had obtained it, since God had destined him for greater things, a lawsuit was brought against him; and since it did not go in his favor, he decided to give up his claims and give himself entirely to God.”[1218] The painter Francis Gutiérrez said: “I have heard that Father Joseph came to Rome to seek an ecclesiastical prebend, but then, touched by God and realizing that everything in this world is vain, he left the world and founded the Religion of the Fathers of the Pious Schools.”[1219] And Thomas Simón, who supplied the hosts for the church, said: “He came to Rome, where he had the agency [‘agenzia’] of that bishop [of Urgel] and presumed to obtain some benefices. But then he decided on a different way of life, because he said that the life he had begun was not for him [‘non faceva per lui’], and so he gave himself entirely to the Spirit and to the teaching and founding of his Religion.”[1220]

1218 BAU, RV, p.60.

1219 Ib., p.62.

1220 Ibid.

And so it was. Since his arrival in Rome, he has been looking for a canonry. He does not expect to be served up on a silver platter, but he prepares his strategy of influence and knows about the vacancies. Two in Urgel are turned him down and he remains undaunted in his expectation. He turns down two others, in Teruel and Albarracín, because they are too far away, and he passes up another one in Lérida to go for one in Barbastro. And for four long years - from March 1594 to May 1598 - he upheld his rights against all odds by resorting to a “monitorio”, complaining about the inefficiency of the procurators and bringing one or more lawsuits against his opponents. There is no shortage of words in the passionate and nervous debate, which borders on insults and lies. And it does not end with a ‘resignation’ or a simple concession, as with Latorre, but with an ‘agreement’ in which he defends his own rights until the last moment.[1221]

1221 Cf. ch. 10, n.1210; G. SÁNTHA, De canonicatu Barbastrensi..., p.145.

In reality, we can speak here neither of sin nor of injustice, but simply of a complaint like so many others, vulgar and ordinary, perhaps less loud and angry than those made by the chapter of Urgel and Barbastro against their respective bishops in the same circumstances or because of real or supposed rights in the granting of canonries. And in human terms, this failure must have been deeply humiliating for Calasanz, something like a feeling of incompetence and powerlessness. Providentially, however, it was no more than this: that it was not of God that he should be a canon.

All this led him to an irrevocable decision, which he expressed clearly in his letter of June 27, 1599 and which he could only make after the “concord” a year earlier (January 1, 1598): “I do not ask for benefices with residence.”[1222] And perhaps this decision could be the basis for what can be called “his conversion”

1222 C. 7.

The disappointment over the canonries was accompanied by another, also very deep disappointment: the lack of trust in his relatives. And the two went together, because the prebends he hoped to receive in Rome would primarily serve to improve the situation of his sisters and nephews. He wrote this in a letter dated November 25, 1592, nine months after his arrival:

“...especially knowing that my nephew Anthony John Pastor studies well and profitably, I have taken all possible care, and if he perseveres, as I hope he will, and our Lord gives me the means to help him (which I hope he will), I will help him to persevere in his studies to the end. Your Grace may encourage him when you see him and also his father... that when I return to Spain, I shall have due care in everything. My nieces from the house of Peter Ferrer you will greet on my behalf, as will my sister and her daughters, and you will tell them that I wish to return to Spain very soon to be able to help them with whatever they need....”[1223]

1223 C. 4.

And in May of the following year, after the death of his sister Magdalena, he expressed the same sentiments.[1224]

1224 “(if) Our Lord gives me health I will try as soon as possible (as I can) to return, because in every way I wish to see the nieces that I have in that place (Peralta) in the state that is right. Your Grace, from my part, will encourage them to all virtue, that if I live, they will not lack the help and favor they need” (C.5).

He did not receive the canonry of Barbastro, and instead of the 170 gold ducats a year, he was at least able to keep a pension of 36, which he generously gave to his nephew Joseph Blanch from Benabarre. But neither he nor his father bothered to assert his uncle’s rights or collect this pension during the long legal dispute. And this attitude, bordering on indifference, also embittered the heart of the already disillusioned candidate for the canonry and distanced him from the affection of the family.

This detachment from his own aspirations and from his relatives was undoubtedly the beginning of something great, of a change of direction, of his “conversion”; it was as if he was putting his hand to the plow... Later he was to write in his Constitutions: “Beware of looking back when you have put your hand to the plow! Therefore, completely reject preoccupation with the things of this world and earthly desires.”[1225] He wrote with experience.

1225 CC, n.35.

The Franciscans of the convent of the Holy Apostles

It is interesting that during the ten years that Calasanz lived in the palace of the Colonna family (1592-1602), one of the most splendid in Rome, he came into contact with poverty, sought it, found it and fell in love with it. And it is not that he did not feel the poverty and misery of the people of Urgell during the years of his pastoral wanderings through the archpriesthoods of the country; but there is no doubt that here, in the great city, he had to notice the contrast between the wealth of some and the misery of others, between the splendor of the palaces and the squalor of the huts. And, crucially for his spiritual life, he lived closely with the Franciscan spirit and was forever captivated by it, coming into direct contact with the friars of the convent attached to the Basilica of the Twelve Apostles and cultivating friendship and intimacy with them.

Father Caputi wrote this page in his Notizie historiche, translated by Bau with some liberties:

“To escape the flattening, sleep and dangers of the meridian demon in the extreme heat of the Roman summer, he [Calasanz] used to walk from the house of Colonna to the second cloister of the convent of the Holy Apostles and there pray the rosary or take a little book and do spiritual reading... One day, while he was walking, two young Franciscans came into the cloister, one called Father Bagnacavallo and the other Father John Baptist de Larino, students of the Minors, and without realizing that he was walking, they began to frolic, chase each other, dodge each other, provoke each other from pillar to post, in short, they played like children or like free-living birds. Father Joseph called them to him politely and kindly and told them with a gentle admonition how much better it would be to spend this time studying or praying, for the two of them would later be the chief moderators of their Religion and should set an example to the others for the good of their own Order. Both were not only astonished but amazed at the certainty with which he spoke to them, and they changed their youthful zeal and devoted themselves more to their serious education. It was not long before the Venerable’s prophecy came true. The event of the prediction of the Generalate that Father Joseph had made to the two was told to me and to Father Vincent [Berro] of the Conception by Larino himself when he came to Rome in 1652, if I remember correctly. We wanted him to take part in the Informative Process that was then being carried out in the usual way for the beatification of our Father; but he went to Naples, where he died.”[1226]

1226 Cf. BAU, BC, p.245-246. He took an oath to testify in this process on May 8, 1652, but did not testify (cf. S. GINER, El proceso de beatificación de S. José de Calasanz, p.69).

The interest of Caputi and later hagiographers focused on prediction, as proof of the prophetic gift of the Servant of God. However, it seems more interesting to observe the approach to religious life, and specifically to Franciscan life, for at least a decade. Moreover, during those years Calasanz formed a deep friendship with several friars which lasted his entire life. Among them, of course, were the two future Generals of the order, Father Jacob Montanari of Bagnacavallo (1570-1631) and John Baptist Berardicelli of Larino (1577-1656), the protagonists of the famous anecdote.

In the convent of the Twelve Apostles, Sixtus V (who belonged to the same Order) had established the College of St. Bonaventure with the faculty for awarding academic degrees. Friar Jacob Montanari of Bagnacavallo, after working as a professor at the Convent of Bologna (1593-1595), moved to the Roman College of St. Bonaventure, where he also worked as a professor in the years 1595-1599, while studying for his doctorate in canon law. Berardicelli de Larino was, as Calasanz testifies, “a pupil and disciple of Bagnacavallo”, and it is very likely that he was in those very years of the master’s Roman professorship. Both were students, as Caputi wrote.[1227] Bagnacavallo was then between twenty-five and twenty-eight years old and Larino between eighteen and twenty-two. They were therefore not adolescents, so Calasanz’s reprimand was justified, which would have been a friendly and even joking admonition rather than a serious rebuke, since he had neither the authority nor the obligation to reprimand them. Perhaps the prediction of future responsibilities did not have the emphasis of a supernatural prophecy, but it remained etched in Larino’s memory and resurfaced later when it was fulfilled.

1227 Cf. C. VILÁ, Dos amigs de Calasanz: los Padres Bagnacavallo y Larino: Archivum 27 (1990) 82,135. Calasanz says in a letter of February 7, 1632: “a pupil and disciple of Bagnacavallo, called Maestro Larino, has been made General Vicar of the Friars Minor Conventual.” (C. 1746). In an attestation of 1617, signed by Calasanz and Bagnacavallo, the latter affirmed to have received from the former a manuscript - of which we will speak later -, and specified that it happened “mentre noi studiavamo nel convento nostro de’SS. Apostoli di questa città [Rome], giá molti anni sono” (ibid., p.145).

From 1612 to 1647, the two friends held the reins of the supreme leadership of their Order, with the exception of the intervening period of 1623-1632.[1228] At the same time, Calasanz was at the head of his own work of the Pious Schools from the end of the 16th century until his death in 1648. There is no lack of data on the mutual esteem and mutual influence, help and advice in times of need between the three Generals, which can be assumed to have been more extensive than documented. According to the information, however, the relationship between Calasanz and Bagnacavallo was much deeper, more constant and more varied than that between Calasanz and Larino.

1228 Montanari was General Apostolic Vicar, appointed by Paul V on September 15, 1612, and then Minister General of the Order, elected in Chapter (1617-1623). Larino, likewise, was named Apostolic General Vicar by Urban VIII on January 29, 1632, and then elected Minister General in Chapter (1635-1647) (C. VILÁ, o.c., p.85, 87, 95-96, 137).

Father Bagnacavallo, as General of his Order, was one of those who revised the Constitutions of the Pious Schools approved by Gregory XV in 1622, as Calasanz recalled in a report at the end of that year.[1229] During his long generalate, he developed a tireless work of reform or restoration of discipline and observance of the rules, especially with regard to austere poverty, which he carried out with endless personal visits to all the provinces, not without the opposition of those who clung to the privileges and customs that weakened the rigor of the authentic Franciscan spirit. There is no lack of explicit allusions to the fact that in these committed reform efforts the General of the Conventuals often asked his friend Calasanz for advice and encouragement. After describing the convent scene, Caputi adds that “Father Bagnacavallo not only became the most worthy General of his Order, but with the advice and opinion of our Father Joseph [Calasanz] intended to reform his Religion as it had been instituted by St. Francis and then restored by St. Bonaventure.”[1230]

1229 Cf. EGC II, p.172; C. VILÁ, o.c., p.92-95. The reasons adduced by this author to deny that Bagnacavallo was one of the “official” revisors appointed by the Sacred Congregation do not seem convincing. However, if he was only an “unofficial” revisor at the request of Calasanz, it would be further proof of the esteem in which the latter held his conventual friend.

1230 CAPUTI, Notizie historiche, III, n.47; BAU, BC, p.245-246.

A few pages further on, Caputi confirms this idea by recalling that once, in conversation with two friars, he asked them if they knew anything special about Fr. Joseph, and they replied that they had always considered him a great servant of God, but had not treated him personally; and they advised him “to turn to Msgr. Bonaventura Claver, Bishop of Potenza, because he had been dealing with him for a long time and had consulted him about everything concerning Father Bagnacavallo, who did nothing without discussing it with Father Joseph, our Founder.”[1231] Caputi immediately wrote to Bishop Claver, who replied on September 27, 1658 with a valuable affidavit - to which we will return - recalling, among other things, the following:

1231 Ib., n.55; BAU, BC, p.247-248.

“He [Fr. Joseph] said that there was no faith in the world and that people therefore sinned so easily. Moreover, he ardently desired the reform of all Religions that needed it. And he told me that he had always spoken to Father Jacob Bagnacavallo, the General of the Order of Friars Minor Conventual, to this effect.”[1232]

1232 ReCal 28, p.71; BAU, BC, p.246-247.

When Father Bagnacavallo’s generalate ended, he was replaced by Father Michael Misserotti on June 2, 1623 by a papal letter and not by a capitular vote. But he only lasted until the following February, because when Pope Urban VIII was elected in August 1623, he appointed him Bishop of Bitetto so that Father Felix Franceschini, a close friend of the new pope, could take his place and was appointed General Apostolic Vicar on February 7, 1624. He was then confirmed as Superior General at the Chapter in May 1625 and remained in office until January 29, 1632, when he was appointed Bishop of Andria and replaced by Father Larino as General Apostolic Vicar.

Father Franceschini was opposed to the reform of the Order carried out by Father Bagnacavallo, so that in his generalate he not only destroyed all the work of the intrepid reformer, but also maintained an incredible attitude of dislike and persecution against him. In October 1628, in a kind of disguised escape, Bagnacavallo left the convent of Todi, where he lived in seclusion after his generalate, and moved to Venice, where he could feel safe and protected from the General’s wrath. He remained in Venice until November 4, 1631, when he died.[1233]

1233 Cf. C. VILÁ, o.c., p.95-107.

In the years of suffering and persecution that preceded his arrival in Venice, there is no information about the relationship between Bagnacavallo and Calasanz. But it is very likely that they continued to exist and that the tormented former General sought the comfort and spiritual help of his great friend. And the assumption is all the more plausible when one considers that the signs of their mutual esteem increased during his Venetian period. This was due to the fact that Father Melchior Alacchi, a Piarist, arrived in the lagoon city in March 1630 with the intention of embarking for the Holy Land. But circumstances prevented him from continuing his journey and he decided to found a house of Pious Schools there. This gave Calasanz the opportunity to entrust the undertaking to the protection, influence and advice of Father Bagnacavallo, whom he constantly reminds in his letters to Alacchi, in which he refers to him as his dearest friend, whom he wants Alacchi and his companions to visit, venerate, ask for advice and even go to confession with him.[1234] There is also no shortage of expressions in which he expresses his esteem for him.[1235]

1234 Cf. ibid., p.112-129.

1235 “...do not fail to avail yourself of his advice - he writes to Alacchi - for he is a true servant of God, and I have known him very well for more than thirty years” (c.1601); “as for Father Bagnacavallo, I tell you that if you do things with the advice of the said Father you will be safe, for he truly has the spirit of God and can give nothing but healthy and profitable advice” (C. 1617).

When he learns of his death (November 4, 1631), Calasanz alludes to the hardships and persecutions he had suffered, which shows that he was aware of everything that had happened to his friend and probably knew about it through his confidences. On November 15, 1631, he wrote to Alacchi: “The Lord wanted to reward Father Bagnacavallo’s holy work with eternal life, for if he had lived, he would certainly have been honored in this world, but the Lord did not want to give him a temporal reward, as happened at the time of Paul V, who put him on the list of cardinals.”[1236] And that this praise was justified is proven by the reputation for holiness that he left behind in his own Order.[1237]

1236 C.1715. Cf. also CCP, p. 147.

1237 Cf. C. VILÁ, o.c., p.129-131.

Father Berardicelli of Larino returned to the furrow of reform opened by his friend Bagnacavallo after the unfortunate generalate of Father Franceschini, and had to overcome equally great difficulties. And following the example of his predecessor and friend, he too turned confidently to Fr. Joseph for light and encouragement, confirming Fr. Bagnacavallo’s option with his explicit declaration.[1238] On the other hand, the deep veneration and esteem that Fr. Larino felt for Calasanz throughout his life is evident in the two letters he wrote to Fr. Berro on the occasion of the death of the holy Founder from Assisi. In the first, he speaks of the “precious death of our Father Joseph of the Mother of God” and of his “holy soul”, suggesting that he was aware of everything that had happened to his friend in his last years: “In truth I tell you that in doing this [praying for the deceased] I thought I was doing myself a useful service, more than for the need of a soul so rich in merit for the hardships it had undergone and so purified by the martyrdom it had suffered in these last years.”[1239] In the second letter, a year later, he thanked Fr. Berro for the holy cards he had sent him and wrote: “I thank you for giving me the portraits of our Father and your General, the Founder and Eternal Crown. I treasured this gift as I wished it to be in the living original, and I venerate it most vividly even now.”[1240]

1238 “Fr. John Baptist Berardicelli, for fifteen years Superior General of the Conventual Minors made this attestation: in the difficulties and oppositions experienced in the government of my Religion, I was recalling to him [Calasanz] and I was given prudent advice; so I remember that Fr. James Montanari da Bagnacavallo, was doing the same when he was the General” (TALENTI, Vita, p.533-534).

1239 EC, p.283. Dated September 5, 1648.

1240 Ib., p.284. Dated October 12, 1649.

Perhaps the anecdote about the Convent of the Twelve Apostles has focused the attention of biographers too much on the two eminent figures of the Generals, thus distorting reality, for there were more conventuals who befriended him from the early days of his stay at the Colonna House and then kept them throughout his life.[1241] One of them, who, like the others, managed to be included by right in the Calasanctian biography, is the aforementioned Father Bonaventura Claver, whose valuable declaration we will talk about later, when he was already Bishop of Potenza.[1242] Another who should be remembered was Fr. Master Santes Sala, who played a role similar to that of Father Bagnacavallo in Venice, in relation to Father Melchior Alacchi and his companions since they arrived in Palermo in 1633 to undertake the definitive foundation of the Pious Schools in Sicily. In the numerous letters from Calasanz to Alacchi relating to this period, which have survived to this day, there is hardly a letter in which he does not affectionately greet Father Sala or recommend that the Piarist visit the convent for advice and spiritual assistance.[1243] Of the letters he wrote to Father Sala, we only have one in which he alludes to their long friendship in the opening greeting.[1244] He is also quoted - together with Bagnacavallo - as a witness to the conversations Calasanz had with the Colonna family in the sacristy of the old Basilica of the Twelve Apostles.[1245] There is also no lack of Calasanz’s praise for the exemplary life and fruitful preaching of Father Sala, indicating that he had always been interested in the life and miracles of his conventual friend.[1246] And a final detail that shows the trust that Father Sala had in Calasanz and that Calasanz enjoyed in Father Larino: Father Sala approached Calasanz to obtain a special position in the Order from Larino, and Calasanz intervened successfully.[1247]

1241 In a report made by some conventual between 1695 and 1748 about Frs. Montanari and Berardicelli, probably at the request of the Postulators of the Cause of Beatification of Calasanz, we read: “Both the described Generals were friends and very familiar of the Ven. Servant of God... as well as many other Religious who in different times lived in the convent of SS. XII Apostoli di Roma” (RegCal 13,14).

1242 It would be desirable adequate research on the origin and further details of this friendship, as well as of the one we will quote below.

1243 Cf. C.2186, 2194, 2225, 2240, 2272, 2336, 2360, 2361, 2424, 2616, 2738; CCP, let.31, 35, 36, 38, 42, 47, 50, 54, 55, 73....

1244 “Very Rev. Father from a long time obs.” (CCP, p.192).

1245 Regarding those talks Fr. Silvestre Bellei, Sch. P. declared: “the same was confirmed by another Father Master of the same Order who was in this Chapter, and his name was Maestro Santi da Rimini, if I do not mistake” (quoted in A. GARCÍA-DURÁN, Itinerario..., p.52, n.357).

1246 “In a short time, Fr. Master Santi Sala became a religious of great spirit and bore admirable fruit where he preached and worked.” Calasanz to Alacchi, 28 December 1633: CCP, p.192).

1247 C.2424.

No doubt he also had dealings with Friar Philip Rebaldi, a tertiary of the convent of the Twelve Apostles, where he died with the fame of holiness on May 30, 1598, at the age of thirty-two, revered by all Rome, from the highest hierarchs to the common people, as a man of God for his spirit of prayer and penance and for his charity toward the poor.[1248]

1248 Fr. Peter Casani remembered him in 1629 saying that “in that time he was in the Court of Rome in great concept of sanctity, in which he was also held after his death”, and narrated a spiritual meeting with the said lay brother, Cardinal Baronio and St. John Leonardi (cf. EC VI, p.2755-2757). Other praises in ibid., p.2757, n.4.

But in the ten years that he lived in the Colonna Palace, he not only befriended the friars, but also took part in the common public and private acts of piety of the friars, so that it is not in vain that it is written that in this Franciscan environment “he received the spirit of evangelical perfection through the intercession of the Seraphic Father Francis, to whom he was very devoted.”[1249]

1249 It follows the text quoted in the previous note 1241: “…where [in the said convent] he - the Servant of God - practiced for several years intervening continuously with the same Religious in the public as well as private exercises of piety that are usual for them and where it can be said with truth that he conceived the spirit of evangelical perfection through the intercession of the Seraphic Father St. Francis of whom he was a great devotee.” (RegCal XIII, 14).

Calasanz, Bagnacavallo and the Jesuit Cordeses

The relations between Calasanz and Bagnacavallo in the years 1595-1599, when both lived near the Basilica of the Twelve Apostles, have another very interesting and unpublished aspect in the biographies of Calasanz, which allows us to glimpse certain shades of his spirituality, so intense at the time, and suggests that he already brought his restlessness of perfection, even theological-ascetic, from Spain.

Let us follow the stream. It all began in Gandía, at the Jesuit house and University (now the School of Pious Schools). There, Antonio Cordeses, S. I. (Olot, 1518-Sevilla, 1601) studied Arts, Philosophy and Theology from 1547. He was one of the first group of students and the Jesuit community to settle in the newly founded college (1545), whose doors were opened to external students for the first time in the history of the Society and which became a University in 1547. He was already a priest and was rector of the college in the years 1553-56 and 1558-60. He was then provincial of Aragón (which also included Valencia and Catalonia) from 1560-65 and 1568-73, and between these two periods he was superior in Coimbra (1565-68). At the end of his second provincialate in Aragón, he was appointed provincial of Toledo (1573-80), from where he became superior in Seville (1580-1590), where he died of the plague of 1601.[1250]

1250 Cf. A. YANGUAS, Obras espirituales del P. Antonio Cordeses, S.I. (C.S.I.C., Madrid 1953) p.V-XI.

During his long stay in Gandía, a spiritual atmosphere arose in this community which promoted the contemplative life and especially affective prayer. His guide was a venerable Franciscan layman named Louis de Texada, and his favorite reading was the book ‘Via Spiritus’ by Friar Bernabé de Palma, also a Franciscan layman, and the ‘Directorium aureum contemplativorum’ by the Franciscan mystic Henry Herp.[1251] The Spanish Inquisition saw influences and traces of the teachings of the Enlightened Ones in both works, and they were included by Inquisitor Valdés in the ‘Index of Forbidden Books’ of 1599.[1252] In addition, the Jesuits themselves were publicly accused by Melchor Cano in 1548 of being enlightened (alumbrados) because they had read Herp.[1253]

1251 Cf. E. HERP, Directorio de contemplativos (Madrid 1974), p. 151-153. The third edition of Herp’s Teologia Mystica, of which the above-mentioned Directory was a part, came out in 1556, and its editor, the Carthusian Bruno Loher, dedicated it to St. Ignatius of Loyola (cf. ibid., p.150).

1252 Cf. ibid., p.102, 106-107. Herp’s work was again included in the Index of 1583. The Roman Inquisition had the Theologia Mystica examined and although it found no condenable error, it had it expunged, forbidding its reading, if it did not conform to the corrections (cf. ibid., p.112-116). Cf. also B. BRAVO, El “Via Spiritus” de Fray Bernabé de Palma: Manresa 118 (1959) 36.

1253 Cf. E. HERP, o.c., p.152.

Given his eminent personality and his long and uninterrupted stay in leading positions, Father Cordeses was one of the most effective and tireless disseminators of this spiritual ideology, both verbally and in writing. Nevertheless, of the numerous works he wrote, only one was printed during his lifetime, and that was a very insignificant one, commonly referred to as the ‘Catechism of Cordeses’. This was not even his own work, but an adaptation of the translation that Lorenzo Palmireno had made of the French catechism by Father Edmund Augerre.[1254] All the others[1255] were distributed as manuscripts, and among them the two most important were the ‘Treatise on Mental Prayer’[1256] and the ‘Itinerary of Christian Perfection’[1257], which set out the doctrine of affective prayer. Especially in this last writing, one can recognize the influence of the ideas of Bernabé de Palma and Henry Herp, whose respective works he quotes verbatim and extensively, especially the ‘Via Spiritus’ of the Spanish layman, without mentioning him by name.[1258]

1254 It is also called Cathechismus Valentinus, since it was published in Valencia in 1565 and the authors believe that it is the same one, although more than one is named (cf. J. E. URIARTE-M. LECINA, Biblioteca de escritores de la Compañía de Jesús, II, p.282; C. SOMMERVOGEL, Bibliothèque de la Compagnie de Jésus, II, c. 1434).

1255 Cf. J. E. URIARTE-M. LECINA, o.c., p.282-285; C. SOMMERVOGEL, o.c., c.1434-1435; A. YANGUAS, o.c., p.XII-XV.

1256 Yanguas publishes in his aforementioned work: Treatise on the Three Lives, Treatise on Mental Prayer and Treatise on the Purgative Life. Cf. also ID, Un autor español ascetico, desconocido: Razón y Fe, 503 (1939) 354-377

1257 Cf. B. Bivo, El “Itinerario de la perfécción” del P. Antonio Cordeses, S.I.: Manresa 119 (1959) 115-138. According to this author, the Itinerary was composed during Cordeses’ stay in Coimbra (1565-68) (ibid., p.1 15).

1258 “We insist again that ‘Via spiritus’ by Fray Bernabé de Palma has passed substantially intact to the work of Cordeses...” (B. BRAVO, Ultimas consideraciones en torno al “Itinerario” de Cordeses: Manresa 121 [1959] 351). To this article and two others by B. Bravo, already cited in notes 1252 and 1257 above, we must add the following: B. BRAVO, Teorías cordesiano-palmianas del “Itinerario de Perfección”: Manresa 120 (1959) 235-260, in which in a special way the dependence of Cordeses on Palma is demonstrated, with collation of abundant literal texts. As for the influence of Herp, see in Estudio Preliminar of the mentioned work of this author, Directorio de contemplativos, p.153-166, dedicated to Cordeses.

Soon voices were raised among the Spanish Jesuits protesting against the spiritual ideas of Cordeses, not precisely because of their affinity with the works of Palma and Herp, which had been condemned by the Spanish Inquisition, but because they were seen as alien to the spirit of the Society[1259] and more characteristic of hermits, friars and especially Carthusians.[1260] But that was not all. In 1574, Father Cordeses, who was Provincial of Toledo, had long discussions with Father Antony Ramiro on this subject. The latter then wrote a very long letter to the General of the Society, Father Mercuriano, in which he summarized the ideology of Cordeses and his deviation from the spiritual teaching of Saint Ignatius.[1261] And Father General, after receiving other similar letters, examined the matter seriously and wrote to Cordeses in May 1574: “It does not seem to me, as I have told you, that Y. R. treat ‘nec publice nec privatim’ another way of teaching prayer, but those contained in the ‘Spiritual Exercises of our Father Ignatius’, of sacred memory, without adding anything to them or departing from them, for everyone can clearly learn from them the right way of the Society.”[1262]

1259 While Cordeses was residing in Coimbra, where he composed the ‘Itinerary’, Fr. Peter de Fonseca wrote to the Provincial of Portugal: “[Cordeses] praises very much the abstinences and ancient prayer of Gandia, and says that those of that time were very attached to the book called ‘Via Spiritus’, and things that I believe go outside the spirit of the Company” (cf. B. BRAVO, El “Itinerario...”, p.35).

1260 “His [Cordeses’] way of proceeding seems more hermit and friar than of the Company, because his business is all recollection within the room and silence” (cf. E. HERP, o.c., p.1 54). In April 1574, Father Roman wrote from Valencia to Father General Mercuriano: “This Charterhouse [of Portaceli] is our moth and if it is not remedied, I fear it will do us great harm. Already five have left this college in a few years” (cf. A. ASTRAIN, Historia de la Compañía de Jesús en la Asistencia de España, III2, p.79).

1261 Ibid., p.186-189.

1262 Ibid., p.189.

Father Cordeses fully accepted Father General’s mission and thus set an example of religious obedience. Throughout his life and even after his death, he was regarded as a very virtuous and exemplary person.[1263] Nevertheless, the discussions about affective prayer continued in the provinces of Aragón and Toledo, so that Father Mercuriano wrote again to Father Cordeses, as provincial of Toledo, and forbade the Spanish Jesuits to teach affective prayer, as it was not fit in with the Society.[1264] The doctrine and thus also the small books in which Cordeses explained and instructed them were therefore officially banned in the Society from the time of Mercuriano’s prohibition. The same attitude was maintained and renewed by his two immediate successors, the Fathers Claudio Aquaviva (1581-1615) and Mucius Vitelleschi (1615-1645).[1265]

1263 “The most venerable Fr. Antony Cordeses... was undoubtedly one of the most illustrious and accomplished men in all kinds of virtues that the Society has had, honor of the provinces of Spain...” (J. A. NIEREMBERG-A. ANDRADE, Varones ilustres de la Compañía de Jesús, VII [Bilbao 1891], p.356).

1264 Cf. A. ASTRAIN, o.c., p.190-193.

1265 Cf. B. BRAVO, “Itinerario de la Perfección...”, p.117.

Despite these official prohibitions of the Society, the fourth edition of the ‘Itinerary of Christian Perfection’ was published in Messina in 1627, translated into Italian, and explanations of the history of this translation and its various editions were given in the prolog by Father Peter Valguarnera, supported by the following explanations due to Father Bagnacavallo, General of the Conventuals, Father Joseph Calasanz, General of the Pious Schools, and Father Raphael Garano, Rector of the Jesuit College in Barcelona. The certificate, written and signed by Bagnacavallo and confirmed by Calasanz, reads as follows:

“By the present letter we testify that the book entitled ‘Itinerary of Christian Perfection’, divided into seven journeys, with a ‘Practice of Spiritual Prayer and Contemplation’, was shown to us in manuscript by M.R.P. Joseph Calesano (sic), now Rector General of the Congregation of Pious Schools in Rome, when we were studying in our Convent of the Holy Apostles in this city many years ago, and a copy of the same was also granted to us. Father Joseph said then that he had received this book manuscript from a companion of Father Antony Cordeses, a Catalan of the Society of Jesus, the author of the same. At that time, we also learned that Father Joseph had given another copy of the ‘Itinerarium’ to the Reverend Father John Peña, Cleric Regular at St. Sylvester in Rome. The handwritten copy of ours we have always kept and still have in our possession, as something very much appreciated and very useful for the spirit; moreover, we believe that we have done the same with the other copy that the Reverend Fr. John Peña, Theatinus, had. Perhaps that is why it was found after his death in the room of the deceased priest without the author’s name and published by some with the name of the same Fr. D. John Peña, as it says in the dedicatory letter of the ‘Itinerarium’, printed in Florence in 1607 and then in Cremona in 1608, but in fact the author of the above-mentioned spiritual booklet is M.R.Fr. Antony Cordeses... Given in Rome in our convent of the Holy Apostles, on 28-9-1617.”

Then follows the confirmation of what has been said with the signature and seal of Father Bagnacavallo, similar to that of Calasanz, as follows:

“I, Joseph Calasano (sic), today of the Mother of God, Prefect General of the Pauline Congregation of the Poor of the Mother of God of Pious Schools, certify that what is written above is true, and for the truth of it I have given the present faith with my own hand on the day and year as stated above. Place of seal.”[1266]

1266 Cf. full text in C. VILÁ, o.c., p.145-147. According to the statement, it is not only a question of the ‘Itinerario’, but also - it seems - of another manuscript work, or summary of the same, entitled here ‘Practica de la Oracion Mental y Contemplacion’, also called ‘Tratado de la Oracion Mental’. As we saw before, both were considered the most important works of Cordeses because of their exposition of the author’s peculiar doctrine on affective prayer. Even more, the title of the 1627 edition - in which the attestation appears - says that to the ‘Itinerario’ is prefixed a long introduction on Mental Prayer, as stated in the declaration: “Itinerario della perfettione christiana, diviso in sette giornate. Per la cui introduttione si tratta difusamente dell’Oratione Mentale. Composto dal...” (C. VILÁ, o.c., p. 144). Of this attestation of Bagnacavallo-Calasanz the Jesuits speak when dealing with the works of Cordeses, e.g.: C. SOMMERVOGEL, o.c., II, col. 1435; J. E. URIARTE, Catálogo razonado de obras anónimas y pseudónimas de autores de la Compañía de Jesús, pertenecientes a la antigua Asistencia española, I, p.362, n. 1076.

Calasanz claimed to have received the manuscript from a companion of Cordeses. Who could that have been? All indications are that it was Friar Andrew Capilla, Bishop of Urgel. When he was fourteen years old, he was in Gandía in 1554, as a candidate for the Jesuit novitiate, at the very same time that Father Anthony Cordeses was Master of the Novices, Rector of the College and of the House.[1267] And it is well known that the time of the novitiate is the most suitable time for initiation into the practice of prayer and the time of greatest fervor. It is therefore not surprising that he fully internalized the spirit of Cordeses. Moreover, the tendency towards the Carthusian monastery of Porta Coeli, which can be observed in the group of Gandia, fits perfectly with the fact that Capilla was also there and felt a driving vocation since then, which he was later only able to realize peacefully with papal permission.[1268]

1267 A report of 1554 reads: ‘College of Gandía: Fr.M.° Antonio [Cordeses]... has charge of the house’. And among the students: “Br. Capilla, Valencian, 14 years old, very witty and calm, bachelor of arts, of very good talent” (cf. Epistulae P. H. Nadal, 5. 1., ab anno 1546 ad 1577, vol. 1, (1546-1562) [Madrid 1898], Appendix VI, p.760-761). In the list of bachellors in Arts of the University of Valencia, dated July 8, 1553, the name of “Capella, A. [Andrés] Honorato, de Valencia” appears (cf. J. GALLEGO - A. FELIPO, Grados concedidos por la Universidad de Valencia durante la primera mitad del siglo XVI: Anal. Sacra Tarracon., 55-56 [1982-83] 33).

1268 Cf. J. POCH, San José de Calasanz y seis obispos españoles: RevCal 12 [1957] 168.

It is therefore very likely that he later took a special interest in the ideology and manuscript books of his master Cordeses. Calasanz received a copy of the ‘Itinerarium’ from him and took it with him to Rome. In his conversations with Bagnacavallo in the years 1595-99, they talked a lot about this subject, since the essential background of Cordeses’ teaching was in fact precisely of the Franciscan school, according to the explanations in the ‘Via Spiritus’ by Bernabé de Palma and the ‘Directorium aureum’ by Herp, both Franciscans.

Bagnacavallo confesses that he still keeps the manuscript of Cordeses that Calasanz gave him, considering it “a very dear and very useful thing for the benefices of the spirit”, and it is very likely that it reflects his ideology in the works that Bagnacavallo himself wrote on spiritual subjects.[1269]

1269 Among them: Modo di far l’oratione mentale (Mondoví 1619); ‘Exercitiorum spiritualium liber, qui etiam mystica theologia nuncupari potest...’ (Terni 1620) (cf. G. FRANCHINI, ‘Bibliografía di scrittori francescani conventuali’ [Modena 1693], p.286-290). In the ms. report already cited (RegCal XIII,14) are also cited, without indicating whether they were edited or remained in manuscript, the following opuscules: ‘Nuova scala del cielo; Livrea spirituale per ornato de’Cavalieri di Cristo; Nuovo modo di ben servire a Dio’. And this one edited: ‘Seminario delle virtù cristiane’ (Venezia 1630).

Without pretending to attach undue importance to this matter in his relationship with Calasanz, one cannot help but notice some interesting nuances that enrich the image that has been formed of his personality in these critical years at the end of the century. Firstly, it is unlikely to assume that he was unaware of the controversy in which the ‘Itinerario’ was embroiled and of the ideology of its author, whose “spiritual audacity” is easily recognizable due to its connotations within the Society and its entanglements with the works condemned by the Spanish Inquisition.[1270] All this also lends a touch of “audacity” to Calasanz, who becomes the propagator of Cordeses’ manuscript in Rome and the facilitator of its publication. He would later demonstrate this “boldness” when he showed his appreciation for contradictory characters before the Roman Inquisition.

1270 “The Itinerary speaks clearly of the spiritual audacity of Cordeses. It is only necessary to look at the authors from whom he draws his inspiration or whom he faithfully reproduces” (B. BRAVO, ‘Últimas consideraciones en torno al “Itinerario” de Cordeses’: Manresa 121 [1959] 351).

The spiritual atmosphere that Cordeses fostered must have influenced Calasanz’s personal spirituality perhaps more than one might suspect,[1271] and not only underlie the manifestations of intense piety and ascetic-mystical experience to which he bears witness in these years, but even later in the shaping of the Order of the Pious Schools. The accusation of “hermitical and monkish” that the Jesuits made of the spirit of Cordeses could also be applied to the spirit that Calasanz embodied in his institute, for the excessive austerity and monastic practices that he imposed on it were more typical of reformed friars than of clerics regular with an active life. The encounter with the Discalced Carmelites and their undeniable influence on these rigorist nuances perhaps only confirmed the spiritual attitude he had already adopted in contact with the spirituality of Cordeses, into which he could be initiated during his years in Urgel near Capilla.

1271 It is curious to note that Cordeses in the “third day” of his Itinerary recommends the ‘Morales’ of St. Gregory (cf. B. BRAVO, El “’Itinerario de la perfección’.” p.134). And Fr. Scassellati said of Calasanz in his procedural statements: “haver visto molte notti stare tutta la notte in oratione con il lume accesso imparticulare legendo ‘li morali di Santo Gregorio’ del quale era devotissimo” (ProcIn, p.104).

There is another matter related to Bagnacavallo and Calasanz that confirms not only their lasting friendship, but even their kinship in religious-spiritual thought. In January 1619, during a general Visitation to Cologne, Father Montanari published a work entitled ‘Ratio Studiorum’, which was of an internal character for the Order and in which he listed at the end a series of ‘sixty spiritual sentences by a pious author that are very useful for the students of our Religion’[1272]. And this anonymous “pious author” would be precisely St. Joseph Calasanz, since a long Piarist tradition attributes them to him, not as if they were all his originals, but that he must have taken some or many of them from spiritual authors or Holy Fathers whom he used to read frequently.

1272 It is about the reform of internal studies of the Order, composed by Decrees that occupy the central field of the work. They are preceded by a long pastoral letter and followed by a certain writing of St. Thomas Aquinas, which is followed by: ‘Sententiae spirituales sexaginta, pro scholasticis religionis nostrae valde proficuae, alterius devoti Auctoris’, all in Latin. In the second edition he changed the title of the work, calling it ‘Reformatio Studiorum’ (Perusiae 1620).

Father Talenti was the first to publish them in 1753 at the end of his great ‘Life’ of the Founder, expressly attributing them to him in accordance with ancient tradition and retaining the same Italian title that they bore in a loose folio that was kept in the General Archives and has now disappeared.[1273] Without alluding to Talenti’s printed work, Father Guido Nicht published also the sixty sentences in a booklet of his own, claiming that he had also copied them from a folio in the General Archives.[1274] Both authors contributed to the dissemination of these calasanctical sentences within the Pious Schools and even outside them.[1275] Over time, the list has changed and the number has increased, so that today there are at least seventy-one.[1276]

1273 The title was: Sentenze sacre del B. Giuseppe Galasanzio Fondatore delle Scuole Pie. Talenti simply changed the letter B. (Blessed) for the V. or P (Venerable or Padre-Father). He also kept the original Latin version. Ignoring, however, that Bagnacavallo had already published them in 1619, he believed that the compiler had not been Calasanz, but his religious, who, from the many sentences that the Saint used to tell frequently, selected those sixty after his death (1648). And he clarifies: “Le dicevano proprie di lui, benché alcune si vedano usate da ‘Santi Padri o Maestri di spirito” (cf. TALENTI, Vita, p.680-682).

1274 Cf. G. NICHT, Documenta spiritualia ex epistolis 5. Josephi Calasanctii a Matre Dei (Nicolsburg 1772), Turin 1887,2nd, p.201-205

1275 St. Alphonsus M. de Liguori used them frequently in his writings, especially in ‘The True Bride of Jesus Christ or the Holy Nun’ (1760-1761). It is probable that he read them in the work of Talenti (1753), given his proven devotion to Calasanz.

1276 Synthesis of the work of Fr. Nicht and other similar ones is the one edited by Fr. Carlos Lasalde, in which sixty-two sentences already appear: Espíritu de San José de Calasanz (Madrid 1886), p.80-91. These and two others form the sixty-four included in the Rules for the novices of the Pious Schools (Madrid 1906) p.59-63. Picanyol also published a list of sixty-four, with some variations with respect to all the preceding lists (cf. L. PICANYOL, Enchiridion sodalis calasanctiani [Rome 1943], p.67-72.

In 1973, Father D. Cueva again included them in a new and rich compilation of Calasanz’s thoughts, but he took them directly from the above-mentioned work by Bagnacavallo, considering their “Calasanctical authenticity “ to be proven.[1277] And it is curious that none of the collections correspond exactly to the others.[1278]

1277 D. CUEVA, Calasanz. Mensaje spiritual y pedagógico, p.21. The sixty sentences in p.177-183 (nn.611-670).

1278 It does not appear in any other the sentence 38 (648) of Bagnacavallo-Cueva; 52 of Talenti; 52 of Nicht; 61 and 63 of Picanyol; 49 of the Rules. In these, 48 and 49 are added to the 62 of Lasalde. Of these 62, 18, 49 and 50 only appear in the Rules. As for the order of enumeration, Talenti, Nicht and Picanyol agree, while the other collections vary among themselves, especially that of Bagnacavallo-Cueva with respect to all the others.

Finally, Father C. Vilá denies that the sixty sentences were compiled by Calasanz and given to Bagnacavallo, who published them in 1619; on the contrary, that Bagnacavallo published them as anonymous and that they were taken from his work by Calasanz, whose list was later copied, as Talenti and Nicht state. This hypothesis cannot be dismissed out of hand, but it would require more solid grounds than those provided by C. Vilá.[1279] In fact, it is significant that if the folio or folios with the sixty sentences seen and copied by Talenti and Nicht in the second half of the eighteenth century have disappeared, another autograph folio by Calasanz remains with twenty-six other sentences similar to the sixty famous sentences, some of which bear the author’s name and others are anonymous. The names are: St. Augustine, St. Ambrose, St. Gregory, St. Jerome, St. Cyprian, St. Bernard, St. Bonaventure, St. Isidore, Hugh of St. Victor, and Thomas of Kempis. And among these new sentences are two that Calasanz includes in his Constitutions, which were written between October 1620 and February 1621.[1280] His compilation therefore predates October 1620, and it is very likely that it was part of or a continuation of the compilation published by Bagnacavallo in 1619. On the other hand, of the sixty sentences of the latter, forty-one deal with religious life, while the last nineteen are of a more general nature, like the twenty-six unpublished ones by Calasanz.

1279 The core of his reasoning is that if the work of Bagnacavallo came out in Cologne in January 1619 and the last time the two could see each other in Rome was on July 7-21, 1618; “it is difficult to imagine that [Calasanz] could compile them [the 60 sentences], on the one hand, and apply them continuously, before that date, for what we are going to say: he would have had to collect them when he was not yet thinking of becoming a religious” (C. VILÁ, o.c., p.9O). According to Vilá, Calasanz did not think about it until about a month before founding the Order (March 6, 1617) (cf. PosCas, p.228, 233, n.57, 293, etc.). However, as we shall see below, Fr. General of the Congregation of Lucca, Bernardini, wrote in his Chronicles in 1613, that “il P. Prefetto [Calasanz], havendo havuto molto tempo prima desiderio di formare una Religione...” (A. BERNARDINI, Delle Croniche della Congregatione delli chierici regolari della Madre di Dio... Part III, f.34v, Ined.). He was then able to begin to collect ideas about religious life from “long before” 1613.

1280 Cf. ReCal, 12, 117; F. CUBELLS, Explorando las Fuentes de las Constituciones de San José de Calasanz: AnCal 22 (1980) 526-527.

Three venerable Spanish Carmelites

To discover the spiritual environment in which Calasanz moved during these critical years of his “conversion”, in which he laid the foundations of his Institute, we must approach the convent of the Discalced Carmelites, attached to the church of Santa Maria della Scala in Rome’s Trastevere. There we can meet three venerable men, all three Spaniards, who were of exceptional importance in the life and work of Calasanz. Peter (de Villagrasa) of the Mother of God, born in Daroca on August 10, 1565; John (de San Pedro y Ustárroz) of Jesus and Mary, born in Calahorra on January 27, 1564; Dominic (Ruzola) of Jesus Mary, born in Calatayud on May 16, 1559. All three are somewhat younger than Calasanz (September 1557), but not so much so that one would feel the age difference in their relationships.

“One cannot understand - Santha wrote - the greater part of the Roman life of St. Joseph Calasanz if one does not consider it in the light of his intimate and spiritual friendship with the first fathers of the Italian Congregation of the Reformed Carmel....” And without diminishing other influences, “it is true above all - Santha continues - that it was his close relations with the Carmelites that gave definitive direction to his life, spirituality and apostolate. Above all, it was they who advised him, encouraged him and even helped him with alms, contributing to the happy germination and sprouting of the first educational Order”.[1281]

1281 Cf. G. SÁNTHA, S. José de Calasanz y su amistad con los Padres Carmelitas Descalzos. RevCal 2 (1955) 183-184.

It has been suggested that this friendship may have originated in the university halls of Valencia and Alcalá de Henares, which they frequently visited, which is plausible with regard to Peter, but impossible with regard to John and Dominic.[1282] Peter was the first of the three to arrive in Rome in September 1596. He came from Genoa, where the first house of Carmelites in Italy had been founded in 1583 thanks to the interest of the venerable Father Jerome Gracián. He had been known as a preacher in Liguria for five or six years and his fame had reached Rome, where he was summoned by Cardinal Pinelli, the protector of the discalced friars. He travelled to Rome by sea accompanied by Cardinal Alessandrini, the former nuncio in Spain. On their arrival in Rome, both were received and hosted by Bishop Salustio Tarugi, the Commendator of the Hospital of Santo Spirito, in whose church Father Peter of the Mother of God preached during Advent in that year of 1596.[1283]

1282 The insinuation is of Sántha (cf. o.c., p.184-185) and it is also accepted by Vilà (cf. C. VILÁ PALA, Fuentes inmediatas de la Pedagogía Calasancia [Madrid 1960], P.63 and 68). According to what we proposed, Calasanz studied in Valencia in the academic year 1578-79, when he was 21 years old, and in Alcalá in 1579-80. Fr. Peter, before wearing the Carmelite habit on January 22, 1582, studied philosophy and theology in Alcalá (cf. SILVERIO DE SANTA TERESA, Historia del Carmen Descalzo, t.VIII [Burgos 1938], p.17-l8). It is therefore plausible that among the thousands of students - “more than two thousand” in 1548 (cf. C. AJO y SAINZ Y DE ZÚÑIGA, Historia de las Univ. Hispánicas, vol. II, p.307) - Peter and Calasanz could know each other. John also was in Alcalá in the years 1583-85 (cf. SILVERIO DE SANTA TERESA, o.c., p.57-58), when Calasanz was again in Lérida. Dominic professed in Saragossa on December 8, 1578 and in 1580 he was still there. He was then sent to Valencia to study philosophy (cf. ibid., p.84-85), where he could not, logically, meet Calasanz. And even less in Alcalá, where Dominic went to study theology in 1590-92 (cf. ibid., p.89-90).

1283 Cf. SILVERIO DE SANTA TERESA, o.c., p.3-4.

Cardinals Pinelli and Alessandrini and Monsignor Tarugi praised the preacher before Clement VIII and advocated the foundation of a convent of Discalced Carmelite Friars in Rome. To circumvent the resistance in Spain, the Pope issued the letter ‘Sacrarum Religionum’ on March 20, 1597, in which he freed from the jurisdiction of the Spanish superiors and placed under the Holy See the monasteries of the Discalced Friars and Nuns of Genoa and the one to be founded in Rome next to the church of Santa Maria de la Scala, given to them in their service.[1284]

1284 The Spaniards were opposed to the expansion of the reform outside Spain and its dominions and already before the Brief they had requested the intervention of Philip II so that the Pope would form with the Italian convents a province independent of Spain (cf. ibid., p.6-8).

Also coming from Genoa, where he had been staying since 1585, Father John of Jesus Mary arrived in Rome at the beginning of 1598.[1285] And finally, on October 26, 1604, Father Dominic Ruzola of Jesus Maria entered the community of the Discalced Carmelites, who very soon became known as “Padre Domenico della Scala”.[1286] The contemporary biographers of the Carmelites testified to Calasanz’s relationship with the three venerable disciples of La Scala and emphasized the spiritual support and approval, the Fathers Peter and John gave Calasanz in the years in which his work of the Pious Schools was born in the nearby church of Santa Dorotea in Trastevere,[1287] as well as the subsequent long and fruitful help and sincere esteem that Father Dominic gave him and his work.[1288]

1285 Cf. ibid., p.58 and 64.

1286 Cf. ibid., p.98.

1287 “He [Calasanz] confided the desires he had for the Pious Schools while he initiated them in Sta. Dorotea with our Fathers Peter of the Mother of God, and John of Jesus Mary....” (P. Pietro della Madre di Dio -A. ANGELINI, 157 1-1630-, Vita del P. Domenico, unpublished, cit. in G. SÁNTHA, o.c., p.186, n.16. “Father Gioseppe della Madre di Dio, Founder and Superior General of this new Congregation, placed the virtuous concept of this Pious Institute in his bosom for several years before giving birth to it, until, with the approval of two great Servants of the Lord, the Discalced Carmelites, Father Peter of the Mother of God, Apostolic Preacher, and Father John of Jesus Mary... he brought it to light in the church of Santa Dorotea in Trastevere.” (P. Luigi di S. Giuseppe -L. MAGALOTTI, 1587-1669-, Vita del Ven. P. Fr. Domenico di Gesú Maria, unpublished, cit. in ibid.).

1288 “…Our Father Dominic always loved the virtue and the charity of him [Calasanz], approving and praising such a charitable institute.... Because of the esteem in which our Father held this Institute, he always tried to give it all the help he could.” (P. ANGELINI, cf. G. SÁNTHA, o.c., p.192, n.35); “Fr. [Dominic] had always supported this praiseworthy Institute from the beginning with prayers and advice.” (P. MAGALOTTI, cf. ibid.); “He [Calasanz] came many times to attend the prayers of our Father Dominic, and to ask him for help and advice on judgment.” (P. ANGELINI, ibid., p.192, n.34). In spite of these bibliographical antecedents, Fr. Silverio de Santa Teresa forgot unfortunately to name, even once, St. Joseph Calasanz among the great friends and favored ones of these three illustrious Carmelites, to whom he dedicates so many eulogistic pages in his great work (cf. SILVERIO DE SANTA TERESA, o.c., p. 1-114).

The first Piarist biographers are no less explicit, noting the complete trust that Calasanz had in Fathers John and Dominic, with whom he discussed his spiritual problems and those of the nascent institute of Pious Schools.[1289] Father Dominic was his confessor and before his arrival in Rome it was probably Father Peter or another member of this community.[1290] However, the concurring claim by Berro and Caputi that the church of Santa Maria della Scala was assigned to the newly arrived Carmelites thanks to Calasanz’s intercession with Cardinals Colonna and other friends does not seem very credible - even if it cannot be categorically rejected.[1291] And this because the said church had already been conceded to them in 1597, before Father John and Dominic arrived in Rome, and because Father Peter of the Mother of God - whom Berro and Caputi silenced - found enough supporters in Rome, once he arrived, to obtain such a concession, such as Cardinals Pinelli and Alessandrini and Bishop Tarugi, and even the personal interest of Clement VIII, as we have seen before.

1289 Calasanz “all things conferred with him [Fr. Dominic] and Fr. John of Jesus Mary his companion” (CAPUTI, cit. in G. SÁNTHA, o.c, p. 186, n. 16).

1290 “Fr. Joseph Calasanz used to confess with Fr. Dominic della Scala and after finishing school he went to him almost every day, giving him all his thoughts for the help of the new plant, from which he brought excellent advice not only for his soul but also for the benefit of his Institute.” (ibid., p. 192, n.34). Sántha says that at the beginning it was Fr. Joseph of St. Gabriel (cf. ibid., p. 185), but this seems unlikely, since in 1598 he was still a novice (cf. A. GARCÍA-DURÁN, Itinerario, p.80, n.448), while it seems more probable that it was Fr. Peter of the Mother of God until the arrival of Fr. Dominic (cf ib.).

1291 “…Frs.Dominic of Jesus Mary, John of Jesus Mary and Fr. Joseph and others, all Discalced Carmelites, having come to Rome from Spain at that time, in order to plant that new plant in this Holy City, base of the Holy Church, it was so powerful the authority of our Fr. Joseph, that with the favor of His Em. Colonna and other Cardinals, the said Fathers had the permission to build a public church.” (BERRO I, p.32). “Father Dominic of Jesus Mary came to Rome with another Father called Father John of Jesus Mary who were Discalced of the Carmel... and because they were Spanish, Father Joseph, who was so devoted to Saint Theresa, helped them a lot to be given a little church in Trastevere near Lungara and Santa Dorotea, but when it was granted to them, they called Father Domenico della Scala....” (CAPUTI. Cf. G. SÁNTHA, o.c., p.184, n.3). Nor can it be supposed that the influence of Calasanz had an effect around the year 1612, when the lawsuits for his definitive cession were concluded since by then the two Cardinals Colonna, friends of Calasanz, had already died, and the fame and influence of Fathers John and Dominic surpassed that of Calasanz himself (cf. ibid., p.185, n.12).

The brilliant personality of these three Spanish religious and their strong spiritual attraction made the convent of La Scala one of the most prestigious and influential centers of spirituality in the first quarter of the XVII century in Rome, where Father Joseph Calasanz allowed himself to be protected, advised, helped and powerfully influenced. Here are, in broad outline, the three venerable figures.

Friar Peter of the Mother of God was “one of the most learned and holy subjects the Discalced ever had..., one of the greatest spiritual preachers of his time.”[1292] In fact, he was officially the preacher of the Sacred College of Cardinals, appointed successively by three popes (Clement VIII, Leo XI and Paul V) who wanted to honor him with the sacred purple, but all three times his modesty managed to refuse such honors. He preached in Rome on eleven consecutive Lents. He was no less famous as a pastor and confessor, and his penitents included Pope Leo XI.

1292 SILVERIO DE SANTA TERESA, o.c., p.3.

When Clement VIII established the Congregation of the Discalced Carmelites of Italy with full autonomy in 1600, he appointed Father Peter as Commissary General until the General Chapter of 1605, at which the Spanish Father Ferdinand of St. Mary was elected Superior General. At the end of his three-year term of office, in 1608, Father Peter of the Mother of God became his successor and died four months later at the age of only forty-three.[1293]

1293 Cf. ibid., p. 1-33. Fr. Ferdinand also had to relate with Calasanz, and of him the procedural witnesses, as Fr. Castelli, speak: “i primi Padri Carmelitani scalzi Peter, John and Ferdinand, they used [Calasanz] for their advisor “ (ProcIn, p.455)

The merits and fame of Father Peter were surpassed by Father John of Jesus Mary of Calahorra: “the Moses of the Congregation of St. Elias, for no one has influenced its laws like him and also given them a suitable form and articulation.”[1294] “Fr. John is indisputably one of the greatest religious that the Reformed Carmel has had in its entire history.”[1295] Master of novices in Genoa (1593-98) and in Rome (1601-1611); Definitor of the Order (1605-1608); advisor and confessor to Paul V; member of the Congregation “de Auxiliis”; General Procurator (1608-1611); Superior General (1611-1614); spiritual companion of Cardinals Galli and Sfondrato and great friend of Cardinal Bellarmine. Paul V visited him in his own cell when he was ill.[1296]

1294 SILVERIO DE SANTA TERESA, o.c., p.54. To him we owe the definitive writing of the Constitutions of the Italian Congregation. He also wrote two fundamental works to embody the spirit of the Congregation: Instructio Magistri Novitiorum and Instructio Novitiorum. Fr. Caputi said that “this Father printed many little works and in particular he made a book entitled Instruttione per li Novitii delle Scuole Pie.” He must have confused it with the one quoted above (cf. G. SÁNTHA, o.c., p.190, n.25).

1295 SILVERIO DE SANTA TERESA, o.c., p.77.

1296 Ibid., p.54-80.

As a writer, he was described by Bossuet as “summus theologus ac summus mysthicus” and is “in the eyes of many the third mystic of his Order, preceded only by St. Teresa and St. John of the Cross.”[1297] At the suggestion and undoubted inspiration of Calasanz, he wrote two works of great importance for Pious Schools, which also made him a famous pedagogue: ‘Liber de pia educatione seu de cultura pueritiae’ and the so-called ‘Proiectum’, which we will discuss later.[1298] In the prologue of the first, he says: “I wrote it a few years ago to summarize the main themes of a good education and to please the prefect of the schools, Father Joseph Calasanz, a man worthy of all honors for the outstanding perfection of his Christian life.”[1299] And a third work he left in manuscript, perhaps related to another similar and famous work by Calasanz, was “How to make a crown of twelve stars in honor of the Blessed Virgin Mary”.[1300] The undeniable divergences with regard to the twelve-star crown composed by Calasanz[1301] show us, on the one hand, the impossibility of a direct dependence of Calasanz’s prayer on that of Fr. John and allow us to infer their common Marian devotion, expressed in such a characteristic formula, perhaps of medieval origin.[1302]

1297 G. SÁNTHA, o.c., p.190. See his Opera omnia (Cologne 16221, 16502; Florence 17713); numerous eulogies, in P. FLORENCIO DEL NIÑO JESÚS, El Ven. P. Fr. John de Jesús María (Burgos 1919) p.256-260. BOSSUET, De nova quaestione, tract. I, ch.15.

1298 See a detailed study of both writings in C. VILÁ PALA, Fuentes inmediatas de la pedagogía calasancia (Madrid 1960), p.61-159, and an unabridged edition in Latin-Spanish of the Liber de pia educatione, in Archivum 16 (1984) 209-225. In the catalogs of some Piarist libraries of the Founder’s time there are works by Fr. John of Jesus Maria, not only the above-mentioned ‘Liber’ or the ‘Instrutione di Novitzi’, but also other more spiritual works, such as Stimulus compunctionis, Schola Jesu Christi, Disciplina claustralis (cf. G. SÁNTHA, o.c., p.189, n.25).

1299 Cf. C. VILÁ PALA, o.c., p.72. The work was written in 1606 and published in 1613, dedicated to Cardinal B. Giustiniani, appointed that year Protector of the Pious Schools (cf. P. FLORENCIO DEL NIÑO JESÚS, o.c., p.280).

1300 Cf. G. SÁNTHA, o.c., p.199-2o2. Full text. Commentary on p.190-191.

1301 Cf. EGC III, p.206-207.

1302 Among the unpublished works of another great contemporary Discalced Carmelite, Fr. Jerome Gracián (1545-1614), there is a Crown of twelve stars, which he himself recalls in his Pilgrimage of Anastasius (cf. SILVERIO DE SANTA TERESA, Obras del P. Jerónimo Gracián, t.III [Burgos 1933], p.180). Cf. also L. PICANYOL, La Corona delle dodici stelle: EphCal 4 (1954) suplem.

With so many merits of Father John, even in relation to Calasanz and his work, we must recognize that Father Dominic Ruzola surpassed him in universal fame - in Rome and in Europe - and even in personal support for the nascent work of the Pious Schools. Already in Spain he was celebrated for his gifts as a miracle worker, his raptures and public ecstasies, his special gifts for the reconciliation of dissenters and sinners. He was even admired and treated personally by Kings Philip III and Margaret of Austria.

Within the Order, he was superior in several houses in Spain, and then - already in Rome - Definitor General and Prior of La Scala (1608-1617) and Superior General (1617-1620). He was esteemed by popes, cardinals, princes of the Roman nobility and the people; his fame reached the imperial Court in Vienna and other Catholic countries in Europe, where he was sent as an apostolic envoy. He played a special role in the Battle of White Mountain (Bila Hora) (1620), which ended with an overwhelming victory and the conquest of Prague for the Catholics in this long battle of the Thirty Years’ War. General Tilly led the army, but Father Dominic, riding a white horse, gave a speech to the troops and carried an image of the Virgin Mary as a banner to which the victory was attributed.[1303] Before returning to Rome, he visited Emperor Ferdinand II in Vienna, Duke Maximilian in Munich and Princes Albert and Elisabeth Clare Eugenia in Flanders, being welcomed by all.

1303 On his return to Rome he brought with him the venerated image of which a very solemn procession was made from Santa Maria Maggiore to the church of the Carmelites, then called St. Paul’s and built at the expense of Cardinal Scipione Borghese (1608-1620), and which from then on (1622) was called Santa Maria della Vittoria, in memory of the battle of Prague. A fire in 1833 destroyed the image of the Virgin and when the temple was restored a copy of the famous painting was placed, centered on a large fresco alluding to that victory (cf. SILVERIO DE SANTA TERESA, Historia del Carmen Descalzo, VIII, p.107-108).

His return to Rome was a triumph. The new Pope Gregory XV wanted to make him a cardinal, but the humble Carmelite declined the honor. One of his merits was that he - together with his companion Father Peter of the Mother of God and others - was one of the first promoters of the Congregation of Propaganda Fide. He assisted Gregory XV on his deathbed and then had five votes for the papal election in the next conclave. The newly elected Pope Urban VIII continued to hold him in high esteem, as had his predecessors.

in 1629, he was asked by the emperor to mediate in serious matters between France, Spain and Austria and returned to Vienna, where he died in the imperial palace in 1630.[1304] In his eventful life, he still had time to write works on various subjects, some of which were printed in several languages, while others remained unpublished.[1305]

1304 Cf. ibid., p.80-114. It is to be regretted that a modern biography has not been written, starting from those unpublished and published in the 17th century. The character deserves it.

1305 Cf. Collectio Scriptorum Ordinis Carmelitarum Excalceatorum (Savona 1884), p. 164, which lists eleven works of Fr. Dominic.

It is only fair to mention the figures of these venerable Spanish Carmelites, of whom we have sufficient evidence to recognize their influence on Calasanz’s personal spirituality and on the consolidation and religious formation of his Order. We can also sense the spiritual depth that their friendship must have reached.

The holy reformer of the Trinitarians

On Holy Saturday of 1598, another distinguished Spaniard arrived in Rome, Father John Baptist of the Conception, with the firm intention of obtaining the Pope’s approval for the reform of the Discalced in his own Order of the Most Holy Trinity. The opposition of the Spanish Calced was paralleled that of the Calced Carmelites against their Discalced confreres. He arrived in Rome with a companion and lived in the monastery of the Trinitarians of Santo Stefano in Trullo, but he did not stay there for long as living together became impossible for him. “All those who had formerly favored [the reform] - writes a contemporary -, by the insistence of the Calced and their extraordinary negotiating ability and intelligence, were no longer favoring, but powerfully opposed. There was no way that the fathers did not try, and no means that they did not employ, encouraging opposition by every conceivable means; and so that there was no relief for our Father, even his own companion turned to the other side and deserted him... Our Father found himself alone, persecuted, poor and sick in a foreign land...”[1306]

1306 DIEGO DE LA MADRE DE DIOS, Primera parte de la Crónica de los Descalzos de la Sma. Trinidad (Madrid 1652) (Buenos Aires 1944), p.26.

The saint man (who was canonized by Paul VI in 1975) took advantage of the hospitality of Father Peter of the Mother of God, “a man - says the saint - whose life would take too long to recount, suffice it to say that he was a man to whom His Holiness paid much attention... and as such a servant of God... I told him almost my whole life story and how I had grown up among them, how much I loved them, and that although I wore this habit, I was a Carmelite friar rather than a Trinitarian; and that... as things were going, if they would gladly receive me, even as a lay brother, I would be very happy...”[1307] However, since he wanted to exhaust the possibilities of his attempts at reform, he faithfully proposed this strange solution to Fr. Peter: “If it is all right with you, I will hold my novitiate with the novices in this habit I have as an discalced brother of the Most Holy Trinity, participate in everything they do, and practice moderate diligence with His Holiness for a few months: if that does not happen, I will see to it that it is God’s will that I stay and that it goes no further. If the business does not work out, you can take me for the time I am here on account of the novitiate, and so no time is lost and not take it later, but it is gained by remain myself peaceful.”[1308] And so it was done.

1307 Obras del Beato John Bautista de la Concepción, VIII (Rome 1831), p.101.

1308 Ibid., p.108.

The atmosphere of deep spirituality that prevailed in that monastery of La Scala is appreciated and praised by the judgment of this man of God, who, exigent like all reformed discalced men of the time, evoking it thus: “that silence and tranquility which those holy fathers spend there, in which I had to partake; so much reflection, so much silence, so much prayer, mortification and penance (may God help me elsewhere to speak more slowly of the treasures of that holy house...)”[1309]

1309 Ibid., p.104.

And in this “Holy House” he remained for almost a year and a half, until October 16, 1599, when he took his leave and returned to Spain with the letter of long-awaited reform that Clement VIII had signed on August 20th. During this year and a half, he also met Father John of Jesus Mary, Father John of St. Jerome, Procurator of Spain, Father Francis of the Holy Sacrament, who had been novice master before the arrival of Father John of Jesus Mary, and Fathers Francis of St. Anne and Francis of Jesus. Father Joseph Calasanz also had dealings with all of them during his frequent visits to La Scala. And certainly, the presence of St. John Baptist of the Conception in this monastery could not go unnoticed, as the characteristic habit of the Trinitarians that he wore amidst the uniformity of all the other Carmelites would undoubtedly attract the attention of regular visitors. And it is very likely that Calasanz felt the desire to talk to him from the very first moment, because he remembered the years of his youth that he had spent in the Trinitarian high school of Estadilla. And this was not the last documented event of Calasanz’s relationship with his esteemed Trinitarian teachers.[1310]

1310 On September 1, 1642, the Provincial of the Trinitarians of Naples, Friar Jerome Pacero, granted “To our beloved Son and Most Rev. Fr. Joseph of the Mother of God General of Fathers of the Pious Schools, along with your family” the letter of brotherhood “making you share in all the Masses, orations, preaching, studies, vigils, fasts, abstinences, mortifications, austerities and travails also suffered and to be suffered for the service of the Work of Redemption and of the other good works, which by divine grace in the whole Body of our Order our Religious do and will do, and to those we receive you and admit you both in life, as in death...” (RegCal 13, 52”).

Another distinguished Carmelite: Fr. Jerome Gracián

There was another venerable Spaniard closely associated with the spirituality of Discalced Carmel who lived in Rome during these last years of the outgoing century. He was Father Jerome Gracián, confidant, admirer and collaborator of St. Mother Teresa of Jesus[1311] and one of the greatest celebrities of Discalced Carmel, of which he was the first Provincial. His eventful life is an extreme example of the unfortunate internal turmoil that aroused the old Orders, especially in Spain, due to the Claustral Reforms. His friendship and fervent discussions with the Carmelites of La Scala must have made Calasanz aware of the personal drama of this man, so important for the recent history of Carmel, who was then living in Rome, although necessarily far from the monastery of Trastevere, because he had to endure not only the opposition of the Calced, but also the persecution of the Discalced, which ended with his expulsion from the Order in 1592.

1311 The Saint dedicated an entire biographical chapter to him in her Libro de las Fundaciones (c.23), and among the many eulogies that she pays him perhaps none surpasses this one: “If I wanted to ask His Majesty for a person to put in order all the things of the Order in these principles, I would not be able to ask as much as His Majesty gave us in this. May he be blessed forever” (ibid., n.3).

In the context of all the more or less decisive influences on the theoretical and practical spirituality of the future Founder of the Pious Schools, we must also appreciate the spiritual-psychological influence that Calasanz had to experience, witnessing first-hand and observing with a certain dismay the internal struggles and discord of the great religious Orders for reasons of greater or lesser observance, and which he undoubtedly painfully and patiently evoked when it was his turn to be a distinguished victim.

After almost two years in captivity in Africa, Father Gracián returned to Rome in August 1595. He wore the habit of a discalced Carmelite and was taken in as a theologian by the Spanish Cardinal Peter de Deza, whom he served for five years until mid-1600, when Clement VIII sent him to Africa to proclaim the Holy Year.[1312] During these five years of his stay in Rome, given his experience as a reformer of Carmel together with Mother Teresa and the fame he must have had as a spiritual man, other religious who were trying to firmly establish the reform of the Discalced in their own Order came to him for advice and influence, such as - as he confesses - the Discalced Augustinians and also Friar John Baptist of the Conception, the holy reformer of the Trinitarians, whom we have just seen as an occasional novice of the Carmelites of La Scala.[1313] Even more interesting, however, is his involvement in the founding of the first convent of the Discalced Carmelite nuns in Rome, which he describes in his autobiographical ‘Pilgrimage of Anastasius’ with these words:

1312 Cf. his Tratado de la redención de cautivos: Works of Father Jerónimo Gracián, ed. by SILVERIO DE SANTA TERESA, t.III, p.60.

1313 Cf. Peregrinación de Anastasio, in ibid., p.210.

“On the day I arrived rescued in Rome, Father Soto, Pope’s singer, a great servant of God, had arranged the purchase of a house to found a convent of Discalced Carmelite Sisters in Rome. This Father had known me for a long time. He discussed this foundation with me, we bought the house next to Monte Cavalo [Quirinal] and I had it decorated and all the offices furnished in the way Mother Teresa used to found her convents. I spoke with six or seven virgins that Father Soto had designated as the first Discalced Nuns and gathered them in a private home where I taught them the ceremonies of the Discalced Nuns, read them the Rule and tried to get them to do what they were doing so that they would remain prepared without having a discalced foundress; because Father Soto felt it was very difficult to found a convent for them without having someone to teach them how to practice the Rule and the Constitutions. They did not want to give him a foundress from the convent of the nuns of Genoa, nor from that of Spain... And so the convent was founded very well and with great favor by Pope Clement VIII, who favored it with good government by placing it directly under the Apostolic See, for in his place the Cardinal Cesare Baronio directed it (who later installed a niece of his there) ...”[1314]

1314 In the examination of witnesses for the process of beatification of St. Teresa, held in Rome from October 1609 to May 1610, were called to testify “the Superior and Community of the Monastery of Discalced Carmelites of St. Joseph in Rome, testifying under oath how in contact with a relic of Mother Teresa a religious of that Community had been healed instantly, being wounded to death and without remedy of life in the human aspect. The cured Sister was a niece of Cardinal Baronio” (Fr. FLORENCIO DEL NIÑO JESÚS, o.c., p.156). About this relic, Father Gracián said: “in this monastery it happened that taking to the church a bit of Mother Teresa’s flesh that they had there, it gave so much softness and fragrance of odor...” (P. J. GRACIÁN, o.c., p.206).

And it is curious that a few years later - perhaps after Baronio’s death (1607) - Cardinal Marcelo Lante, “as protector of the monastery of the Discalced Carmelites of Capo le Case [near Monte Cavallo], appointed the Ven. Priest [Calasanz] to examine the said Mothers, to assist them and to instruct them in perfection and mortification, and... he gave them this charity for many days, with much profit... but as the Pious Schools were the main occupation of our D. Joseph, he took leave of them...”[1315]

1315 Cf. BERRO I, p.66-67. Armini specifies that it was the monastery “detto San Giuseppe a Capo le Case” (ARMINI, Vita, p.66).

Undoubtedly, this was a more appropriate concern of the Carmelites of La Scala than that of his friend Calasanz, but at the same time it is an indication of the deep spirituality that the still secular priest breathed, and also of the helplessness in which the Discalced Carmelite nuns remained in relation to their brothers of Trastevere, probably due to the fact that they had been founded with the help of an “outcast” of their Order like Father Gracián.[1316]

1316 The suspicions against Fr. Gracián started when Fr Peter of the Mother of God came to Rome in 1596, whom Gracián told to found in Rome, otherwise he would found “and when they saw - he adds - that I had helped to found that of the nuns... they feared my determination and daring (so that it would not be said that an expelled member of their Order founded a convent in Rome), they hurried to come and founded the convent of Our Lady of la Scala, that so much fruit has done, does and will do” (Peregrinación de Anastasio, p.206 ).

Father Soto, a famous Oratorian

Cardinal Lante’s decision was perhaps influenced by another personality, a friend of Calasanz who is still unknown today. It was the Oratorian Father Francis Soto, whom Father Gracián has just described as the main founder of the first monastery of the Discalced Carmelites in Rome and also called him a “singer of the Pope and a great servant of God”.” He was born around 1536 in Langa (Soria, Spain). He was ordained a priest and went to Rome to continue his musical studies. in 1562 he was accepted into the college of presbyter-singers of the papal chapel, to which he belonged until his death in 1619. Mosén Antony Calasanz was a member of the same papal chapel for forty years, of which he was dean when he died in 1577. They were therefore companions in the choir for fifteen years (1562-1577), and as both were Spanish, it is only natural that their relationship became a true friendship.

We have already seen the probable, more or less distant relationship between Antony Calasanz and Joseph,[1317] so that we can assume that the latter, when he arrived in Rome in 1592, already knew Father Soto by name, who was born in Soria, and referred to him. But the most interesting thing is that both were at the same time members of the Confraternity of the Twelve Apostles, which had its headquarters in the basilica of the same name next to the Colonna Palace. As we shall see later, Calasanz was admitted to the confraternity perhaps in 1593 or early 1594 and his presence is documented until August 1601. It is likely that Father Soto was enrolled much earlier. The fact is that in the books of the confraternity it is recorded that Joseph Calasanz had four confreres as companions to visit and care for the poor, including Francis Soto, Oratorian, whom we identify without hesitation with the “founder” of the Carmelites mentioned above.[1318]

1317 In 1563 Antony had obtained a simple benefice in Fraga, which was later possessed in 1593 by Joseph Calasanz, as soon as he arrived in Rome. Of Antony Calasanz was heir and nephew Bartolomew Calasanz, the archpriest of Monzón, who probably obtained for Joseph the first benefice of Saint Stephen of Monzón and the entrance in the retinue of Mons. la Figuera (cf. J. LÓPEZ NAVÍO, Ambiente histórico y social..., p.211-212 J. POCH, El Fundador de las E. Pías en la Hist. de la Corona de Aragón, p.304-306; G. SÁNTHA, Primum beneficium ecclesiasticum..., p.306-308).

1318 Sántha lists the number of times they went to visit with Calasanz: Michael Filomati, 48 times; Thomas Tosto, 47 times; John Baptist Cantarello, 22 times; Francis Soto, 16 times, and adds: “de quibus in praesens nihil amplius praeter supradicta scimus [i.e., the times they went with Calasanz] neque utrum clerici an laici fuerint certo asserere possumus” (G. SÁNTHA, De S. Fundatoris nostri in Archiconfraternitate SS. XII Apostolorum praesentia et opera: EphCal 7 [958] 183).

In fact, he belonged to the Oratory, and as early as 1566 he joined the community of the priestly disciples of St. Philip Neri, who lived next to St. John of the Fiorentini and later moved to the premises next to the new church (‘Chiesa Nuova’) of Santa Maria in Vallicella, which was consecrated in 1577. Among the companions of Father Soto’s community was Cesare Baronio, with whom he collaborated, until his death as Cardinal in 1607.

In his capacity as a singer in the papal chapel, Father Soto was in contact with the famous musicians and composers who directed the various papal or basilical chapels. He was particularly involved with John Animuccia and John Peter Louis of Palestrina, faithful followers of St. Philip Neri, whom the saint appointed successively as directors and composers of the music of the Oratory and who both died in his arms, first Animuccia in 1571 and then Palestrina in 1594. “Providence – writes Capecelatro - gave him (St. Philip) an excellent successor to the work of Palestrina in the person of Father Soto, who enjoyed a long life and was able to direct the music of the Oratorio and adorn the papal chapel until the ripe old age of eighty-five, since he died in 1619. Sixtus V held him in high esteem and entrusted him with the reorganization of the choir of singing chaplains.”[1319] He distinguished himself as a composer of the ‘Laudi spirituali’ so typical of the Oratorio and published the books in which he collected his own compositions together with other unpublished ones by Animuccia and Palestrina, so that his name has passed on to posterity through the hands of his famous contemporaries.[1320] The biographers of San Felipe Neri, for their part, do not forget to mention the merits of Father Soto in the field of Oratorio music, as well as his decisive intervention in the foundation of the Discalced Carmelite nuns.[1321]

1319 Cf. A. CAPECELATRO, Vida de San Felipe Neri (Barcelona 1895) p.359.

1320 Pastor describes him as an “excellent composer” (cf. ID., o.c., vol. 19, p.171). The books of Fr. Soto are cited among the “classical sources of the Philippine ‘laude’” (cf. A. DELLA CORTE-G. PANNAIN, Historia de la Música [Barcelona 1950] vol. I, 249). Other praise for Fr. Soto in A. CAPECELATRO, o.c., .357-359.

1321 “He was also a pious and virtuous man and to him we owe the construction of the church of St. Joseph of the first monastery of Discalced Carmelites in Rome” (A. CAPECELATR0, o.c. p.357, n.3). “He helped to found the convent of Discalced Carmelites in Rome and translated into Italian the ‘Life’ of St. Theresa of Jesus” (M. TREVOR, San Felipe Neri, apóstol de Roma, Sal Terrae [Santander 1986]. p.134).

Having said that, it seems obvious to recognize the importance of Father Soto to explain some of the supposed or actual friendships, relationships and activities that are valued in the Founder of the Pious Schools. These include: the fact that he was for a time responsible for the spiritual direction of the Carmelite nuns; the probable friendship or association with Fr. St. Philip Neri, who died in May 1595, and the deep devotion he always had for him, as well as his interest in having him venerated by the children and religious both in the schools and in the churches of the Order[1322]; the esteem in which he held the Oratorio and its pastoral methods throughout his life, especially the simplicity of its preaching[1323] and, above all, the importance it attached to music, not only as a subject of instruction and as a means of encouraging the poor children of Rome, but also as an integral part of piety and pastoral work, in particular through the introduction of the singing of the ‘Laudi spirituali’, of which Fr Soto was the author and promoter.[1324] We must not forget the influence that Father Soto, together with his brother in the Religion, Cardinal Baronio, had not only on the protection of the monastery of the Discalced Carmelites, but also on the admiration and support he gave to the emerging Pious Schools.

1322 Scasellati declared that Calasanz to “Saint Philip Neri held in great veneration” (ProcIn, 207); Dionisio Micara said that he used to make the children say: “lodato e ringraziato sempre sia / il nome di Gesü e di Maria, / S. Carlo e S. Filippo in compagnia” (Praised and thanked always be / the name of Jesus and Mary, / in company of St. Charles and St. Philip) (TALENTI, Vita, p.499); in the schools the feast of St. Philip Neri was celebrated with solemnity (cf. SÁNTHA, p.247, n.37); in a letter to Nicolsburg he says that “he sends with the present the Brief of the plenary indulgence for the day of St. Philip our common and your particular advocate” (c.4257 ), and in another he inculcates that “hold firm hope in the devotion of St. Philip Neri” (C.4278 ); before his death he asked that the biretta of St. Philip be brought to him; among the few books he had in his room was a ‘Vita di S. Filippo Neri fiorentino”, by P. G. BACCI (Rome 1622). For other details on the spread of the devotion to St. Philip Neri in Italy and Germany cf. C. VILÁ PALA, Calasanz y San Felipe Neri: Archivum 9 [981] 45-59.

1323 He even expressed it in the Constitutions: “In concinando in nostris Ecclesiis familiarem modum dicendi, quo utuntur reverendi patres Oratorii in Valicella de Urbe imitabuntur” (CC, n.331). Cf. also SANTHA, SJC, 220-221.

1324 Cf. SÁNTHA, o.c., .494-496, 550-556; C. VILÁ PALA l.c. Both authors do not know Fr. Francis Soto. In a letter of 1628 Calasanz speaks of the ‘laudi del Grignani’ (C.794). The exact title is ‘Cento Laudi spirituali’, and they were published by their author, Ludovico Grignani, in Rome, in 1624, dedicating them to the students of the Pious Schools, who used to sing them. Here is how the preface begins: “To the spiritual singers, the pupils of the Pious Schools of Rome. Seeing with how much fervor and spiritual taste the frequency of Christian doctrines is exercised in these schools and the spiritual Lauds are sung by you with no little delight (even by those who listen to you), has induced me to encourage you to do so more willingly by choosing this collection of the most beautiful Lauds” (G. SÁNTHA, o.c., p.552, n.8).

In the circle of the saints

It is admirable that this man, who in those years was busy with dignities, canonries and money, was able to introduce himself to various monastic environments where austerity, reform and religious spirituality were lived, and that he was able to make friends with so many illustrious personalities of the Rome of the time, among whom the Spaniards predominate. The list begins with the two future generals of the Conventuals, Father Bagnacavallo and Father Larino, followed by the three discalced Carmelites, also Generals of their reformed congregation, Father Peter, Father John and Father Dominic, and other important religious such as the Carmelite Father Jerome Gracián and the Oratorian Father Francis Soto.

But there are a few more, at least four; the four are canonized and the four are founders whose holiness goes hand in hand with his, for which we have sufficient reasons or reliable testimonies that they knew each other, had dealings with each other or even worked together in the vineyard of the Lord. We have already spoken about two of them: St. John Baptist of the Conception, reformer or founder of the Discalced Trinitarians[1325], and St. Philip Neri.

1325 The primitive Order of the Calced remained independent until 1894, when it was extinguished. Its last superior, Fr. Antony Martín Bienes, from Zamora, preferred to cede to the Dominicans and not to the Discalced Trinitarians the Roman convent of Via Condotti, the last remaining house (cf. V. GINARTE, La Orden Trinitaria [Salamanca 1979] p.179-180).

A great friend of Saint Philip Neri was Saint John Leonardi since his first visit to Rome in 1584.[1326] The Congregation of the “Reformed Priests of the Blessed Virgin”,” which he had founded in Lucca in 1574, was recognized by Clement VIII in 1595, and after a brief union with the Pious Schools, promoted by Calasanz himself, they would go their own way as the Order of Clerics Regular. But even before this union, the two Founders had been friends and had also worked together in certain early phases of the nascent work of the Pious Schools. And this friendship was very intimate and must have begun very early on, as Calasanz recalled in his explanations for his friend’s beatification process.[1327] In his sparse information about his virtues and miracles, perhaps the best summary and most succinct praise - even brilliant - was the following: “I cannot report on his miracles in particular with the certainty that others do, but it seems to me that his whole life was a great miracle.”[1328] He did not want to say much, but he could not say more, not even nicer! And what his friend Leonardi thought of him was reported to us by a witness at the process of Calasanz in 1651:

1326 Cf. V. PASCUCCI, S. Giovanni Leonardi (Rome-1963), p.35-36; PASTOR, o.c., vol. 24, p.65-66; PosCas, I, p.41-43, with bibliography referring to Leonardi and his congregation.

1327 “…I affirm that I have known and had particular familiarity with Fr. John Leonardi of holy memory.... I say that I knew him in the time of Clement VIII, and with whim I had a deep report while he was in Rome until his death” [occurred in 1609] (cf. C. VILÁ PALA, Escrito de N.S.P.: Archivum 4 [ 1978] 277, 280.

1328 “De miracoli particolari non posso dare relatione con quella certeza che alcuni altri potranno dare, ma mi pare un miracolo grande tutta la vita sua” (ibid., p.277). The declaration was made by Calasanz on September 14, 1639.

“I understand by public voice and fame the action that goes from mouth to mouth, as happens with the opinion of the sanctity of the above-mentioned Father Joseph. I see that it is widely spread among noble, pious and spiritual persons such as my confessor, among others Father John Leonardo, founder of the Religion of Santa Maria in Portico. He was my confessor before I went to Father Joseph for confession. And said Fr. John Leonardo used to tell me that Fr. Joseph was a great saint and a great servant of God, and he told me great things about his virtues, but I do not remember it anymore, because that was more than forty years ago.”[1329]

1329 Cf., BAU, BC, p.238. The declarant was Donna Laura Gaetani della Riccia, who lived near San Pantaleo. Indeed, they were things of more than forty years before, since Leonardi died in 1609.

Another great contemporary who filled Rome with awe because of his heroic charity was St. Camillo de Lellis, founder of the Ministers of the Infirm, who was also penitent and was led by St. Philip Neri from at least 1575 and who carried out his charitable work in the hospitals of Rome until his death in 1614 at the age of sixty-four. He was seven years older than Calasanz. In the epidemic of 1590-91, which killed 30,000 people, or perhaps as many as 60,000 if one does not exaggerate, Camillo and his sons showed heroism: 25 of them, most of them young, died, along with the exemplary Jesuit St. Aloysius Gonzaga (June 21, 1591).[1330] Five years later, in the summer of 1596, another plague broke out, the so-called “putrid fever”, and again Camillus and his companions took to the streets and went through the hospitals to help the sick. And on this occasion, “another giant of charity, St. Joseph Calasanz, not only helped the plague sufferers, but also provided transportation for the corpses on his back,”[1331] Armini wrote about both saints in relation to this plague:

1330 Cf. A. PRONZATO, Todo corazón para los enfermos. Camillo de Lellis (Sígueme, Salamanca 1985) p.188.

1331 Ibid, p.296, n.2.

“...he [Calasanz] never missed a good opportunity to exercise his great charity on the numerous sick, especially in the parish of the Holy Twelve Apostles entrusted to Cardinal Colonna, whose theologian he was.[1332] In doing so, he perfectly imitated the example of Father Camillo de Lellis, the founder of the Ministers of the Infirm, with whom he was a great friend and who, to the amazement of all, showed a charity never seen before in such situations, and on several occasions he was a faithful and zealous companion in such works of charity.”[1333]

1332 “Pope Clement VIII orders the cardinals to take care of the assistance in the surroundings of their respective palaces. The Pope reserves to himself the Borgo district... Or rather, he entrusts it to Camillo” (A. PRONZATO, o.c., p.295).

1333 ARMINI, Vita, p.56. The aforementioned witness, Donna Laura Gaetani, already spoke of this plague, and said that “Since all or almost all of them were sick, and most of them died, not having anyone to care them, the said Father Gioseppe in the company of the Blessed Camillo of the Ministers of the Infirm went to care for them, bringing them donkeys full of breadcrumbs and other food for the sick, and consoling them by helping them to die well” (ProcIn, p.334 ; BAU, BC, p.238).

And much earlier, Berro had written about Calasanz’s assiduous presence in the city’s hospitals, where he was bound to meet and befriend Father Camillo de Lellis, even if our chronicler does not say so: “He visited the hospitals and served the sick with great charity in all the necessary tasks, making their beds, cleaning their heads and unclean vessels and doing everything they asked for, refreshing them with whatever they liked, according to the weather.”[1334]

1334 BERRO I, p.68 (correction of the printed text with another more complete version). One of the most famous hospitals of Rome was that of ‘Santo Spirito’, which still exists, “generally defined as ‘palestra of charity, christianae caritatis gymnasium’. The Popes call it ‘Hospitale Nostrum’. The hospital is open to anyone who wishes to exercise it, [charity]... Priests, religious, laymen, doctors, men of letters, artisans, learned and illiterate, saints and penitents can be seen there. The ‘Santo Spirito’ is a royal court, a temple, a purgatorium, a place of heavenly delights (M. VANTI). It has been frequented... by such personages as Cajetan Thiene, Philip Neri, Cesare Baronio, Charles Borromeo, Joseph Calasanz, John Leonardi, John B. de Rossi, Vincent Pallotti, John Bosco, Sister Augustine Pietrantoni...” (and, of course, Camillo de Lellis) (A. PRONZATO, o.c., p.133-134).

In the catastrophic flood of the Tiber at Christmas 1598, the two friends met again and excelled in charity and heroism, filling another page in the magnificent “Book of Life” (Phil 4:3) and in their biographies.[1335] But we will talk about that later.

1335 Cf. A. PRONZATO, o.c., p.297-298; TALENTI, Vita, p.62-63; BAU, BC, p.280-282.

There was another contemporary saint whose name and fame, for his scholarship and example, brought him to the fore in Rome at that time. It was the Jesuit and Cardinal Robert Bellarmino, longtime professor at Collegio Romano and rector of the same since the year Calasanz came to Rome (1592-94), theologian to the pope (1597-99) and cardinal (1599-1621). There are indications that Bellarmino and Calasanz may have known, treated and even admired each other very well. Apart from his two brief absences as Provincial of Naples (November 1594-January 1597) and as Archbishop of Capua (April 1602-March 1605)[1336], Bellarmino was with Calasanz from 1592, when he came to Rome, until 1621, when he died. And it seems unlikely that they never met during those twenty-five years, since they were two such important figures in the ecclesiastical and curial world of Rome. But there is, of course, more.

1336 Cf. A.M. FIOCCHI, S. Roberto Bellarmino (Isola del Liri 1930).

Among Cardinal Bellarmine’s deep friendships, there are two that suggest the likelihood of a rapprochement with Calasanz. The first was with Fr. John of Jesus and Mary, the Discalced Carmelite of Santa Maria della Scala. “The close friendship that united the wise Jesuit cardinal and the mystical Carmelite theologian, the frequent visits they paid to each other and the esteem in which they held each other were public in Rome.”[1337] In both cases, we can recognize a special concern for the Christian education of children. Bellarmine descends from the heights of the highest theological speculations and controversies, manifested in his enormous editorial production[1338], and writes two catechisms, one for children and one for teachers or catechists, which are published successively in 1597 and 1598[1339], the very years in which Calasanz begins his pedagogical activity in Santa Dorotea. Father John of Jesus Mary, who had also descended from the heights of his ascetic-mystical treatises, wrote his Liber de pia educatione seu cultura pueritiae in 1606 “to please the prefect of the Schools, Father Joseph Calasanz, a man worthy of all praise for the outstanding perfection of his Christian life”, as he says in the prolog.[1340] And it is likely that they were talking to each other about such a “highly praiseworthy man”, who was having a new experience in Rome with the children whose Christian education they were both concerned about. If Bellarmine frequently visited the monastery of La Scala, he may at some point have met Calasanz, who was also such a keen visitor and friend of the three great Carmelites Peter, John and Dominic.

1337 P. FLORENCIO DEL NIÑO JESÚS, o.c., p.107.

1338 Cf. A list of his works in A. M. FIOCCHI, o.c., p.505-507.

1339 Dottrina cristiana breve, perchè si possa imparare a memoria [Roma 1597]; Dichiarazione più copiosa della Dottrina Cristiana (ibid., p.505).

1340 Cf. C. VILÁ Fuentes inmediatas de la pedagogía calasancia, p.72.

Bellarmine’s second deep friendship, known to all, was with Cardinal Baronio.[1341] And we will have the opportunity to see how this famous cardinal visited the schools of Calasanz, accompanied by another great luminary of the time and an exemplary pedagogue, Cardinal Silvio Antoniano. And is it plausible that Baronio spoke to Bellarmine about these schools and spoke of “a “man worthy of all praise”, whom he undoubtedly knew through personal references from his confrere and friend from Calasanz, Father Francis Soto.

1341 Cf. A. M. FIOCHI, o.c., p.287-291.

There is a third indication of the more than probable personal relationship between Calasanz and Bellarmino: together with Baronio, both belonged to the Roman Confraternity of Our Lady of Suffrage.[1342] Moreover, Calasanz required Bellarmine’s two catechisms as textbooks in his Pious Schools, of which the small catechism for children was prescribed in the papal state by a letter from Clement VIII in 1598 and strongly recommended to the whole Church.[1343] It is therefore logical that Calasanz required it in Rome and in other schools of the Papal States, but there is evidence that he also recommended it in other places.[1344]

1342 Cf. G. SÁNTHA, Operositas atque industria Calasanctii in Archiconfraternitatibus SS. Stigmatum, SS. Trinitatis Peregrinorum atque convalescentium el B. Mariae Suffragii de Urbe: EphCal 9-10 (1959) 335.

1343 Cf. A. M. FIOCHI, o.c., p.302-303. It was translated into fifty-six languages.

1344 He writes to Palermo: “ours do not exceed the terms and limits of the Dottrina Christiana composed by Cardinal Belarmino”, (C.2577) and to Genoa: “as for the youngsters, in addition to the Dottrina christiana of Card. Bellarmino, will have to be taught the Misteri della vita e passione di Christo and the Essercitii Spirituali per li Giovanetti delle Scuole Pie that are printed in Rome.”, and of both little books he was the author (C.2916). From Germany they ask him to send them the two Catechisms of Bellarmine (cf. EEC, p.619 and 1211).

It is wonderful to see these constellations of saints who - like signs of the zodiac - follow one another uninterruptedly in the Eternal City and intertwine with one another. Joseph Calasanz lived in the circle made up of Philip Neri, John the Baptist of the Conception, John Leonardi, Camillo de Lellis, Robert Bellarmine... and the Spirit of God hovered over them all in a fruitful way.

In the form of a colophon

In mid-May 1592, barely three months after his arrival in Rome, Calasanz wrote to his parish priest of Peralta, saying. “Until today, blessed God, I have been in good health and I trust in his favor to do well in this country.”[1345] And he spoke of claims to benefices, of people who favored him or from whom he could expect influence, and he alluded to the secretary of the Spanish ambassador, to a secret steward of the pope, to the datario, to the pope’s butler and to a Carthusian monk who was related to him, and to Cardinal Colonna.

1345 EGC II, c.3.

The years passed and all these friends and supporters of the first hour were left aside and others emerged who had nothing to do with benefices, canons and ambitions. They were all the men of God we have just mentioned, whose influence was much more profound and lasting than that of all those he had relied on to obtain at least one of the many canonries he aspired to... and could not achieve.

He would, however, get what he was taught: Holiness.

Chapter 12

The Rome of poverty, charity and devotion

It was not only the saints and men of God who helped Calasanz to change course in those crucial years, the last of one century and the first of the next, but also the atmosphere of piety - so far from the well-known and false adage “Roma veduta, fede perduta” - and the abundance of charitable institutions, especially those that had sprung up or were flourishing at the end of the sixteenth century.

It was a new experience in his life. And the generosity with which he gave himself to this new world of confraternities and devotions gives us the measure of the seriousness with which he resolutely followed the path of holiness to its loftiest peaks. Rome, with its people and things, won his soul.

Poverty, charity and confraternities

In fact, since the last centuries of the Middle Ages, Rome has never lacked confraternities whose dual purpose was to help the needy out of love for God and at the same time to ensure the perfection of the Christian life itself. In the last period before the Council of Trent, in full Renaissance and pagan exuberance, corporations had emerged, such as the Oratory or, more precisely, the Society of Divine Love, to which laymen and clergymen of all levels belonged, seeking personal reform through piety and charity.[1346] These societies, brotherhoods or confraternities grew beyond the number of sixty in the course of the sixteenth century and covered the whole range of misery and public needs in a kind of specialized devotion to orphans, foundlings or abandoned children; to pilgrims and foreigners; to the poor in general or the shy beggars in particular; to the sick in hospitals or in their own homes and to convalescents; to prisoners, death row inmates, the dying, prostitutes, beggars, plague sufferers, etc.

1346 Cf. among others, A. BIANCONI, L’opera delle compagnie del Divino Amore nella Riforma cattolica (Città di Castello 1914); P. PASCHINI, Tre ricerche sulla storia della Chiesa nel Cinquecento (Rome 1947).

All this zeal for public charity increased after the Council of Trent, as a prerequisite for an effective reform of the Church, especially in Rome, which had been struck by serious disasters in recent decades, such as the epidemics of 1576, 1590-91 and 1596; the floods of the Tiber in 1547, 1557, 1571, 1589 and above all that of 1598, in which 1.400 victims died, or 4,400 victims according to other statistics. The grain shortage with the resulting price increase, to which Calasanz alluded in November 1592, was no less catastrophic.[1347]

1347 Cf. text quoted in n.1114 of chapter 10.

Rome, however, was no exception in the series of public disasters. Plagues, floods, famines, droughts and wars raged everywhere, and the so-called “price revolution”, in which the process of monetary inflation did not match the rise in wages, also filled Europe with vast regions of poor people, perhaps reaching 20 or 25 percent of the total population. It is significant that during these golden centuries of wealth, culture and hegemony, Spain created one of its most typical and representative figures: the rogue. And it is the poor, the vagabonds, the beggars who populate the pages of our great classics.

In 1601, an observer wrote: “In Rome one sees nothing but poor beggars, and in such great numbers that one cannot walk through the streets without being constantly surrounded by them, to the great dissatisfaction of the people and the beggars themselves.”[1348] But it is likely that such an observation could also be made in Paris, London or any other major European city. And it is even more probable that the beggars or the poor received more attention, alms and good treatment in Rome than elsewhere, considering that public charity in all its aspects was then almost entirely in the hands of the Church and was nowhere else so noticeable as in the capital of the Catholic orb. The popes endeavored to create public centers in their cities to help all kinds of needy people. Hospitals and hospices, asylums and orphanages, educational institutions and homes, all at the expense of the state treasury and the generosity of the high dignitaries of the Roman Curia and the heroic charity of so many holy founders of religious Orders; but above all by the anonymous multitude of clerics and lay people who walked every day in silence through the fourteen districts of the city, up and down the seven hills, as members of the numerous confraternities or societies of charity, in search of the pain, abandonment, misery and poverty of their neighbors.[1349]

1348 C. FANUCCI, Trattato di tutte le opere pie dell’alma cittá di Roma (Rome 1601), p.67. More news on the social and charitable state of Rome at that time in C.L. MORICHINI, Degli istituti di carità per la sussistenza e l’educazione dei poveri e dei prigionieri in Roma libri tre (Roma 1870); P. PECCHIAI, Roma nel cinquecento (Bologna 1948); C. PIAZZA, Opere pie di Roma (Roma 1679); J. DELUMEAU, Vie Economique et Sociale de Rome dans la seconde moitié du XVI siécle (Paris 1957-59) 2 vols.

1349 Battista Ceci da Urbino, in a Relatione of 1605 on Rome, says that the Pope distributed 400 gold scudos to the shameful poor, convents and hospitals; 2,000 for Christmas, Easter, St. Peter and St. Paul and the anniversary of his coronation, in addition to 1,000 scudos in extraordinary donations. He also describes the numerous charitable centers in Rome, “all of which were excellently organized and served by brotherhoods. Here the most diverse social classes and the sick of every kind were cared for..... [The hospitals] were so skilfully distributed throughout all the districts that there was no lack of assistance anywhere..... In total, the number of hospitals and hospices rose to forty” (PASTOR, o.c., vol. 24, p.344-345).

In addition to their special charitable commitment, these confraternities also demanded certain practices of piety and mortification from their members. They could be described as true centers of spirituality and schools of Christian perfection.

More generally, Berro wrote that Calasanz, “when he arrived in Rome, devoted himself with much devotion and consolation to visiting the holy places of that city... and he attended to every work of charity, both in the hospitals and in the prisons, and to every work of piety, as well as to the escape from all the bad habits of the courtiers.”[1350] And he explicitly recalled that he belonged to four confraternities, namely: Christian Doctrine, Suffrage or Refuge, -as he says-, the Wounds of St. Francis and the Twelve Apostles. In the margin of the manuscript, a later hand added in that he also belonged to the Confraternity of the Holy Trinity of Pilgrims and Convalescents.[1351] After the beatification of Calasanz (1748), the postulator of the Causa asked each of the Roman confraternities to which, according to tradition, he had belonged for a notarial certificate, and the five mentioned renewed the certificate, in addition to a sixth: the Oratory of St. Teresa of the Carmelites of La Scala.[1352] Recent studies have confirmed and clarified the affiliation and activities of Calasanz in each of these oratories, although not in all of them with the same abundance of data. Let us see.

1350 BERRO I, p.65-66. The same affirmed the Breve Notizia: “And besides the offices that he had in the said court [of the Colonna palace], he exercised himself in every work of piety, visiting prisons and hospitals, helping in every need with great charity” (BAU, RV. p.12).

1351 Cf. BERRO I, p.68-69. The Breve Notizia alludes to only three confraternities: the Apostles, the Wounds and Christian Doctrine (cf. BAU, RV, p. 12).

1352 Cf. RegCal XIII, 8-13.

The Confraternity of the Twelve Apostles

It was founded at the time of Paul III (1534 - 49) by St. Ignatius of Loyola and other Fathers of the Society in the Church of Gesú with the aim that twelve of its members collected alms on the occasion of the solemn sermons preached in this church and later distributed them to the poor. But before 1565, the view changed. Father Felix Peretti (later Sixtus V), a great preacher, drew crowds in the Conventuals’ own church, the Basilica of the Twelve Apostles. As Pope, he elevated the Society to Archconfraternity and linked it to the Confraternity of the Blessed Sacrament, which already existed in this church. its Statutes were drawn up and published in 1588.[1353]

1353 Cf. G. SÁNTHA, De S. Fundatoris nostri in Archiconfraternitate SS. XII Apostolorum praesentia et opera: EphCal 7 (1958) 179.

According to these, their special purpose, in addition to the veneration of the Blessed Sacrament, was “to care for poor people with all possible piety, honesty and discretion, and even more for families suffering from illness, misery and hardship who can neither care for themselves nor deserve to be seen begging, especially for those, who were once better off and have now fallen into decay and are threatened with the worst, so that alms, both spiritual and corporal, may be procured and distributed to them according to the instructions of the prior, to encourage them to patience and a good life, to turn them from vice and lead them to virtue, to dispel discord and restore peace among their relatives.”[1354]

1354 Cf. A. GARCÍA-DURÁN, Itinerario espiritual..., p.62-63.

So, the mission was not that simple. Nor was it just a matter of distributing alms, which is in fact flattering and dignified. Nor were all the poor “easy” to help, and perhaps the most difficult thing was to listen to their complaints, their grievances, their memories of better days and their despair. In addition, the confreres themselves had to be prepared to ask for alms to be distributed later, with the humiliation, ridicule and belittlement that this entailed.[1355]

1355 “In order to have the brothers trained and humbled in the work of charity, and to be able to come to all the needs of the poor, which continually arise, it is ordained that they go asking for alms in the city as often as the Prior and Congregation ordained...” (ibid., p.62, n.395).

Each year, twelve visitors or delegates were elected to visit the poor or sick in their neighborhood twice a week, accompanied by one or two assistants. They also had to attend the weekly meetings of the leaders and the monthly general meeting. Calasanz was a visitor for six or seven years without interruption.[1356] The last time he is mentioned in the books of the confraternity is on August 2, 1601. So, he was a visitor at least since 1596 or 1595. The first time he is mentioned as such is on May 27, 1596. However, he does not appear in the Register of Members for the years 1560-1595, which is undoubtedly an unfortunate oversight. It can be assumed that at least a year passed between the date of enrolment and his election as Visitor, as these appointments were made with great care. It is therefore very likely that he joined the confraternity in the first half of 1595.[1357] The books assure us that Calasanz attended 239 meetings of the confraternity as a visitor and distributed 539 escudos during the 157 visits, the frequency of which - as we will see - gradually and even drastically decreased in the last years because he was absorbed by his new activity: the Pious Schools.[1358]

1356 “…knowing the great poverty that there was [in Rome] for having visited, being in the company of the SS. Apostoli during six or seven years, all the rioni of Rome” (Calasanz to Berro, May 20, 1644, C.4185).

1357 Cf. G. SÁNTHA, oc., p.181. Sántha recalls that the ancient biographers Berro, Caputi, Armini and Talenti tend to anticipate Calasanz’s entry into the Roman confraternities. But, even if this was the first one he joined, it is not probable that he did so before 1595.

1358 Ibid., p.182-183.

This was the first confraternity in which he enrolled when he was still anxious and hoping to obtain a canonry. It was a unique and very rich experience, because it brought him into direct contact with the cruel reality of poverty and misery, the solution to which he believed - in a brilliant intuition - to be found in the free popular schools.

Confraternity of Christian Doctrine

Marco de Sadi Cusano, a native of Milan, arrived in Rome in 1560 and founded the first schools of Christian Doctrine under the protection of the churches. He soon had collaborators, priests and lay people, among whom Father Henry Pietra, a great friend and companion of St. Philip Neri, stood out. As early as 1563, a group of these catechists began to live in community, and in 1575 Pope Gregory XIII gave them the church of St. Agatha in Trastevere, and so they became known as “Agathists”. At the same time, another group founded the Confraternity.

In 1593, Pope Clement VIII appointed Cardinal Alessandro de Medici as protector of both guilds, which were jointly led by four definitors until 1598, when they separated and each elected their own governing bodies. The Agathists, or Congregation for Christian Doctrine, kept the church of Santa Agatha as their own seat and went their own way until they finally merged with the Doctrinaire Fathers of Avignon in 1747. For its part, the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine elected its president and established its final headquarters in the church of St. Martin, next to Monte di Pietà.[1359]

1359 Cf. Dizionario degli Istituti di Perfezione. vol. III. Ed. Paoline (Rome 1976) col.978-979; C. VILÁ PALA, Fuentes inmediatas de la pedagogía calasancia, p.261-264. In 1747 the church of St. Martin was destroyed and the see of the confraternity was moved to “Sta. Maria del Pianto a piazza Giudea” (cf. TALENTI, Vita, p.38).

Both institutions had the specific purpose of teaching catechism to boys and girls on Sundays and holidays, and some of them were also taught reading, writing and arithmetic.[1360] The similarity between these schools and the one founded by Calasanz requires a comparative analysis in order to determine their mutual influences, based on the historical fact of the saint’s membership of this confraternity and the reasons that led him to enroll there and to develop an intense activity, although he also had other occupations and commitments. We will see this in due course as we proceed.

1360 The first Rules of the confraternity, printed in Milan in 1555, read: “This is the Rule of the Company of the Servants of the Children in charity, that, on the feast days, teaches to boys and girls, to read, to write and the good christian customs gratis et amore Dei, started in Milan in the year 1536.” And in another writing, today lost, it was read: “And because our main intention is to teach the Christian life, which will be learned in the Interrogatory [or brief catechism], it is ordered that those who want to learn to write and abbaco, first diligently have to learn and practice the Interrogatory, otherwise they will be disqualified” (cf. C. VILÁ PALA, o.c., p.262). The Milan Rules of 1555 had several editions (1568, 1569, 1595) and others in the cities where their schools were established (cf. A. GARCÍA-DURÁN, oc., p.79, n.443).

For the moment, it is of interest to determine the date of Calasanz’s entry into the confraternity. The ancient authors more or less explicitly had the idea that the saint entered the Roman confraternities as soon as he arrived in Rome. Talenti still believed that he joined the confraternity in 1592 and was elected president a few months later.[1361] Bau, however, proposed in 1595.[1362] Sántha was in favor of the summer of 1597 and the beginning of 1598.[1363] Vilá preferred 1599.[1364] Father Sántha had the official books of the confraternity in hand, but his conclusions are not entirely convincing. For one thing, the date of Calasanz’s enrollment does not appear in any of the three books consulted.[1365] The first time he is mentioned is at the beginning of 1600, when he takes part in a “secret meeting”, and from then on his presence multiplies in secret and general meetings, he holds the offices of ordinary visitor to the sick, extraordinary visitor to catechetical schools for girls, deputy for conducting catechesis with gypsies. All this in 1600. And in 1601 he stepped up his activities as ordinary visitor to schools for boys and girls, nurse and person responsible for various other matters. In later years, he only took on the office of spiritual provisor until 1606, when his name no longer appears in the books.[1366]

1361 Cf. TALENTI, p.39.

1362 Cf. BAU, BC, p.264; BAU, RV.p.84-85.

1363 Cf. G. SÁNTHA, De S. Fundatoris nostri in confraternitate doctrinae christianae Urbis praesentia, industria, muneribus: EphCal 6 (1958) 151. García-Durán follows Sántha, preferring 1597 (o.c., p.76).

1364 Cf. C. VILÁ PALA, o.c., p.265.

1365 The three books are: 1. Dottrina Cristiana. Congregationi, Catalogo de’Fratelli ed altro dal 1595 al 1602. 2. Dottrina Cristiana. Congregazioni dall 1599 al 1607. 3. Pianto. Giornale dal 1596-1599 (cf. G. SÁNTHA, o.c., p.150).

1366 Cf. G. SÁNTHA, o.c., p.151-153.

If, as Sántha believes, Calasanz had been a member of the confraternity since mid- 1597 or early 1598, it is inexplicable that his name does not appear in the official books until the early 1600s. That is two or two and a half years of absolute silence. Calasanz’s own allusion to the origins of the Pious Schools and his relationship with the confreres of the Christian Doctrine does not force us to admit that he was already a member at that time.[1367] And that seems to be the obvious meaning of Berro’s text when he claims that before 1597, when Calasanz founded the Pious Schools in Santa Dorotea, the parish priest was already teaching, assisted by two members of the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine.[1368]

1367 In 1644 Calasanz wrote to Berro: “As for the beginning of the schools, I met myself with two or three other seculars of the Christian Doctrine who went to Trastevere to do certain schools that were done in Santa Dorotea” (C.4185). And in 1623 he had written “The Institute of the Pious Schools began in the Church of Santa Dorotea in Trastevere... by some secular brothers of the Christian doctrine among whom lives at present Joseph of the Mother of God “ (EGC II, p.170). The first text can be understood as follows: ”…I met two or three others who were of the Christian Doctrine and went to Trastevere...” That is, he was not yet one. In the second text it can be understood that the Pious Schools were born in Santa Dorotea and were started by some members of the Confraternity of the Christian Doctrine. It does not pretend to specify the exact moment of creation. And what is certain is that Calasanz became a confrere before leaving Santa Dorotea.

1368 Calasanz “he decided to open the schools... in 1597 in Trastevere in the rooms of the Parish of S. Dorotea (the Parish Priest of that Church already made school paid by the major part and for free to some of his Parish because they served him) helping him two secular priests workers of the Christian Doctrine in S. Martino al Monte della Pietà, if well they didn’t come continuously...” (BERRO I, p.73. Corrected text edited by going to the original ms.). And Berro interprets the aforementioned letter 4185 of Calasanz, which responds to Berro’s letter of May 12, 1644, in which he asked for precisely such reports.

One of these members was Mark Antony Arcangeli, whom Calasanz met there when he discovered the school that would change his life forever. In June 1599, in a secret meeting of the Confraternity, this Marco Antonio proposed to support and protect the “daily school” of St. Dorothea, and he did so before the general assembly on August 1st.[1369] And it is logical to assume that he did so at the suggestion of Calasanz, who, if he was already a member of the confraternity, was obliged to attend the general assembly on August 1st.[1370] However, it seems that he was in Assisi at the time, as we shall see later. This suggests that he did not feel obliged to attend the general assembly because he was not yet a confrere. Good words were spoken at that meeting, but subsequent events were not very satisfactory.

1369 Cf. G. SÁNTHA, o.c., p.158, n.12 and 13. In 1597 the Confraternity had schools of Christian doctrine in 22 churches, among which Santa Dorotea does not figure (cf. A. GARCÍA - DURÁN, o.c., p.87, n.465). Therefore, the confreres who attended it did so voluntarily.

1370 The minutes of the session begin as follows: “1 agosto 1599. Nella Congregatione della prima Domenica del mese in S. Girolamo della Carità, nella quella devono intervenire tutti i fratelli...” (cf. G. SÁNTHA, o.c., p.158, n.13). August 1, 1599 was Sunday.

All this suggests that it was only in the second half of 1599 that Calasanz decided to give his name to the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine in order to gain merit for it and fully achieve his goal: that it would recognize as its own what would later be called the Pious Schools. Thus, at the beginning of 1600, he was already present in a secret congregation and from then on, he began an excessive activity, considering his multiple commitments in other confraternities, in the Colonna Palace and, above all, in the schools for which he had just assumed full responsibility.

It was also in this confraternity that Calasanz met some of his first collaborators in the Pious Schools, such as John Francis Fiammelli, Francis de Rustici and Gelio Ghellini.[1371] It is also interesting to note the presence of Spaniards with whom he shared the tasks of the Confraternity, such as Francis Villoslada, Jerome Sánchez and James de Avila.[1372]

1371 Cf. G. SÁNTHA, o.c., p.l54.

1372 Ib., p.159, n.17; A. GARCÍA - DURÁN, o.c., p.71, n.420. Of these, Rustici, Villoslada and James also belonged to the Confraternity of the Twelve Apostles, but not M. A. Arcangeli, as has sometimes been written (cf. O. SÁNTHA, De S. Fundatoris nostri in Archiconfrater. SS. XII Apost..., p.183 and 187; A. GARCÍA - DURÁN, 1.c.).

The Confraternity of the Stigmata of St. Francis

On July 18, 1599, “D. Joseph Calasanz, priest of the diocese of Urgel, [who] resides in the house of Illmo. Cardinal Colonna” was enrolled.[1373] He had been in contact with the Franciscan Conventuals, his neighbors, for more than seven years, and for about five years he had been a member of the Confraternity of the Twelve Apostles. His contact with the Conventuals, especially with his friends Bagnacavallo and Larino, introduced him to Franciscan spirituality; their activities made him realize how much real poverty there was in Rome. Helping the poor was very different from living poverty and falling in love with it. It took years for him to make this change in his life. This slow process of conversion must have been influenced by all the holy men we have mentioned, especially those of the Cenacle of La Scala. Admission to this confraternity of the Stigmata testifies to spiritual maturity and a sincere striving for perfection, even to a certain unconscious aspiration for the religious life.

1373 Cf. G. SÁNTHA, Operositas atque industria Calasanctii in Archiconfraternitatibus SS. Stigmatum, SS. Trinitatis Peregrinorum atque Convalescentium et B. Mariae suffragii de Urbe: EphCal 9-10 (1959) 328-329.

It was founded in 1594 and, despite its few years, achieved such fame that it was called the “School of Mortification”.[1374] ”Of course, the model and central point of reference was St. Francis of Assisi. Here are some characteristic points of the statutes:

1374 Cf. A. GARCÍA-DURÁN, o.c., p.82, n.457.

“We desire above all that our confreres observe the commandments of God and of the holy Church, attend Mass every day or at least go to the Blessed Sacrament and make an act of special devotion, practice charity and mercy, visit the sick, bury the dead and pray for them, help the poor, obey and respect the Prior and the Guardians and all our other superiors... God seeks not only interior humility in our works, but also exterior humility in dress, as our glorious Seraphic Father, St. Francis, our protector and intercessor, says. Therefore, we order that the habit of the Company, which the confreres must wear during processions and other solemn acts, be a sack of Cremona sackcloth, the thickest that can be found, of ashen color, girded with a thick cord, wearing a wooden rosary of the Lord, with a hood as a hat and barefoot with apostolic sandals.”[1375]

1375 Ibid., p.83-84. It is a translation of the first handwritten version, dated October 20, 1596, which Calasanz would read. Its title is: Statuti della Vener. et Serafica Compagnia delle Sacre Stigmate di S. Francesco (ibid., p.83, n.458).

Perhaps it was this confraternity that prescribed the greatest abundance of common and private prayer, for in addition to daily Mass or visiting the Blessed Sacrament, it commanded praying together and privately every day. In addition to daily Mass or the visit to the Blessed Sacrament, the Confraternity ordered the daily recitation of Lauds of the Office of the Wounds of St. Francis (six Our Fathers, Hail Mary and Gloria for the illiterate), Communion at least once a month for the non-priests, wearing the Franciscan cord,[1376] fasting at the Vigil of St. Francis, praying the Office together on Sundays and holy days of obligation, participating in the frequent processions, attending the XL Hours, etc.[1377]

1376 Among the personal objects of Calasanz, kept in his room after his death (25-8-1648), these two were inventoried in 1649: “139. Cord of St. Francis with 4 knots, which the Father General wore for the filiation of the said Religion.” And “113. A filiation of Fr. General Bagnacavallo given to our Father General to enjoy the goods of the Religion of St. Francis” (R. PUIGDOLLERS, Texto y actualizacion del Inventario de 1688 de las reliquias de S. Jose de Calasanz y del Ven. Glicerio Landriani que se cnservan en la casa de S. Pantaleo: Archivum 11 [1982] 167 - 168). In the inventory of 1688 both the cord and the Figliolanza (Letter of brotherhood) are given as missing (cf. ibid., p.150-151, n.21 and 24). In the Inventory of 1649, besides the “cordoncino di S. Francesco” and the “corda sopra il letto...”, two other cords were mentioned: “31. Antique mended cord of his robe.” And “90. Rope covered with used cloth for Father’s use” (ibid., p.163,166). In the inventory of 1688 only one is mentioned: “18. Black cloth cord, of the Ven. Father” (Ib., p. 124). These two cords were part of the primitive Piarist habit, as can be seen in ancient engravings (cf. EcoCen 13-14 [1949] tav. VII, XIV, XLIX, LI). Perhaps the “cordoncino di S. Francesco” had nothing to do with the “figliolanza” given to him by Fr. Bagnacavallo, but with the Confraternity of the Stigmata, as required by the Statutes.

1377 A. GARCÍA-DURÁN, o.c., p.84, n.459.

There is no lack of ancient and modern authors who confirm that Calasanz was “guardian of the observance” and even “master of novices” or beginners of this confraternity.[1378] But none of this is recorded in the official books, especially not in the book that lists the names of the novice masters and other positions of the Confraternity from its foundation until the saint’s death (1594-1648).[1379] His inscription appears explicitly on the exact date we have given, as does the funeral held for him, for he remained enrolled until his death. And this remaining in the confraternity for almost half a century had a strong influence on the deep devotion he felt for the Saint of Assisi, perhaps more than his friendship and association with the conventuals. We will return to this Church of the Stigmata, where Calasanz will have one of the revelations that will bring him into contact with the authentic Franciscan spirit of the Madonna Povertà.

1378 Cf. G. SÁNTHA, Operositas atque industria..., p.328; C. VILÁ PALA, Calasanz en la Iglesia y convento de las SS. Llagas de S. Francisco in Roma: EphCal 2 (1983) 66-68.

1379 In the Libro del Proveditore dei Morti (f.166v), in 1648 we read: “On August 30th, the office and the mass were said to brother Don Giuseppe, founder of the Pious Schools - scudi 5” SÁNTHA, o.c., p.338, n.14). In the titular church a chapel was dedicated to him after his beatification (1748), and presiding over the altar is a precious painting by Marco Caprinozzi. In the adjoining convent there is another large painting by Roberto Bompiani (+ 1908), showing St. Francis with a group of brothers, among whom Calasanz stands out with an open book that reads: “Ego sum Joseph frater vester” (see photographs of both paintings and explanatory article in C. VILÁ PALA, o.c., p.64-71). The present church is a reconstruction of 1708-1721.

Confraternity of the Most Holy Trinity of Pilgrims and Convalescents

in 1548, while still a layman, Philip Neri founded this confraternity in view of the Holy Year 1550, which had already been proclaimed by Paul III. Its main purpose was to welcome poor pilgrims who came to Rome to visit the holy places, especially during the Holy Year, and to accommodate them for a few days. They were also intended to receive and care for convalescents who had to leave the hospitals and did not have sufficient means to meet their needs. As special devotional practices, they were to say certain simple prayers daily, attend Mass every day and some prescribed processions and assemblies, and attend a solemn public event in honor of the Blessed Sacrament every month, as well as pray for deceased benefactors and confreres.[1380]

1380 Cf G. SÁNTHA, o.c., p.331 and 339, n.25. In the Vita di S. Filippo Neri, which Calasanz had in his room, this confraternity is described as follows: “The institute of this confraternity was, as it is at present, to give shelter for a few days to the poor people who come daily to Rome to visit the holy places. ... providing them with food, making their beds, washing their feet, consoling them with words and, finally, giving them all the most composite charity....” (cf. cit. in A. GARCÍA-DURÁN, O.C., p.89, n.471).

Calasanz’s inscription appears in two of the confraternity’s books on July 10, 1600.[1381] In other books he is not mentioned, but one can easily guess his presence and activity, as in a diary of the Holy Year 1600, in which the Fathers of the Church of Santa Dorotea are mentioned twice, together with the Fathers of San John de la Malva and Santa Agatha of the Christian Doctrine, who were present on December 27, 1599 and January 12, 1599. On December 27, 1599 and January 12, 1600, they helped the confraternity to instruct the pilgrims in Christian doctrine and show them the way to obtain the Jubilee indulgences. And it is interesting to note that among these pilgrims were some “German heretics”, just as in the previous Holy Year.[1382] Moreover, on August 5 - and this is certainly just one example among many - the same Confraternity brought forty Protestant converts to the Pope, who hosted them.[1383] On that day, Calasanz was already enrolled in the Confraternity. However, he was not in the other two days mentioned in December 1599 and January 1600, but he belonged to the Fathers of Santa Dorotea, since - as we shall see later - his schools continued there until the death of the parish priest Don Brandini on February 26 of the same year.[1384] Both Calasanz and his collaborators of Santa Dorotea belonged to the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, and those of St. Agatha or “Agathists” to the Congregation of Christian Doctrine.[1385]

1381 There are two books with the names of the confreres, the first from 1579 to 1625 and the second from 1588 to 1726. The inscription of the first one seems to be Calasanz’s handwriting, and reads: “R. Gioseppe Calasans, sacerdote Urgellensis dioec. die 10 julii 1600” (cf. G. SÁNTHA, o.c., p.331-332).

1382 “On the day 27 Dec. there have been thousand and hundred and nine pilgrims with 59 women and the other Holy Year 246 and this evening there have been four rude German men, that it has been said for sure thing to the Guardians, that they are Heretics, to which they have been made a lot of acceptance and treated in the eating and sleeping a lot better of the others, that so it is made to how many come with the example of the other Holy Year, that they convert a lot; and the day there come the Fathers of Santa Dorotea and of S. Giovanni Malva in Trastevere, of the Christian Doctrine and some Jesuit Father, to make sermons to 30 and 40 at a time in the courtyard, in the Oratory and teaching them Christian Doctrine and in particular in which way they must take the Jubilee and to many to make the sign of the SS. Cross.” And then: “On 22 January there were 103 pilgrims.... And the Fathers of Santa Dorotea and S. Agatha of Trastevere, of the Christian Doctrine, continue to come....” (cit. in G. SÁNTHA, o.c., p.338, n.19).

1383 Cf. PASTOR, o.c., vol. 24, p.156, n.1. The Diary of Grimaldi lists 122 heretics converted that year, lodged at the Pope’s expense (ibid.).

1384 Cf. EGC II. t,.47.

1385 In the two texts of n.37 above it is not clear whether the clause ‘della Dottrina Christiana’ refers only to his immediate S. Giovanni della Malva and S. Agata or also to the Padri di S. Dorotea. In any case, they belonged in fact to the Confraternity or to the Congregation, and all are called to collaborate with the Confraternity of the Holy Trinity.

It is estimated that 1,200,000 pilgrims came to Rome in this Holy Year, of whom the Hospice of the Trinity of Pilgrims housed and fed a total of half a million.[1386] And the Pope, the cardinals and the nobility gave abundant alms to cover the enormous expenses of this worthy confraternity.[1387] Such figures can give us a rough idea of the tireless work of these confreres, who had to take care of the material service of welcoming, housing and feeding so many people, while at the same time assisting them with preachers, catechists, confessors and companions. In addition, there was another fact: the Italian pilgrims usually arrived in confraternities, which entered in solemn processions and were often received by the confraternity of the Holy Trinity. By July, 408 confraternities had been counted, and it is estimated that there were more than 600 throughout the year, compared to only 400 in the previous Holy Year of 1575.[1388]

1386 Cf. PASTOR, o.c., vol. 24, p. 157. Some concrete data: on March 22 there are “so many pilgrims that the Trinity of the Pilgrims is not enough”; on April 1 (Holy Saturday) “the Trinity supports more than 6,000 pilgrims”; on May 30, “in the Trinity about 2,500 women”; in June “every night in the Trinity more than 13,000 people; so far the confreternity has spent 30,000 escudos”; on September 27 “in the Trinity 2,500 people” (ibid., p.156, n.4). The church was rebuilt in 1603-1616 and renovated in 1853. The old hospice was also rebuilt for the Jubilee of 1625, when it welcomed 600,000 pilgrims (cf. TCI, Guida d’Italia. Roma e dintorni [Milano 1965,] p.248).

1387 Cf. PASTOR, o.c., p.151, 157. In an Avviso of April 8th it is said that the Pope gives extraordinary alms daily in the Trinity of the Pilgrims (ibid., p.153, n.7).

1388 Ibid., p.154 and 158, n.5.

Why did Calasanz enter this confraternity on July 10, in the middle of the Holy Year, and not at the beginning of the year? This is not easy to answer. Perhaps his prudence and honesty dissuaded him from committing himself because he more or less knew the enormous work that the confraternity would demand during the Holy Year and he feared that he would not be able to fulfill it, given his duties in the confraternities of the Apostles and Christian doctrine and, above all, his ever-increasing commitment to the schools of Santa Dorotea. Nevertheless, the pastoral or catechetical service that the Confraternity required of him and his companions of Santa Dorotea as early as December 1599 introduced him more and more to that particular sector of pilgrims, where poverty and ignorance demanded the same charity that he showed as a member of the Confraternities of the Apostles and of Christian Doctrine.[1389] Moreover, it was an emergency situation that could not be ignored. And if he was already fulfilling his obligations without being a confrere, why should not he give his name and thus have the opportunity to obtain so many indulgences reserved for members of that Confraternity? On the other hand, the protection and esteem in which the Pope, the cardinals, the prelates of the Curia and the Roman nobility held this society undoubtedly made it advisable to enroll and seek support for his personal work: his schools. In fact, Clement VIII. Had been a member of the Confraternity before he became Pope, and Cardinals Camilo Borghese (later Paul V) and Peretti-Montalto were also members. They would soon be known as the greatest protectors of the Pious Schools.[1390]

1389 Even the confraternity of the Wounds, like so many others, probably received money in December 1599 to receive needy pilgrims (ibid., p.151). And it is probable that it rendered services during the entire Holy Year.

1390 Cf. G. SÁNTHA, o.c., p.334. Also belonging to this confraternity was the already remembered Francis Rustici, also a member of the confraternities of the Holy Apostles and Christian Doctrine.

Perhaps the Trinitarian invocation of confraternity was also a motivating factor. We must not forget the influence that the Trinitarians had on the Christian education of the adolescent Calasanz in Estadilla. It was precisely in the years 1598 - 1599 that he refreshed his youthful memories when he met the Trinitarian reformer, St. John Baptist of the Conception, in La Scala in Trastevere. And it is very significant that in the two devotions that define Catholic spirituality - and therefore his in a special way - namely the Eucharistic Mass and the Mother of God, he emphasized his direct relationship with the Most Holy Trinity. The beautiful Crown of Twelve Stars, composed by Calasanz, is a hymn of thanksgiving to the Holy Trinity for the gifts and privileges granted to Mary, and he begins explicitly as follows: “Let us praise and thank the Holy Trinity...”[1391] “The insistence on the reverence due to the Most Holy Trinity in the Sacrifice of the Mass is like an obsession in his advice to others and like a spontaneous reflection of his daily experience.”[1392] “Priests, -Calasanz wrote- must settle very important matters with the Eternal Father and the Most Holy Trinity in the name of the Church”; “Prepare to celebrate Mass with that reverence with which one must speak to the blessed God and the Most Holy Trinity”; “Let the new priests be well instructed and know that they must speak with great devotion to the Eternal Father and the Most Holy Trinity, so that they may derive the proper benefit for themselves from the Mass...”[1393]

1391 The Saint explained it as follows: “…it contains 12 Hail Marys in honor of the 12 graces the Holy Trinity granted her, that is, four the Eternal Father, four the Son and four the Holy Spirit” (EGC III, p.206).

1392 S. GINER, Ideas sobre el sacerdocio en el Epistolario de S. José de Calasanz: AnCal 50 (1983) 349; A. SAPA, Teologia spirituale pedagogica di San Giuseppe Calasanzio (Firenze 1951), p.83-84, 114-116.

1393 C.3647, 3459, 3669.

Confraternity of Our Lady of Suffrage

Barely two months after joining the Confraternity of the Holy Trinity, Calasanz asked to be admitted to the Confraternity of Our Lady of Suffrage through the mediation of his friend, collaborator in the schools and member of this Confraternity and the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, the Florentine priest John Francis Fiammelli, who presented the request in the assembly on Sunday, September 17, 1600, and it was accepted. On the following Sunday, September 24, the entry of several confreres was transferred to the same official book, including the “Rdo. Signore Giuseppe Calasani Urgellensis dioeces.”[1394]

1394 The first reads: “Sunday, 17 September 1600. The congregation was made and Rev. John Francis Fiammelli, our brother, proposed the following to be our brothers, and among the others, that is Don Joseph Calesano, who all as religious and persons of good life and fame for relation of different brothers were admitted viva voce and accepted as our brothers.” Both notes were taken from the so-called Libro primo della Banca, lettera A, by a notary dated October 26, 1698, and his attestation is recorded in RegCal XIII, 13. The complete archive of the confraternity disappeared when its books and papers were sold by weight, so it is not possible to verify the subsequent news given by witnesses and writers concerning Calasanz and the confraternity (cf. G. SÁNTHA, o.c., p.334-335, 339, n.26).

The confraternity was founded in 1592 with the approval of the Cardinal Vicar and was officially confirmed by Clement VIII with the Bull of September 9, 1594, the same year in which the Confraternity of the Stigmata of St. Francis was founded. It seems unlikely that Calasanz was one of the founders, as Berro said[1395] and Talenti repeated, adding that he helped Cardinal Baronio to draft the Statutes[1396], which were already finalized in 1594. It is unlikely that he, who had only just arrived in 1592, had such a great influence and, on the other hand, waited until September 1600 to be involved. It is also said that he intervened decisively to obtain from Clement VIII the privilege for the confraternity to release one prisoner each year, which the Pope actually granted with a Bull dated March 10, 1603.[1397] At that time, the Pope knew Calasanz personally, as the Pious Schools were housed in the home of Bishop Vestri, the Secretary of the Papal Briefs. It is therefore possible, but there is no documentary confirmation.

1395 Cf. BERRO I, p.68.

1396 Cf. TALENTI, Vita, p.74.

1397 Ib. and G. SÁNTHA, o.c., p.335.

The fact that Baronio was one of the founders and drafters of the Confraternity’s Statutes suggests that Cardinal Bellarmino, a great friend of Baronio, was also a member of the Confraternity. In this fraternal atmosphere, Calasanz was thus able to establish friendly relations with both Purpurates,[1398] also relying on the intervention of their mutual friends, Father Francis Soto and John of Jesus Mary.

1398 Cf. O. SÁNTHA, l.c.

The Confraternity´s main aim was, of course, to pray for the deceased. To this end, “it maintains several priests for the service of the Church, established at the expense of the confraternity...[1399] who constantly celebrate masses and devotions for the deceased. On each feast day they recite the Office of the Dead in a clear and loud voice, but not singing... They bring their confreres to the funeral... and if they are poor, they pay for their burial and recite a solemn Office for them on the first feast day. Every day during the Octave of the Dead they go in procession to St. Gregory and on Good Friday to St. Peter of the Vatican.”[1400] In addition, they celebrate the 40 hours four times a year, during Temporas; they have other solemn processions in which they always carry their own banner with the image of Christ on one side and St. Gregory on the other; they have a doctor who takes care of their sick, who are also visited by the leaders of the confraternity to help them with alms according to their poverty; they also help the dying.[1401]

1399 It is located in Via Giulia since then, but the present church was erected in 1669 by C. Rinaldi (TCI, Guida d’Italia. Roma e dintorni, p.242-243).

1400 C. PIAZZA, Opere Pie di Roma (Rome 1679), p.455-457.

1401 Ib.; G. SÁNTHA, o.c. p.334; A. GARCÍA-DURÁN, o.c., p.90.

The confraternity enjoyed extraordinary acceptance, multiplying its membership in just a few years and also gaining the sympathy of the Roman faithful and pilgrims, as evidenced by the fact that in 1600 it had 300 male and as many female confreres during the official visit to the four jubilee basilicas and was accompanied by 40,000 faithful.[1402] According to parish statistics, Rome had 109,729 inhabitants in 1600, not counting the 1,200,000 pilgrims who came to the Jubilee.[1403]

1402 Cf. G. SÁNTHA, o.c., p.334-335.

1403 Cf. PASTOR, o.c., vol. 30, p.325; ID., o.c., vol. 24, p.157-158.

The special devotion of this confraternity to St. Gregory the Great is explained by the relationship that Christian piety traditionally established between this pope and the intercessions for the souls in purgatory, of which the Gregorian masses were a characteristic expression. It was undoubtedly in this environment that Calasanz’s personal devotion to St. Gregory, of which some contemporaries speak, arose or intensified.[1404]

1404 Cf. n.1271 of the previous chapter.

The Venerable Oratory of St. Theresa

Calasanz’s friendship with the Discalced Carmelites of Trastevere opened the doors to another kind of Confraternity, actually called the Oratory of St. Theresa. In one of his Minute books, it is noted that in the General Assembly of December 22, 1763, the following was decided: “Since the old catalog of the confreres of the Oratory could not be found and we have the memory and tradition that B. Joseph Calasanz of the Mother of God, before founding his religion, visited our Oratory, it was decided that it be included in the catalog of the confreres...”[1405] And indeed, that was done. Here is the record:

1405 Cf. RegCal XIII, 13’. It is one of many attestations of the different confraternities to which Calasanz belonged. The text is said to be taken from the Libro delle Congregationi.

“The Ven. Joseph Calasanz of the Mother of God, Founder of the clerics of the Pious Schools, visited our Oratory before he founded his Religion, for he was a friend of our Ven. Dominic of Jesus Mary, the founder of the said oratory, and the other religious who, based on their image of him, had him secretly painted on a canvas and placed it in the corridor leading to the same oratory, above the inner door corresponding to the altar of the same. On the occasion of his beatification, the Fathers of the Pious Schools asked for it and it was lent to them to make a copy of the real, living portrait; and then it was placed in the oratory in the center of the wall, on the epistle side of the altar under the large picture with the following inscription [Latin: ] B. Joseph of Calasanz of the Mother of God, Founder of the clerics poor of the Mother of God [omit: of the Pious Schools,] at another time called among the confreres of this Oratory of St. Theresa...”[1406]

1406 Ib., of the Catalogo de Fratelli secolari del Ven. Oratorio di S. Teresa dei RR. PP. Carmelitani Scalzi della Madonna della Scala, incominciato nel 1689, in the letter G. In addition to the Latin inscription, placed under the painting, it is said that “in the aforementioned picture from the top there are the following letters: Ven. Ser. Dei Joseph a Matre Dei Relig. Schol. Piar. Fundator. In the open book one sees written on the first page Sub tuum praesidium, on the other: Constitutione Cleric. Regul. Paup. Matris Dei Scholarum Piarum” (ibid.).

And the same is said in a third book from the same period.[1407] This triple statement is certainly very late, more than a century and a half after the witnessed event, but it is based on a tradition that seems to be proven by the above-mentioned painting, which was taken alive and “secretly”, i.e. without the knowledge of the Servant of God.[1408] Nevertheless, there is a contemporary witness, namely Father Anibale Angelini (1571-1630), secretary and confessor of Father Dominic Ruzola, about whom he wrote a biography in which he says that Calasanz was one of the first to visit the Oratory.[1409]

1407 This is its title: Distinta ed esatta relazione del Ven. Oratorio di Sta. Teresa in S. Maria della Scala de PP. Carmelitani Scalzi, fondato dal nostro Ven. P. Domenico di Gesú Maria (ibid.). See translated the paragraph of interest in BAU, BC, p.226.

1408 The Saint was always opposed to having portraits made of him. But in 1644 the bishop of Malta, Michael John Balaguer, a close friend of his, while in Rome, invited him to lunch and in the meantime a hidden painter took a portrait of him (cf. CAPUTI, Notizie Istoriche, t.III, part VI, n.120), which the bishop took with him to Malta. And with date of February 6,1646, he wrote to the Saint: “I assure you that I live you very servant, and every day I rejoice to see your portrait that I have it very good and I have known to be a good thief and I have another one to send to your country” (EHI, p.156). In 1660 the bishop sent the original portrait to the rector of the Piarist college of Messina, keeping a copy. In Messina the rector Fr. G. de Carolis made two copies and sent one to Florence in 1802, made by the painter Crisafullo, and the other to Rome to Fr. General Beccaria, in 1805, by the painter Carlo Minaldi. In 1864 another copy was made by the Rector of Messina, Fr. S. Amato, by the painter Giuseppe Mazzarese, and sent to Fr. General Perrando. When the Piarists were forced to leave the College of Messina in 1866, the original painting remained there, without its whereabouts being known today (cf. EphCal 4 [1932], 154-155; EchoCen 6 [1946], 20-21; EphCal 7-8 [19671, 308-311). Today the Florence copy and the two Rome copies are still preserved. No one, however, has bothered to look for a trace of this second portrait in the convent of La Scala or of its copy in the house of St. Pantaleon. Nor can it be identified - for lack of details - in the inventory published by C. VILÁ PALA, Iconografla calasancia en la casa de S. Pantaleo: EphCal 4 (1984), 169-174.

1409 “…he attended among the first seculars our Oratory” (quoted in G. SÁNTHA, S. José de Calasanz y su amistad con los PP. Carmelitas Descalzos: RevCal 2 [19551, 192).

The person who made Mother Theresa known in Rome was Father John of Jesus Mary. He preached thirteen famous panegyrics in the church of La Scala from 1602 to 1614 for the feast of Blessed Mother Teresa, as she was called by everyone even before her beatification, which took place on April 24, 1614 during the General Chapter when the said Father ceased to be General of the Italian Congregation of the Discalced Carmelites.[1410] It is very likely that Joseph Calasanz took part in these eulogies.

1410 FLORENCIO DEL NIÑO JESÚS, El Ven. P. Fr. Juan de Jesús María, p.215.

Nevertheless, it was Father Domingo Ruzola who founded the Oratory, as is explicitly stated in the official books we have cited.[1411] What we have not been able to verify is the year of foundation.[1412] Logically, after October 26, 1604, when Father Dominic arrived in Rome; probably in the years in which he was prior of the monastery of La Scala, i.e. from 1608 to 1617; and even more probably after the beatification of St. Teresa (1614), since it seems more appropriate that only then could a pious association be founded under her advocation. These dates therefore imply Calasanz’s entry into the oratory, which took place before the foundation of his Religion of Pious Schools, while he was still a secular priest, i.e. before 1617.[1413]

1411 Cf. n.1405 above and the text corresponding to n.1406. A. García-Durán affirms that the founder was Fr. Peter of the Mother of God, based on a text of Isidore of St. Joseph. But the Congregation mentioned there is not the Oratory of St. Teresa, but rather it seems to be the Tertiaries Carmelite, since it speaks of the “sacrum Scapulare” of the Virgin of Carmel (cf. A. GARCÍA-DURÁN, Itinerario..., p.92).

1412 Before 1763, when the general meeting of the Oratory decided to reinscribe in its book of confreres B. José de Calasanz, the Piarist biographers seem to ignore the fact. Neither is the Oratory mentioned in Carmelite works such as that of Fr. A. A. AGUSTÍN, bishop of Albarracín, Epítome de la vida... del Ven. Fr. Domingo de Jesús María (Zaragoza 1669), or that of Fr. FLORENCIO DEL NIÑO JESÚS, o.c., or in that of Fr. SILVERIO DE S. TERESA, o.c., vol. VIII.

1413 Cf. n.1409 above; “before founding his Religion”, it is said in the three official books of the Oratory cited in the above notes 1405, 1406 and 1407.

We do not know what the specific purpose of the association was. It was not a simple confraternity with charitable purposes; the name of the Oratory rather indicates a kind of school of spirituality based on teachings, lectures and learned expositions on ascetic-mystical spiritual perfection, following the teachings of the Mystic Doctor and recommending the reading of her works. Father John de Jesús María had made a great contribution to all this with his famous Thirteen Panegyrics of 1602-1614.

The truth is that Calasanz was very devoted to St. Teresa throughout his life and was not only an avid reader of her works, as the witnesses at the process said[1414], but he recommended that his religious read them, as he says in this paragraph of a letter from 1638:

1414 Cf. BAU, BC, p.661. Fr. Scassellati deposed: “he was particularly devoted to Saint Gregory the Great and to Saint Theresa... and he read the works of the said Saints for his own profit and he referred the sentences to others purposely” (Procln, p.12O-121).

“If the priests of our religion knew how much it matters to labor for the love of God, they would not be idle a moment. And if they spent the time that they could not spend helping the children according to our institute, they would spend it by reading St. Teresa’s Way of Perfection, and they would see how their hearts would be inflamed, for the words of this saint have a great effect on those who read them with devotion.”[1415]

1415 C.2860.

Proof of his special devotion to the saint is the book he kept all his life among the few he had in his room, whose long title is Compendio de las Solenes (sic) fiestas que en toda España hicieron en la Beatificación de N. B. M. Teresa de Jesús fundadora de la Reformación de Descalzos y Descalzas de N. S. del Carmen, en prosa y verso.[1416]

1416 Its author, fray Diego de San José. Printed in Madrid by the widow of Alonso Martín, in 1615 (cf. R. PUIGDOLLERS, Texto y actualización del Inventario de 1688..., p.99). In the Inventory of 1688, we read that the said book was “often read by the Ven. Father because of the devotion he bore to the said Saint, of which there is more memory.” (ibid.). It erroneously says that such feasts were made “for the Canonization of St. Theresa.

More interesting, however, are the statements of some witnesses about a certain apparition of St. Teresa to the seriously ill Calasanz, whom she miraculously healed and who, out of gratitude, vowed to dedicate to him the first church that was built in the Order after these events, namely that of the College of Porta Reale in Naples. But we will go into this in more detail later.[1417]

1417 Cf. BAU, BC, p.549 and 562. The case of Porta Reale was the first, but not the only one, as can be seen in this letter of 1630 to the rector of Norcia (Nursia), where he wants the devotion to the Saint to be introduced: “You will negotiate with the Vicar who is very devoted and obliged to Saint Theresa, that he help in the particular of the title of the said Saint so that his devotion there will be renewed and I will try to have some relics of her.” (C. 1331).

Undoubtedly, the influence of St. Teresa of Jesus must have penetrated very deeply into the soul of Calasanz, both because of her teachings and because of the devotion he felt for her, apart from the valuable contributions of the venerable Carmelites of Santa Maria della Scala to his personal spirituality and to that of the Order he founded.

Visits to the seven churches

Again it is Berro who writes that Don Gioseppe Calasanz, “once in Rome, devoted himself with great devotion and consolation to visiting the holy places of this city... He felt such great consolation in visiting these sanctuaries and especially the seven churches that he began to visit them very often [molto spesso].”[1418] And two chapters later he returns to this theme to expand on it:

1418 BERRO I, p.65-66.

”...at midnight he rose to pray Matins with the greatest devotion imaginable, and then he went to the seven churches, in one of which he celebrated Holy Mass at dawn with such devotion that he spent several hours there, in the chapel of the Pillar [of the Flagellation] of the Lord, in Santa Praxedes, or in St. Mary Major or in the dei Monti, and in all this pilgrimage only God knows the holy affection that God gave him and the meditation and contemplation with which he filled this so long and nocturnal journey...”[1419]

1419 Ib., p.70, completed with the text reprinted in BERRO III, p.243.

Fifteen years earlier, Father Catalucci had simply written in his Breve Notizia: “He was very diligent in visiting the seven churches of Rome.”[1420] And with the same imprecision, Berro wrote in one of the articles of the testimony for the beatification process of 1651: “He visited the pious places [of Rome] and especially the seven churches with great devotion, during the day when he could, and when not, at night.”[1421] Of the thirty-four witnesses in this first process, only five were aware of this fact. Two of them because they had heard it[1422] and another because he had read it,[1423] but they say no more than what was suggested in the interrogation. The other two have heard Fr. Joseph speak about it himself, in an atmosphere of trust, which is therefore justified. Fr. Morelli said, “He visited the seven churches almost every day [quasi ogni giorno] and returned in time to do school, and he said that, exaggerating the good complexion that God had given him, and I heard him say that more than once.”[1424]

1420 Cf. BAU, RV, p.12. Let us remember that the Breve Notizia was a biographical sketch for the funeral oration of the Saint, held in September 1648, one month after his death. And that Berro reviewed his first manuscript volume in 1663 (cf. BERRO I, p.5O).

1421 Cf. A. GARCÍA-DURÁN, o.c., p.85-86, n.463.

1422 “…and that he visited the Pious places, the Seven Churches, both by day and by night, I have been told.”, said Scassellati (cf. ib., p.86). And Vittoria Gracchi “I heard from the Fathers of the Pious Schools that Father Joseph of the Mother of God visited the seven Churches at night. “ (ProcIn, p.393).

1423 Fr. Salazar Maldonado said: “these works of visiting the churches I have read from an account” (ibid., p.677).

1424 Cf. A. GARCÍA-DURÁN, o.c., p.86, n.463.

The fifth witness, Br. Lorenzo Ferrari, sidestepped the issue because instead of the seven churches, he spoke of the Holy Year (1600) and of the Jubilee basilicas, of which there are only four and not seven, and specified that “he visited the churches every day to obtain the Jubilee, and I know this because I heard him say this, praising certain gentlemen and certain old ladies who never left him because he met the same people every day, and he told us this to persuade us to visit these churches frequently; and he said that in order to have time for other duties, he did most of them at night.”[1425]

1425 Ibid.

Father James Bandoni, who did not take part in the Process, left a letter in 1652 based on the testimony of the Conventuals, friends of Calasanz: “When he lived in the house of Colonna, I heard, as from Father Bagnacavallo and another Father of the religion of the SS. Apostles… that for fourteen years before the foundation of the Congregation, Father Joseph went every morning before dawn to the seven churches of Rome, leaving St. Peter’s as the last church, where he is said to have remained for hours in the crypt, that is, in the tomb.”[1426] And the same witness repeated the same statement thirty-eight years later, in 1690, by then a very old man, adding that he maintained this practice even later, when he was already a religious.[1427] Another variation on the theme was introduced by Father Silvestre Bellei, who stated in 1678: “On vacation days, he always walked to the seven churches, even when it was raining cats and dogs.”[1428]

1426 Cf. EcoCen 3 (1945) 15-16.

1427 “…and being theologian with Card. Colonna for years 14 continuous every morning before day he made the seven churches of Rome, as still he has followed to make those being religious” (ibid.). Cf. BAU, BC, p.232. That same year 1690 Fr. Armini declared in the Process, alluding to the Holy Year: ”…after having visited the churches every day in the morning “ (A. GARCÍA-DURÁN, l.c.). In his Vita he referred to the Seven Churches, saying that he visited them “quasi ogni giorno”(almost every day) (ARMINI, Vita, p.45).

1428 RegCal 14, 62.6.

Talenti summarized all this, saying that in 1606, when the number of students had already reached 900, Father Joseph “sacrificed for their good the hours he devoted to daily visits to the seven churches for 14 years [1592- 1606] ... and continued to do so only on vacation days.”[1429] Tosetti, the great popularizer of the Calasanctian biography, spoke simply of “the daily visit to the seven churches”[1430]

1429 TALENTI, p.91.

1430 U. TOSETTI, Compendio Storico.... (Florence 1927), p.47.

The traditional version - practically up to Bau[1431] - remained a daily visit for fourteen or many years. This was another element to emphasize the extraordinary works of this man who, during these years, seemed to have twenty-five or thirty hours a day available for his numerous tasks. On the other hand, the abundance of testimonies that concur in recalling these visits, with a tendency to exaggerate their frequency, leads us to admit that there was indeed something abnormal or exceptional, albeit within a certain framework.

1431 Cf. BAU, BC, p.232-233.

First of all, we must distinguish between the Jubilee visits in the Holy Year and the visits to the seven churches. The Jubilee visits are reduced to four: St. Peter, St. Paul, St. John Lateran and St. Mary Major. The seven churches include the four mentioned above plus the churches of St. Sebastian ad Catacumbas,[1432] St. Cross of Jerusalem and St. Lawrence Outside the Walls, the total length of which is about twenty kilometers.

1432 Picanyol assured that in San Sebastian “until a few years ago there was a beautiful painting of Calasanz praying in the Roman catacombs.” (EcoCen 13-14 [1949] 22).

Since Boniface VIII introduced the Holy Year in 1300, Romans were required to visit the four basilicas for thirty days and foreigners for fifteen, without the need for consecutive days. The four basilicas were to be visited in one day, although they could also be visited at night.[1433] The same was true of the seven churches, although Pope Sixtus V had opened new streets to facilitate their visitation and restored the custom of celebrating “papal chapel” in them when the liturgy designated them as “stations”.[1434] This devotion, so Roman, was greatly revived by St. Philip Neri from the mid-16th century, especially during Carnival and Lent, and, as one author notes, “took up the whole day.”[1435]

1433 Cf. PANCIROLLI, I tesori nascosti dell’alma cittá di Roma (Roma 1600), p.7-8 (quoted in A. GARCíA-DURÁN, o.c., p.86-8l, n.463).

1434 Cf. Bull. Roman., VIII, p.663-666 (dated February 13, 1586).

1435 Cf. M. TREVOR, San Felipe Neri, apóstol de Roma (Santander 1986) p.74. Pope Clement VIII, in the Holy Year of 1600, instead of thirty visits made sixty to earn the jubilee “and also made frequent visits to the seven churches” (cf. PASTOR, O.c., vol. 24, p.152).

Calasanz certainly could not be busy all day, and so he still went out at night, perhaps with his lantern in hand. It is undoubtedly difficult to accept the numerous and consistent testimonies about the assiduity with which he carried out these visits. But however much they may be toned down, they cannot be minimized too much, at the risk of losing the extraordinary character that arouses the admiration of those who declare it. It is very likely that he wanted to win the Jubilee several times during the Holy Year, and if each Jubilee required visits to the four basilicas for thirty days, one could get the impression that he made them almost daily. Perhaps he visited all seven churches on feast days or during vacations, and on school days he visited two basilicas in the morning before sunrise and two more at sunset.

Outside the Holy Year, it is very likely that the truth is limited to what Berro and the Brief Notizia say, namely that he visited the seven churches very often, but not daily or almost every day, as some claim, and still less that the visits were daily without interruption for fourteen years, as his former secretary, Fr. James Bandoni, claimed on two separate occasions.

The walking cripple

There are things you never forget. And Calasanz had many. In old age, his religious made him talk, especially some, like Berro and Caputi, who became the first historians, or rather collectors of memoirs, the more concise and truthful Berro, the more prolix and sometimes novelistic Caputi. As for the visits to the seven churches, both collected an account of the old founder, and each told it in his own way. In the end, we no longer know which of the two versions is true. But each has its appeal. Here is Berro’s succinct version:

“He provided the poor not only with physical but also with spiritual food, taught them to endure sickness and poverty with patience and merit, gave them charitable exhortations, and whom he deemed capable he taught to perform spiritual prayers and very great deeds of virtue. There was among many a poor crippled woman, the daughter of a stonemason, in whom he saw much presence of God, and he taught her to visit spiritually every day the Seven Churches, the Scala Santa, and other stations in Rome, and with the grace of the Lord she attained so high a degree of spiritual prayer and so great a love of God that she had no other sense free except the tongue, because she was crippled in everything else, and begged him to be allowed to afflict her body still more with hair shirt and iron chains. Our D. Joseph granted it to her and she soon noticed a great improvement in her whole body, so that when she saw him, other sick women asked him for hair shirts and chains, and the crippled woman became a teacher of perfection.”[1436]

1436 BERRO I, p.70 (completed with another unpublished version).

Caputi’s long report, which was lightened by Bau’s free translation and shortened by us, reads:

“One day, precisely on December 31 of the year 1646, when I met with Father General [Calasanz], we talked about various things. But as I was always eager to hear him talk about his things, to learn details of his life, I kept asking him questions about past times, until, to teach me to proceed in everything with holy simplicity, he began the following account...

It was the year 1600 and the Venerable Father was on his way through the slums of Rome to give alms to the Confraternity of the Twelve Apostles. As he walked along Via dei Chiavari, a poor woman came up to him behind the church of San Carlo ai Catinari and invited him to come into her poor dwelling so that he could see her sick daughter and be persuaded to give her alms. Calasanz passed by, kindly, and his alert mind encountered an ordinary spectacle of sickness and misery, but one that was an impressive miracle in its psychological part ... She was a poor young woman, emaciated and almost paralyzed, who nevertheless led an inner life of overwhelming richness. For fifteen years she had patiently endured her misfortune, a complex of multiple illnesses that had led her to the absolute stillness of her skeletal body, but which had not succeeded in depriving her of peace, agility and even the joy of her soul. Every morning, her mother dressed her daughter Victoria as best she could and placed her in an old hospital chair. The patient did the rest herself. She closed her eyes, made the sign of the cross and began her spiritual journey without exception. She mentally went to St. Peter’s and humbled herself at the door with the act of contrition; then she visited the seven altars and finally prostrated herself before confession, performed the act of faith and said goodbye to the Prince of the Apostles. She then made her way to St. Paul’s, praying the Most Holy Rosary on the way. She performed his devotions at this basilica and then returned to St. Mary Major, where she actually prayed more mysteries of the rosary. At one of the seasonal stops, she devoutly listened to Mass and after the priest’s communion, he approached the communion rail and practiced spiritual communion with his usual thanksgiving. She finished the tour of his favorite churches and finally opened his eyes to the miserable and sad reality around them.

The visitor had entered the room and sat down next to the sick woman. He began to ask some questions to find out how she was doing with Christian doctrine, with the intention of giving her some basic ideas. What would he not be amazed to hear from the girl’s lips how she spent her time and how she used her imagination to root herself in the practice of the virtues. On subsequent visits, the young girl, longing for more suffering, asked him for a penance hair shirt for her mortification... She received the penitential hair shirt from Father Joseph and slowly regained her mobility and her health...”[1437]

1437 BAU, BC, p.236-237. Some words are our retouchings. Cf. original text of Caputi, Frammenti di Notizie Historiche (RegCal 82, p.26).

Did Calasanz meet this wonderful girl who was already emulating his zealous travels through the seven churches, as Caputi wished? Or was it rather he, the incomparable master of simple souls, who taught her this original exercise of Roman piety?

Preference for certain churches in Rome

There are many Roman churches through which Joseph Calasanz had already passed and in which he lingered devoutly. Undoubtedly, the seven churches are the most famous basilicas in Rome for everyone, especially the four patriarchal or Jubilee churches: St. Peter, St. Paul, St. John Lateran and St. Mary Major. The latter church will play a special role in the future years of the life of the Saint and his Order.

To the seven churches we must add many others linked to the confraternities to which he belonged: the Twelve Apostles, St. Jerome of Charity and the disappeared St. Martin al Monte di Pietà (both linked to Christian Doctrine), the Wounds of St. Francis, the Trinity of Pilgrims, Our Lady of Suffrage and St. Mary of La Scala. And we heard Berro to name two other favorite churches where he sometimes went to say mass at the end of his pious walk through the seven churches: The Basilica of St. Praxedes, because of its chapel with the supposed column of the Flagellation of the Lord, and Madonna dei Monti.

There is a famous scene with the background of a first miracle, remembered by witnesses and biographers, whose setting is St. Praxedes and the Chapel of the Pillar. Berro assures us that the saint himself recounted this scene to him and “another of our own”:

“Extraordinary are the graces and good that one receives from God if one says Mass every day with due devotion. And he added: “It happened that after he had said Mass in Saint Praxedes, as on other occasions, and had returned to the church, I saw that a group of people wanted to bring a demoniac woman into the chapel where the Holy Pillar of the Lord stands, and with all their strength they did not succeed. Moved by charity and faith, I approached the possessed woman, grabbed her with two fingers, just the index finger and thumb, and said, “Come in, come in,” and she immediately obeyed and calmly went to confession and received communion.”[1438]

1438 BERRO I, p.71.

But this was not the only case, even if this second time does not specifically locate the scene. He said:

“Another time, when he returned from the Seven Churches, almost the same thing happened, in that he simply laid his hand on her head, and if she had resisted many before, she immediately went into the church like a small lamb, went to confession and communion, and it was seen that she was delivered. But he attributed nothing to himself, but to the power of the Holy Mass and the priestly character.”[1439]

1439 Ib.

These are probably not two different cases, because there are some details of content and form that are so identical between the two descriptions of Berro and that of Fr. Castelli that they seem to bring everything together, although Berro assumes that they are two women and Castelli a man. Berro says the saint told him and another, and that other is certainly Castelli, who claims to have asked him personally for explanations about the case. On the other hand, Castelli made his statements in 1652, which Berro certainly read when he wrote around 1663.[1440] Here is Castelli’s brief report:

1440 The first copy of the ordinary process, in which Castelli testified, was taken out by order of Caputi for the Archives of the Casa Generalizia in August 1659 (cf. RegCal 31, first save of that copy). Berro already reviewed his writing in 1663 (cf. BERRO I, p.50).

“When he was still a secular priest ... and one day went to St. John Lateran, he met many people who were trying to bring a demoniac [spiritato] into the church, which they did not succeed in doing. The priest, armed with living and true faith, went up to him and with the two fingers of his right hand, with which the Sacred Host is raised, took the hand of the said madman, who allowed himself to be led like a little lamb. Later, when I was a religious, I asked him if this was true and how it had happened, and he replied: “And don’t you know how strong these two consecrated fingers are?”[1441]

1441 ProcIn, p.448 and BAU, RV, p.80.

Both witnesses received the old founder’s confidence, but perhaps Berro, having later read Castelli’s trial statement, believed it was a different case from the one he knew because some different details and duplicated it.[1442]

1442 Armini also maintained two scenes, one in St. Praxedes and the other in St. John of Lateran, referring to two “persons” (cf. ARMINI, Vita, p.183). Talenti proposed three: two “energumens” in St. Praxedes and an “energumen” in St. John Lateran (cf. TALENTI, Vita, p.41).

Among all the Roman churches, Calasanz had a particular fondness for Madonna dei Monti, one of the city’s most recent Marian devotions, whose image enjoyed immense popular veneration because of its fame as miraculous.[1443] And this must have been the reason for his personal devotion, which is widely attested to by his contemporaries. In the process of 1651-53, Father Scassellati declared: “I know that he was very devoted to this image of Madonna dei Monti, and I have heard that he visited it every Saturday and then, since he was a religious, as often as he could.”[1444] And Father Castelli: “He had a great devotion to Madonna dei Monti.”[1445] In the process of 1690-92, two other witnesses insisted on the same idea. Father Quarantotto said: “As he was particularly devoted to the image of Madonna dei Monti, he often went there to make his devotions.”[1446] And Father Armini: “It should be known that the Servant of God often went to this holy image [Madonna dei Monti] and sometimes celebrated Mass there, as I myself have heard from his companions and it is public knowledge.”[1447]

1443 It is an image of the Virgin seated on a throne with the Child in her arms, surrounded by the deacons and martyrs Stephen and Lawrence standing, and Saints Augustine and Francis kneeling. The fresco composition, of the Umbrian-Sienese school, probably dates back to the beginning of the 15th century, and was discovered in 1579 in a ruined building, converted into a hayloft, which belonged to a convent of Poor Clares, founded - it is said - in the time of St. Francis and abandoned in the early 1500s. On April 26, 1580, a blind woman was cured by invoking the Virgin in front of that image, and other prodigies followed, and the popularity of that painting of the hayloft grew rapidly. Gregory XIII decided to build a church to house that image and entrusted it to the great architect of the time, Giacomo della Porta, who carried it out. It has hardly been modified until today. In 1623 the Vatican Chapter solemnly crowned the image (cf. C. VILÁ PALA, La Madonna dei Monti e il Calasanzio: EphCal 9-10 [1980] 386-387).

1444 Ibid., p.390.

1445 Ibid.

1446 Ibid., p.388.

1447 Ibid., p.389. When the fourth centenary of this Marian shrine was celebrated, a marble slab was placed inside it, commemorating the great devotion that St. Joseph Calasanz felt for this image. It reads: “O glorious son of Catholic Spain, St. Joseph Calasanz, you who frequently visited this miraculous image of the Mother of God since 1592 and were inspired to dedicate your life to the education of poor youth, you who before dying in August 1648 had her apparition with the promise that the Pious Schools would be reborn, pray to Our Lady dei Monti, your heavenly Protector, for us your children that in the fourth centenary of this sanctuary we consecrate ourselves to Her our Mother and Queen. Roma 25-III-1981.” Regarding the solemnities that accompanied this commemoration, cf. EphCal 2 (1981) 56-57; 5 (1981) 198-200, 232-233, lam. We will return to the content of this slab.

This very special devotion to the miraculous Madonna dei Monti was to have a no less special reward, for on his deathbed the “Old Holy Man” received a consolatory visit from her, who returned the many visits he had paid her over the course of more than half a century with tender courtesy.

Another Roman church that Calasanz undoubtedly visited was that of Our Lady of Montserrat “of the Spaniards of the Crown of Aragón”. Among the saint’s personal papers kept in his room was a folio printed in Rome in 1633 with the Litanies of Loreto and the Seven Sorrows and Joys of Mary in her Mystery of the Assumption, which were sung in Latin every day in this church “for the present needs of the militant Catholic Church”.[1448] And it is very likely that this short form of the sufferings and joys of Our Lady in simple Latin verses was part of the daily devotions of Calasanz.

1448 Here is the full title: “Mariae Dei Genitricis semper Virginis in coelum Assumptae: Litaniae, Gaudia, Dolores, quae pro dierum Temporum diversitate, et pro presentibus Ecclesiae Militantis Catholicae necessitatibus, quotidie decantantur in Ecclesia eiusdem Beatae Mariae de Monteserrato Hispanorum Coronae Aragoniae Almae Urbis Romae.” And the imprint: “Romae. Typis Gullelmi Facciotti. MDCXXXIII” (RegCal 13, 23’).

It seems very strange to us that he did not belong to the confraternity that had its seat in this church under the name of “Venerable Confraternity of the Glorious Virgin Mary of Montserrat, Crown of Aragón, in the Urbe” It was led by a prior, four guardians and a “clavario” (keyholder), who were elected every year in December. On more than one occasion, the prior was Antonio Calasanz, cantor and dean of the papal chapel, of whom we have already spoken.[1449] But neither the biographical tradition of Calasanz nor the meticulous search in the books of the rich archives of this church support the hypothesis of the enrollment of our Saint in this confraternity.[1450]

1449 See this paragraph: “(December 3, 1568) ... convocata venerabili confraternitate gloriosae semper Virginis Marie de Monte Serrato corone Aragonum de urbe, de mandato Rdi. Dom. Antonii Calasanz, prioris anno presenti...” (Archive of said Church, Book 1213, on the date)

1450 “In the books of the Church of Montserrat in Rome I searched with interest all the years of the stay of our Founder, in case I could find his admission as a member of the Congregation of the same, but it does not appear anywhere, although he must have attended many times the celebrations and feasts that the natives of the Crown of Aragón celebrated in his church” (J. LÓPEZ NAVÍO, Ambiente histórico..., p.226). In unpublished notes of Fr. L. Navío we read the names of Aragonese, Valencians, Catalans and Majorcans among those elected as priors and other officials of the congregation.

Although it does not appear from the documents, it cannot be doubted that he also had a predilection for two other churches very close to the one that would later be his definitive seat in San Pantaleo: the ‘Chiesa Nuova’, whose tomb of Philip Neri he undoubtedly visited before and after his canonization, given his acknowledged devotion to the saint, and the church of Santiago de los Españoles in Piazza Navona, for obvious reasons of nationality.

Pilgrim through the shrines of Italy

He had been in Rome for seven long years. He knew its churches and basilicas. He had practiced and continued to practice the typical Roman devotions, but he wanted more. And in a letter dated June 27, 1599, the last he wrote to him as far as we know, he said to his parish priest of Peralta: “I have wished to see some places of great devotion in Italy, such as the Holy House of Loreto, Mount La Verna where Francis received the wounds, Mount Cassino and Mount Vergine and others, and to return to Rome for the Holy Year, and until now it has not been possible, but I intend to do so with God’s favor.[1451]” And he did.

1451 EGC II, c.7.

The proposed route was long and it took him many weeks to complete it, which, as far as he could see, he had not had until then. The obligations imposed on him by the Confraternity of the Twelve Apostles were not so binding as to prevent him from leaving Rome at will. One of the reasons that perhaps bound him the most was the legal dispute over the canonry of Barbastro, which was settled with the letter of May 27, 1598, in which the concord agreed between the three adversaries was confirmed. Added to this was the new task of the daily school of Santa Dorotea.

The official books of the Fraternity of the Twelve Apostles record that from May 27, 1596, when he was first appointed Visitator, until July 1599, he had not three consecutive weeks to be absent from Rome. The first time that a long empty parenthesis appears is from July 24 to September 7 of the same year.[1452] It should be added that it was precisely on 18 July 1599 that he joined the Confraternity of the Stigmata of Saint Francis, which was probably organizing a pilgrimage to Assisi to win the Jubilee of the Portiuncula on next 2nd August.[1453] Berro affirms: “I know that he made more than one pilgrimage to Our Lady of the Angels in Assisi to obtain the pardon of August 2nd.”[1454] And his great friend, the Bishop of Potenza, Friar Bonaventura Claver, says in an affidavit before a notary on September 27, 1658, that the saint made an extraordinary revelation to him - which we will talk about later - about what happened to him “in Assisi when he went to Our Lady of the Angels to obtain the plenary indulgence for the feast of August 2nd.”[1455]

1452 Cf. G. SÁNTHA, De S. Fundatoris nostri in Archiconfr. SS. XII Apost. praesentia et opera, p.184.

1453 ID, Operositas atque industria Calasanctii in Archiconfr. SS. Stigmatum..., p.329.

1454 BERRO I, p.89.

1455 Cf. BAU, BC, p.247 (RegCal 28, p.71-72 and 75-76).

From all this, it is highly probable that Calasanz actually undertook the longed-for pilgrimage in August 1599, as he had announced. It is true that he does not explicitly mention Assisi or Nursia (Norcia), the home of St. Francis and St. Benedict, but it is obvious that they are included in the itinerary when he adds “and others” to the places mentioned. Of the four places, two are Marian shrines (Loreto and Monte Vergine) and the other two (La Verna and Monte Cassino) are associated with St. Francis and St. Benedict, whose towns of Assisi and Nursia were almost obligatory stopovers on the way from Rome to Loreto.

Thirty years later, Calasanz speaks of Nursia with absolute precision and remembers this first pilgrimage. On February 23, 1630, he wrote to the rector of the Piarist College of Nursia: “Tell me if the laity recite the Office of the Blessed Virgin as they did when I was there, more than 30 years ago.”[1456] That is, before the holy year 1600.

1456 C.1331.

In the above-mentioned letter, he first speaks of the vicar “who is very devoted and attached to St. Theresa.” It was Don Giulio Geggi, the great friend of Calasanz and initiator of the Pious Schools in Nursia, to whom the Piarists - the Founder wrote to the vicar in 1634 - should have him “as a father and protector in this place.”[1457] Don Giulio Geggi thus confirms Calasanz’s passage through Nursia, Loreto and Assisi on the dates indicated and adds the valuable detail that Calasanz and he were traveling together on this pilgrimage. The message was recounted by Father Benedict Quarantotto under oath in 1690 with these words:

1457 C.2277. From their mutual correspondence three letters from Calasanz to Geggi (C.1779, 1812 and 2277) are preserved, besides others in which he alludes to him (C.559, 565, 1331), and from Geggi to Calasanz three others (cf. EHI, p.1254-1256).

“I well remember that when I was at Nursia, still a boy and a student, I had occasion to speak many times with a certain priest named Don Giulio Geggi, the first dignitary of the collegiate church of Nursia and foreign vicar of the same place... and he often used to tell me that he knew the said Servant of God and that they had been together in the Holy House of Loreto, in Assisi and in other places of devotion before the said Servant of God founded our Institute, and he spoke of him, the said Geggi, with very great esteem.”[1458]

1458 Cited in C. VILÁ PALA, Calasanz visita Asís en 1599 y luego se enrola en la escuelita de S. Dorotea: EphCal 1 (1981) 21. Vilá found that Julius Geggi received a doctorate in both Laws in Rome on October 30, 1601, and since such studies lasted at least five years, Geggi was in Rome in 1599, and therefore it is most likely that he knew Calasanz then and that together they undertook the pilgrimage (ib., p.26, n.22). Their friendship, then, did not begin in 1619, as it was supposed (cf. EHI, p.1255, n.1).

The reference to the beginning of the Institute of Pious Schools can certainly be understood as “before 1600”, the year in which Calasanz took full responsibility for the schools that were not yet called ‘pious’, removing them from Santa Dorotea and moving them to the district of Saint Andrea della Valle on his own initiative.[1459]

1459 Also Fr. Armini declared in 1692: “Before the said Servant of God set about the work of the foundation, he went to Assisi to the forgiveness of the Angels…” (cit. in VILÁ PALA, o.c., p.2O). But perhaps the reference was given to him by Fr. Quarantotto, who testified two years earlier in the same process.

The coincidence of all these dates therefore places this long pilgrimage in the month of August 1599, at least towards the north, as we are talking specifically about Nursia, Loreto and Assisi, without being able to specify whether he also went south to Monte Cassino and Monte Vergine. On the other hand, there is no reason to rule out the possibility that he returned to Assisi at another time, as we have heard from Berro.[1460]

1460 A. García-Durán believes that this pilgrimage took place in 1614 and not in 1599 (cf. A. GARCÍA-DURÁN, o.c., p.131-133). In addition to what we have written, cf. C. VILÁ PALÁ, o.c., p. 16-20. Caputi, on his own account, said that in 1595 and 1597 Calasanz had already gone to Assisi to win the Jubilee of the Portiuncula (cf. EchoCen 13-14 [1949] 27).

In the mystical abodes

When he announced to his parish priest at the end of June 1599 his intention to visit “some places of great piety”, he signed the letter simply: “Joseph Calasanz.”[1461] Until the last, at the end of September 1594, he had signed it “Doctor Joseph Calasanz”.[1462] The Joseph Calasanz of the end of the century and the Holy Year 1600, who was enrolled in so many Roman confraternities with the social and religious obligations associated with them, who was deeply moved by the poverty and misery of the common people in all districts of Rome and dedicated himself to their service, who was convinced of the idea of Franciscan poverty, who was immersed in the popular piety typical of Roman devotion, he is already at a very far distance from that Dr. Joseph Calasanz, who arrived in Rome in 1592 with the air of a conqueror who wanted to obtain a Spanish canonry quickly and at any cost. All these pretensions finished in nothing.

1461 EGC II, c.7.

1462 Ibid., c.3, 4, 5 and 6.

He had also changed his friends. Those to whom he had first turned for influence and recommendations were left aside, and others appeared who, by their words and example, gently urged him to an intimate encounter with God. This striking change took place in those years when he began to let go of his pretensions, as so many witnesses have said. We have quoted them before, but we want to hear their most pithy fragments again. Berro said: “He devoted himself to all works of charity, knowing full well that God had brought him to Rome for greater things than to obtain ecclesiastical dignities.” And Don Francis Motes: “Since God had destined him for greater things... he finally gave up his pretensions and devoted himself wholeheartedly to God.” And the simple painter Gutiérrez: “When he was touched by God and realized that everything in this world is vain, he left the world.” And the manufacturer of hosts Thomas Simón: “Then he decided on a different lifestyle... and for this reason he gave himself completely to the spirit.”[1463]

1463 Cf. chapter II, n.2-5.

One is tempted to believe that he could not have reached the heights he did in such a short period of time - about seven years. The mystical experiences attributed to him by the witnesses could have been had much later, when the tribulations brought him to the height of heroism, and not during these years when he hardly has finished to bother about dignities and canonries. He is only in his forties and still has about fifty years ahead of him. And mystical experiences seem to belong more to the full maturity of life. Nevertheless, there is no doubt about it. To the words of the witnesses mentioned above, we must add the atmosphere of high spirituality in which he moves, both with people officially declared saints by the Church and with recognized teachers in mystical doctrine, as well as his total dedication to the service of the most needy neighbor and to an intense life of piety and devotion.

Here then is the statement of the Bishop of Potenza, Fr. Bonaventura Claver, who knew, treated and appreciated Calasanz for many years, since he was a Conventual of the Convent of the XII Apostles, like so many other religious, his brothers:

“One day at St. Pantaleo in Rome, I shared some of my sentiments with him. And he confided to me that when he went to Assisi to receive plenary indulgence in the Portiuncula on August 2nd, St. Francis had appeared to him twice and in one of the apparitions had betrothed him to three virgins who signified and represented the three vows of obedience, chastity and poverty; in the other he had shown him the great difficulty there is in obtaining plenary indulgence, and he assured me that he did not know how to explain it, although he understood it by interior illumination.”[1464]

1464 Cf. A. GARCÍA-DURÁN, o.c., p.131-132. In the Arch. Gen. in Rome there are three declarations signed and sealed by Bishop Claver: the first one, all autographed and undated, reduces the declaration to the transcribed (RegCal 28, p.67-68 ); when it was lost, Fr. Caputi asked for it again from the same declarant, who repeated it in two copies, both signed by him, although not written, and dated in Potenza on September 27, 1658, in which the first declaration is literally repeated and other lines are added before and after (RegCaI 28, p.71-72 and 75-76). Apparently, the first statement reappeared.

Claver did not specify whether he had the two visions on the same visit or on two different trips. Father Berro, alluding to this statement, said on the one hand, “I know that he traveled more than once [piú volte] to Our Lady of the Angels to receive the pardon of August 2nd. And although the year in which he received this favor and grace is not known, it is known with certainty that it happened to him before he changed his habit as a secular priest.” And he repeated before recounting the second vision: “I do not know whether it was on the same day and in the same year as the first vision or at a different time.”[1465]

1465 BERRO I, p.9.

There was one more vision, closely related to the betrothal to the three virgins, but even more confusing, as each of the explainers placed it in a different place or defined it differently, although they all agreed on the essential fact. Father Sylvester Bellei tells it as follows:

“When he was in the Church of the Wounds in Rome, a girl half dressed in rags and weeping appeared to him, to whom the servant of God said: ‘Who are you? She replied: I am poverty. Everyone rejects me. Then the servant of God said to her, “Come here, for I will cover you. And when he was about to put his cloak on her, she disappeared. I know this from the mouth of Father Joseph.”[1466]

1466 Cf. G. SANTHA, Operositas atque industria Calasanctii..., p.337, n.11. Father Castelli says that Calasanz “once he confided to me a secret, which had happened to him while he was sleeping, that having appeared to him three maidens, one of whom was crying...” and it was Poverty, etc..., and the next day, which was the feast of the Wounds of St. Francis, he went to the homonymous church and the meaning of the dream was revealed to him (cf. A. GARCÍA-DURÁN, o.c., p. 135, n.638). Berro places the vision in S. Andrea della Valle or in S. Lorenzo in Damaso, at the time of the union with Lucca Fathers (1614-1617) and says that it happened to him while he was in prayer or in contemplation (BERRO I, p.88). Caputi places it in 1611, in an alley, when Calasanz and Fr. Castilla were together, and both saw the apparition of Poverty (cf. BAU, BC, p.25O-251). Talenti, as on other occasions, added up the cases: in 1596 the dream narrated by Castelli and the following day the vision of Bellei (TALENTI, Vita, p.45-46); in August 1597, the betrothal in Assisi (ibid., p.46 ); in 1611 the apparition, ‘per quarta volta’ to Calasanz and Castile at the same time, in the street (ibid., p.100); in 1617 “in contemplation in the church of S. Andrea della Valle”, a new apparition (ibid., p.120).

From all these statements, we would say that the most plausible thing is that these are three different experiences that occurred in a state of contemplation as a supernatural phenomenon: The first occurred in Assisi, during which the difficulty of winning the Jubilee of the Portiuncula was revealed to him and which could have taken place during the long pilgrimage in August 1599. The second could also have taken place in Assisi, but much later, during the time of the union with the Fathers of Lucca, and would be the vision of the betrothal to the three virgins, as an invitation to become a religious and take the three vows. The third experience would be the encounter with poverty, also in an inner vision, which he had alone during prayer and not on the street or while dawdling in church. And it could probably have happened in the Church of the Wounds and perhaps even on the feast of September 17th, when he demanded extreme poverty from the people of Lucca in 1615. These last two visions would make no sense, because of their explicit reference to religious life and extreme poverty in those years at the end of the century when he was not even thinking of becoming a religious; and it would be absurd that he only listened to this inner invitation after seventeen long years. On the contrary, they can be fully explained if we place them in the years in which he lived the need for extreme poverty and in which the decision matured to become not only a religious, but directly the Founder of a new congregation. The texts as a whole allow this explanation.

The mere fact that he had a vision of St. Francis in Assisi in the summer of 1599, who spoke to him about the Jubilee, is enough to recognize that Calasanz had already arrived at the last mystical abodes.

Chapter 13

Origin of the Pious Schools

In 1644, at the age of eighty-six, old Calasanz wrote to the curious Father Berro, who asked him from Naples for news about the origin of Pious Schools:

“As to the beginnings of the schools, I found myself with two or three other members of Christian Doctrine in Trastevere, to teach in certain schools held in Santa Dorotea, in which, as a large proportion of the students paid each a certain sum per month, and there were among the companions who was coming in the morning and who was coming in the afternoon; when the parish priest who had lent us a small room and a room on the second floor died, I decided to put them up in Rome, knowing the great poverty that prevailed there, since I had visited all the neighborhoods of Rome, having been a member of the Confraternity of the Holy Apostles for six or seven years. And of the companions I had in Trastevere, only one followed me, and so the Institute was founded in Rome, which gradually became a Congregation and then a Religion.”[1467]

1467 C.4185.

With these brief lines, the Founder summarized the first twenty-four years of his institution, but he was speaking specifically only of the early period, which focused on Santa Dorotea.

In 1623, he had written a long report on the same subject in his own handwriting, in which he listed dates, periods, names and facts. This report is undoubtedly a document of great historical importance and we will cite it in due course.[1468] However, the extension of the period of origin (1597-1621), the variety of situations and problems and the peculiar versions, interpretations - and even misrepresentations - of the facts given by ancient and modern authors present many difficulties. On the other hand, there is no lack of monographic and well-documented studies that make the historian’s task easier. Let us see.

1468 Cf. the original Italian text in EGC II, 132a, and the first photo-engraved page in BAU, BC, p.159. Two copies of this document were made, both preserved in the AGEP, the first one revised and corrected by the Saint himself (RegCal 11, XI), and the second one, identical to the first one already corrected (Hist. BibI. 2).

The vocational call

Undoubtedly, the spark of vocation was ignited in the heart of Calasanz when he exercised his office as Visitator of the Fraternity of Apostles. It was an encounter with the real poverty of many people in the city and its concrete consequences in the deplorable condition of the children. Contact with poverty opened up a huge showcase of misery and the corresponding variety of ways to remedy it for those who had a generous heart. During his visits, Calasanz had to observe and sympathize with the pain of the sick, the loneliness or abandonment of the elderly, the economic hardship of widows with children, the tempting ease of prostitution as a means of comfortable subsistence, the delinquency of adults and minors forced by necessity, the sad situation of orphans, the abuse of the rich and powerful who exploit the services of the poor, the scandalous difference in living standards and other deplorable aspects, all of which are products of poverty.

Others, before and after him, were impressed by some of these facets of the great spectacle of human misery and opened hospitals for the sick, homes for the elderly, stores or centers for the distribution of goods and alms for all kinds of poor, homes for the reception and re-education of prostitutes, orphanages, reformatories, workers’ unions, etc. However, the wealth of so many initiatives was never able to fill the abyss of needs born of poverty and injustice.

Calasanz focused his attention and compassion on the children. He noticed their religious ignorance, despite the enormous catechetical work carried out in the Roman churches. In June 1597, the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine alone took care of twenty-two churches with their catechetical Sunday schools[1469], not counting the work of other parishes and religious institutions. Another way had to be found to attract so many poor children who obviously saw no incentive to attend Sunday catechism classes, even if they were free.

1469 Cf. G. FRANZA, Il Catechismo a Roma dal Concilio di Trento a Pio IV nello zelo dell’Arciconfraternità della Dottrina Cristiana (Rome 1958), p.96. n.20.

But there was something else. In each of the thirteen or fourteen districts (rioni) of Rome there was at least one municipal public school where the teachers employed by the Capitoline authorities had to teach not only reading, writing, arithmetic and some Latin, but also Christian doctrine.[1470] So why did not they go to the city schools? The answer was always the same: with a few exceptions, all students had to pay and those who were too poor could not. The consequences: not only religious ignorance, but complete illiteracy and all the evils you can imagine in poor children running around all day in a big city like Rome. And the situation was the same in all the neighborhoods. We heard Calasanz confess that he knew “the great poverty that existed because, as a member of the Confraternity of the Holy Apostles, I visited all the neighborhoods of Rome for six or seven years.”

1470 Thus it was prescribed by the Lateran Conc. V (1514) for all teachers of children and adolescents (cf. MANSI, 32, cit. In SANTHA, SJC, p.37, n.33).

The contemporary testimonies largely agree on these three points: 1) Calasanz personally notes the religious ignorance and dissolute life of the poor children; 2) their parents say that they do not send them to school because they cannot pay the teachers; 3) he noted all this as a Visitor to the Confraternity of the Apostles. Here is the allusion to the ‘Breve Notizia’ with its characteristic conciseness: “Visiting the sick and poor of Rome, he noted with great bitterness that the majority of the poor children indulged in vices because their parents were unable to support them at school.”[1471] In similar terms and with similar brevity, Fathers Morelli and Baldi and Don John Fedele, among others, explained.[1472]

1471 Cf. BAU, RV, p.13.

1472 “…the main reason, that urged him to found the schools was while he went to visit the sick, he questioned the children who found there if they knew the things necessary to save themselves, and founding a great universal ignorance in all he was moved to pity” (Morelli 1652). “Distributing alms throughout Rome as principal of the Company of St. Apostles, he heard many poor families complain that their children were going bad because there was no one to teach them the fear of God...” (Baldi). “On the occasion that the said Servant of God went to visit the sick and bring them the usual alms by reason of his office, it happened that he found some children a lot ignorant in the things of God, and asking the cause, they answered that these children did not have the possibility of going to school, because they had no money to pay, and that therefore they did not have anyone who introduced them to the things of God.” (Fedele 1669). Cited in A. GARCÍA-DURÁN, o.c., p.68-69. Cf. other testimonies in BAU, BC, p.265-268; SÁNTHA, SJC, p.52-58.

The two most important early historians, Berro and Caputi, go into a little more detail on these basic facts of the founding of the Institute, without dithyramb or panegyric exaggeration. Thus, Berro begins chapter 12 of his first book of ‘Annotazioni’ in Father Bau’s faithful translation:

“On the occasion that our D. Joseph visited the whole city of Rome several times for six or seven years, as a visitor to the Confraternity of the Holy Apostles, as has already been said, and he himself wrote to me in a letter, he had found an almost innumerable multitude of children who, on account of their poverty, could not be brought to schools by their parents; and for the same reason they were physically and mentally lost, and gave themselves up to all the vices which necesity and idleness teach. Apart from the fact that many of them did not even know the Our Father, the Hail Mary and the things indispensable for the salvation of souls, he saw on the other hand many others of promising intelligence who, if they used it well, would obtain excellent results with extraordinary benefits for their souls. Driven, as he told me himself, by this almost extreme need of the poor and because he saw that...”[1473]

1473 Cf. BAU, BC, p.277. Italian original in Berro I, p.72. See Caputi’s parallel paragraph in A. GARCÍA-DURÁN, o.c., p.69, n.409.

This blunt experience of the real poverty of ordinary people, where the last thing he could find were the usual lilies of filial innocence, undoubtedly germinated the vocation of his life in his soul. A solemn and decisive moment. And if from here began his new personal path in life and that of his future Order of the Pious Schools, this could only be seen as a kind of theophany. The will of God was revealed to him. And so it was indeed. The means or the manner is not important. There was, however, a concrete formula that formed a unity with what is said to have happened to him in Spain. It is the mysterious voice that explains itself. It was Father Castelli who put it this way in 1652:

“I know this because I have heard that, either the Father himself or others who heard it from him, have said that when he was in Spain, after he had become a priest, he heard an interior voice telling him, “Go to Rome,” and the same voice was often instilled into him. And while he was saying to himself: “I have no aspirations, what should I do in Rome?”, he heard the same impulse more and more often: “Go to Rome, go to Rome.” And to obey this impulse, he came to Rome and a few days later, as he was walking across a square, I do not remember which one, he saw a group of misguided boys doing a thousand outrageous things, throwing stones, and he heard a voice saying to him, “Look, look.” And as he repeated that word more than once while he looked and pondered the meaning of those words, it came to him and he said to himself, “Maybe the Lord wants me to take care of those boys.” And from that moment on, he began to care for these ill-behaved boys, and this concern grew from day to day until he expressed it in his Institute.”[1474]

1474 ProcIn, p.446-477. Another version in BAU, BC, p.268 and part of the Italian text in A. GARCÍA-DURÁN, o.c., p.٣٦.

Perhaps it would be an exaggeration to discuss the exact facts. Nor is it necessary to resort to supernatural interpretations, as if these were voices perceptible to the outer or inner senses. The scene could have been real: a street brawl among poor boys and a personal reaction in which - against the background of his experience as a visitor to the poor - the inspiration or movement of God, indicating his own vocation, and the compromising decision responding to the divine call are intermingled.

In other words than Castelli, another witness expressed the same reality, also claiming to have heard it from the Founder. It is the Polish canon Judiski, a close friend of the Saint, who declared in 1653: “When I once asked him what motive drove him to found this Religion of Pious Schools, he answered me: “The motive I had was none other than that of the dissoluteness I saw in the poor boys of Rome who, because of poverty and the neglect of their parents, did not enjoy a good education. When I thought about the words of the Psalm, which says: ‘The poor have been entrusted to you, you will be the refuge of the fatherless’, I considered this sentence to be said to myself and for this reason I began...”[1475]

1475 Cf. A. GARCÍA-DURÁN, o.c., p.73, n. Later biographers will unify both versions of Castelli and Judiski, making them an obligatory page in all the Lives of the Saint. See, for example, ARMINI, Vita, p.6I-62; TALENTI, Vita, p.55-56; TOSETTI, Compendio, p.41-42.

Both witnesses claim to have received a confidence from the saint. And, in fact, when, in the course of his many years, he searched for the historical moment of the beginning of his work, he undoubtedly returned again and again to this inner experience in which the will of God became clear to him. Even more solemnly than Castelli and Judiski, Paul V recognized the finger of God in this institutional moment much earlier, when he wrote in a Brief of 1607 that the work of Calasanz had God himself as its author: auctore Deo.[1476]

1476 Brief Cum pridem (March 24, 1607): Archivum VIII (1943) 23. In a very late procedural statement (1690), Fr. Benedict Quarantotto alluded to this vocational moment of the Founder, relating it to the frequent visits he made to the Madonna dei Monti. Here are his words: “he frequently went there to make his devotions. With this occasion, seeing in those streets a quantity of vagrant boys...” (cf, C. VILÁ, La Madonna dei Monti e il Calasanzio: EphCal 9-10 [1980] 388). It seems to have been given excesive value to these words, expressly alluding to them on the memorial slab already recalled (cf. ch. 12, n.1447). Except for this late witness, all the others - as we have just seen - usually relate the vocational inspiration of Calasanz with his visits to the poor and sick, as Visitor of the Confraternity of the Apostles.

The ascent to the Capitol

From the moment he realized the serious situation of the poor children and, in a way, perceived the voice of God - the vocational call - he did not want to rest until he had found a stable solution. And he recounted all these first beginnings in his later years, when he was pestered with questions, and his memories blurred in the mists of distance. Berro recounts:

“D. Joseph ... moved (as he told me himself) by this extreme necessity of the poor, and also by the fact that the teachers in the neighborhoods or districts did not accept more than 6 or 8 each one gratuitously, with the excuse that they received no salary from the Senate and the Roman people[1477] to support a greater number... and after he had appeared in the Capitol before the Senator and the Council Members to give the teachers of the neighborhoods a little more so that they would teach more poor people...”[1478]

1477 The expression ‘Senatus Populusque Romanus’ (SPQR) lost its true meaning when the Roman Senate disappeared in the 7th century. In the High Middle Ages, it reappeared, but centered on a single person, called ‘Senator’, with a Council of advisors. His authority through the centuries was more or less personal and absolute according to the times. In the Renaissance it was an honorary title, with certain administrative functions that he shared with his council, in which the so-called ‘Conservatori’ (Councillors), who were usually two in number, stood out. From 1580 the office of senator, which was six-monthly, became annual, and from 1655 it became lifelong (cf. L. CALLARI, Volti tragici e comici della Roma papale [Rome 1944] p. 16- 19).

1478 BERR0 I, p. 72.

These were therefore two different and logically linked appeals: the first was addressed directly to the city teachers and the second to the Capitol. Caputi gives a little more color to the first approach, attributing a certain audacity to Calasanz’s words and a certain insolence to the teachers’ response: “He thought of going to the teachers of the districts, who were paid by the Roman Senate, and told them that since they received a public stipend, they were obliged to teach the ignorant poor, at least the necessary things of the faith, since there were many poor children who did not even know how to make the sign of the cross. They answered him that they taught some, but not all... that he should teach them, who had good money, and was going on distributing and playing the hypocrite to win the applause of the people...”[1479]

1479 Literally: “l’insegnasse lui che haveva de buoni danari che andava dispensando e faceva il Bacchettone per acquistarsi l’aura popolare” (CAPUTI, Notízie Historiche, part III, n.70).

And - apart from the insolence - they were right. In the first quarter of the century, they received fifty gold florins a year, which was enough for a modest living. But the Sack of Rome (1527) led to such a deplorable economic situation that the University had to be closed for lack of funds and the public teachers who depended on it also lost their stipends. Towards the middle of the century, they regained their salaries, but after a few years they began to shrink to such an extent that under Gregory XIII they could barely pay the rent for their houses and were forced to demand a monthly sum from the students, even from the poor. The Dean of Teachers´Guild had to appeal to the Pope to increase the salaries.[1480]

1480 Cf. full text in SANTHA, SJC, p.38, n.38. Among other things we read: “Collegium Nostrum... ordine rerum, iniuria temporum confuso, de statu felicitatis ad eum infelicitatis est elapsum, quo fere nihil infelicius, nihilve miserius dici potest, quando nec ei de stipendio publico pro Scholis conducendis, nec de privata mercede pro sustentandis Magistris tantum, quantum est satis, provisum est.”

Under Sixtus V, the salary was set at thirty escudos per year in 1587 and remained so until 1667,[1481] despite the protests and requests for an increase, as practically everything was spent on renting the school buildings, as stated in a 1610 memorandum to Paul V, reflecting the situation that Calasanz lamented at the end of the century. The teachers say: “... since the annual 30 scudos per public teacher in the districts of Rome is used for the rent of the schools attended by the children of poor widows and poor men, burdened with family and debts, and which they could not pay even if they wanted to, except for a few, who pay so little and so seldom, that the poor teachers, forced by necessity, take refuge at the feet of Your Holiness, and humbly entreat You to raise the sure provision so that with the scanty and uncertain money of the pupils they may live, pay the rent, and persevere in their vocation.”[1482]

1481 Cf. G. PELLICCIA, La scuola primaria a Roma dal sec. XVI al XIX (Rome 1985), p.58-60, and Appendix, p.432-433.

1482 Ibid. 12, p.445.

Indeed, with these thirty escudos per year, they could barely cover their personal living and clothing expenses.[1483] Even less, as they had to pay the rent for the premises and the few pieces of furniture and equipment they needed, both the teacher and the children.[1484] Faced with this economic hardship, the custom of asking pupils to pay a certain weekly or monthly fee became established, which was eventually prescribed in detail by the academic authorities, depending on the tuition each individual received.[1485]

1483 “The expenditure ‘per capita’ of a collegiate or religious community for food and clothing could go from 38’70 escudos per year of the Maronite college in 1585, to 50 of the nuns of S.M. Maddalena in 1627, to 66 of the Cistercians in 1660, to 55’60 of the Scottish College in 1673, to 40 of the Franciscans of the Third Order Regular in 1676, to 70 of the Barnabites in 1727.” (ib, p.58).

1484 “…in Rome it is left to the teacher to provide himself with a room at his own expense... The school equipment, also at the expense of the teacher, was reduced to a minimum and consisted, in general, of a table or desk for the teacher, benches to sit at and to write on... the indispensable pens or utensils. It was compulsory a small altar with a sacred image...” (ib., p.83-84).

1485 From the middle of the 16th century, teachers demanded from each pupil a ‘baiocco’ every Saturday (the Roman ‘escudo’ was 10 ‘giulii’ or 100 ‘baiocchi’). In 1646 an order or decree was published for the public schools of Rome specifying: “Fee to be paid in advance by the pupils to the Teachers for their merit: To read the alphabet and the Holy Cross every month Giulii 15. To read by spelling and without stoping g.20. To read and write simply g.30. To decline and conjugate g.40. To learn the Abbaco in scriptis g.50. To learn Latin from the first of the actives as well as all the rules g.50. Per intendere alcuna lezione di Cicerone o altri autori g.60” (cf. cit. en SÁNTHA, De S. Fund, N. in confraternitate doctrinae christianae..., p.160, n.27).

In theory, poor children were supposed to be admitted free of charge, but the material constraints of the premises reduced the number of students, so the teachers favored those who could pay, thus reducing the number of free students to a minimum. Berro tells us that there were no more than six or eight, but perhaps the number was generally much lower.[1486]

1486 In 1613 an inspection is made in the school of ‘Rione di S. Angelo’, whose titular teacher was the priest don Jerome Nicotera, collaborator of Calasanz in 1604. But he had a substitute who declared: “This teacher, Mr. Gerome, was able to collect all the money from the students, which could amount to 4 scudi per month.” And when asked if he has free students because they are poor, he answers that he has two: “Ne ha dui” (cf. G, SÁNTHA, Sac. Hieronymus Nicotera..., p.348, n.11).

The teachers’ justified refusal prompted Calasanz to go one step further. He raised the matter in the palace of the Colonnas, in whose family the honorary office of ‘Senator Urbis’ had fallen several times, and - Berro specifies - “with words spoken by His Emm. Reverend Cardinal Mark Antony Colonna, our Don Giuseppe appeared before the Council of the Capitol and asked that the salary of the teachers in the districts be increased, with the obligation to admit a greater number of poor people to the schools, but he could not obtain the favor...”[1487]

1487 V. BERRO, Vita del P. Fondatore delle Scuole Pie (unpublished), in CAPUTI, Notizie historiche, VIII, p.6.

The door he had knocked on was the right one. In August 1602, they will knock again on his behalf. This time to ask for a subsidy for the Pious Schools. And the Capitoline Council granted him 25 escudos a year, not even the thirty of a single teacher’s salary.[1488] But it was undoubtedly too much for the city’s finances to increase the salaries of the teachers of the thirteen Roman districts. Nor did they pay any attention to the petition which the teachers addressed to Paul V in 1610, and their salaries, as we have seen, were frozen until 1667.

1488 In the book Edictorum Incliti Populi Romani (1600-1611) on 26 August, 1602 we can read: “De elemosina danda Scolis Piis. Ex eodem Secreto Consilio decretum est, quod pro elemosina, ac pro aliquo auxilio donentur et elargiantur scolis Piis scudi 25 monetae.” And the following day: “Confirmatum pariter decretum est de elemosina danda scolis Piis prout iacet” (cit. en G. SÁNTHA, Nova quaedam documenta ..., p.197, n.2).

The ascent to the Capitol was an altruistic and generous gesture, and in some ways necessary. The teachers would later pay him poorly, but his protest would be unjust, because before embarking on the adventure of trying to solve the problem of poor children on his own, he tried to solve it as it was just and as it would finally be solved centuries later: public money would cover the cost of educating those who could not pay it because they were poor.

Perhaps neither walking up nor down this hill, sacred to ancient Rome, did he have the humor to appreciate the magnificent monumental complex, of which only the palace on the left - now the Capitoline Museum - was missing to bring to life Michelangelo’s project that made this square one of the most admirable urban jewels of all time.

Recourse to the Jesuits and Dominicans

He had already suffered two failures, but he did not give up hope. One might think that the long struggle for his claims to a canonry was a rich previous experience. It taught him to overcome failure, miss opportunities and look for others. In this case, in line with the ideas presented to the teachers, he felt that the Jesuits also had an obligation to care for the poor as they received grants from public funds. The magnificent Collegio Romano had been inaugurated only a dozen years earlier (1584), thanks to the generosity of Gregory XIII, who had also generously endowed it with annuities. And there he went. Caputi recounts: After the insolent reaction of the teachers of the neighborhood - he says - “the Father kept silent and thought of going to Collegio Romano, which had been established by Gregory XIII to support the youth, since the Jesuit Fathers also received grants from the Senate. He asked the Prefect of the Schools[1489] to remedy such a great disorden, as there were poor children who did not know the necessary things of the faith, and that they could have the charity to teach them... The prefect replied that the Society of Jesus only admitted to its schools those who were already initiated in the Latin language; they could not reach everybody.”[1490] And Berro said, even more precisely: “Knowing that the Fathers of the Society of Jesus would not accept them into their schools unless they first mastered the impersonal verbs very well, he himself took all these steps to talk to the Jesuit Fathers so that they would open inferior schools.”[1491] And so it was indeed, both in Collegio Romano and in the others they had elsewhere.[1492]

1489 He was the Spaniard Michael Vázquez de Padilla in the years ١٥٩٤-١٥٩٩ (cf. R GARCÍA VILLOSLADA, Storia del Collegio Romano [Roma 1954] p. 323).

1490 Cf. CAPUTI, o.c., III. n.70.

1491 Cf. BERRO, I. p.72.

1492 In the Consuetudies Collegii Romani (1564-1584) it is said: “About the Grammar Students. Those who can read, write, and recite from memory the ‘Donatus and Christian Doctrine’ are admitted to the last clase [5th.] They will be exercise in the Syntactic Concordances....” (R. G. VILLOSLADA, o.c., p.88). And in the Constitutions of the Society, it says: “In legendo et scribendo alios instituire opus etiam caritatis esset, si et personarum numerus Societati suppeteret, ut omnibus vacare posset, propter earum tamen penuriam hoc ordinarie docere non consuevimus” (P.IV, c.12, Declaratio C).

The fourth and final attempt was recorded in his memoirs only by Caputi, giving it a characteristically personal tone that perhaps goes beyond simple historical data. He explains:

“He went to the Fathers of the Minerva, of St. Dominic, who, in addition to the sciences they were teaching, also gave some grammar lessons. He asked the parish priest of Minerva, who was a great servant of God and a close friend of his, to ask Father Prior that, just as they had charity to the schoolchildren, they should also give them to the poor... The parish priest replied that this was a matter for his parish... but to talk to Father Prior about it was useless, because it was something that could not be done, but we should say Domine ostende nobís quem elegeris (Lord, show us whom you have chosen); we should say these few words together three times, so that God may accept our good will. They said these words three times Domine ostende nobis quem elegeris, and the Father went home wondering what he could do...”[1493]

1493 Cf. CAPUTI, o.c., n.75.

Caputi goes on to explain that the aforementioned priest of Minerva, a friend of Calasanz, wrote a booklet “that I have seen - he says - and which was like a catechism to instruct the people in his parish, and among other things there was a letter saying great things about our Institute and the Founder... and he died in Rome to great acclaim from the great servant of God and many times I have heard him praised by our Holy Father as a great man of spirit and teaching...” This was Father Philip Angelini, who in 1627 was indeed parish priest of Santa Maria sopra Minerva and who wrote the above-mentioned booklet, a sort of catechism for the worthy reception of the sacraments of confession and communion, and dedicated the second edition - published that year - to the students of the Pious Schools with very praising and affectionate words.[1494] However, we are in doubt as to whether the parish priest of 1627 was already the parish priest some thirty years earlier.

1494 Here is the complete title: Avviamento chiaro et facile al Sacramento Santo della Confessione et a quello della Communione per bene et santamente confessarsi e comunicarsi dato in luce dal P. Filippo Angelini dell’ordine de Predicatorí, Parrocchiano di S. Maria sopra la Minerva. Di nuovo hora per uso degli scolari delle Scuole Pie ristampato. Et in questa seconda impresione del medesimo Autore revisto et accresciuto in fine con un modo breve et utile per imparare a fare l’oratione mentale. In Roma, appresso Guglielmo Facciotti. MDCXXVI (quoted in SÁNTHA, SJC, p.529, n.63). See the introduction-dedicatory ib. The edition was made at the request of Calasanz, who in July 1628 says that “it will be necessary to reprint it anew because here all the 1500 are already finished” (C.904). It was requested by all schools, even from Germany (cf. SÁNTHA, l.c.).

What is certain is that Calasanz’s request to the prior would have been useless, as the College of St. Thomas, which was housed in the Minerva convent, had an internal character and was reserved for Dominican students who, according to their own ‘ratio studiorum’, had to study grammar and then philosophy and theology after completing their novitiate.[1495] It was therefore not to be expected that they would open an elementary school under these circumstances, especially for poor children. However, it is likely that he discussed the matter with one of the local Spaniards who were responsible for the College at the time.[1496] And it is also plausible that on this visit to the Minerva - and on subsequent visits, as he was friend with the parish priest - he had the opportunity to meet Friar Thomas Campanella, who, after his release from the Roman prisons of the Holy Office and after a short stay in Santa Sabina convent on probation, was able to move to Minerva convent in December 1596, where he remained until January 1598, when he left for Naples.[1497]

1495 Cf. C. A. WALTZ, O.P., Compendium Historiae Ordinis Praedicatorum (Rome 1948) p.429-430 and 435.

1496 Fr. Diego Álvarez gave the College its definitive organization, holding the office of regent at least since 1600 (cf. R. HERNÁNDEZ, Los estudios en la Orden Dominicana y especialmente en la Provincia Dominicana de España en los años 1860-1890; Ciencia Tomista 102 [1975] 37). And on Fr. Master Friar Diego Álvarez cf. J. López, Historia General de Santo Domingo y de su Orden de Predicadores, Tercera Parte, vol. II (Valladolid 1615) p.277 and 791.

1497 Cf. G. AUSENDA, L’umile presenza delle Scuole Pie nella vicenda umana di Tommaso Campanella. Ricerche 6 (1982) 150-151. The autor points to it with this veiled sentence: “These are precisely the years in which our Holy Founder [Calasanz] consulted the parish priest of Minerva about how to realize his project of creating free schools for the poor boys of Rome.” (ib., p.151). Picanyol, without giving any reason, categorically denies it: “It is certainly not likely that Calasanzio met Campanella the second time the latter was in Rome from 1594 to 1597” (L. PICANYOL, Le Scuole Pie e Galileo Galilei, p.41).

After this fourth rejection, his only hope was that God would answer the prayer that Calasanz and Angelini - if Caputi is to be believed - had prayed together three times: “Show, Lord, whom you have chosen.”

The school of Santa Dorotea: traditional version

The excessive zeal to glorify the merits of St. Joseph Calasanz and to preserve the originality of his inspiration intact and untransferable, especially at the time of the solemn founding of the Institute, gave rise to a particular hagiographic tradition or version of the facts related to the church of Santa Dorotea in Trastevere. This peculiar version is based on the more or less unequivocal testimony of witnesses and analysts from the very beginning and has continued uninterruptedly to the present day. One of the first representatives and a sure source for future biographers is Caputi, whose account - prolix, detailed and imaginative as always - reads as follows:

“...one morning Mr. James of Avila, a man of great piety, already enrolled in the Confraternity of the Holy Apostles and Christian Doctrine[1498], went in search of him, so that they might go to the Trastevere district to visit the poor, the shameful, and the sick; and on the way he began to tell him that he had made many efforts to have someone instruct the poor children in the things of faith, and he had found no one to undertake this pious work, and he thought he would do what he could. When James of Avila agreed with his idea, they went to Trastevere to meet the parish priest and ask him for a list of the sick in the parish of Santa Dorotea. While the parish priest arrived, Father Joseph began to question two boys who were in the sacristy. When he saw that they knew nothing, he began to instruct them in Christian doctrine and then told them that he wanted to teach them to read and write and that he would come back the next morning. And since the priest saw that these children knew nothing, if he would make room for him, he would give them lessons so that they might learn the necessary things of the faith, for there were many poor people in that parish whose mothers could not pay the teachers, and he wanted to give them this benefit, and he would find someone else to help him. The vicar replied that there was a room that he could use as he pleased, and if that was not enough, there were others. Mr. James told him that he too would help him after the visits. The next morning, with the priest’s sick list, he made the visits throughout the Trastevere district and then went to Santa Dorotea with books, paper, inkwell and pens and began to teach these children and tell them to call other neighbors... When he returned the next morning, the children had multiplied so much that the parish priest also offered his help, so they had to take another, more spacious room, because in a week they were more than a hundred...”[1499]

1498 Caputi supports the credibility of his account on the testimony of this gentleman, probably Spanish, saying: “All that has been said was said by Mr. James of Avila... to myself, who came almost every day to S. Pantaleo to confess to Fr. Castiglia, and when Fr. Castiglia died he confessed to Fr. Peter [Mussesti] of the Annunciation” (CAPUTI, Notizie Hist., p.III, n.75).

1499 Ib., n.72-74. This account ends as follows: “The number of pupils multiplied so much that it was necessary to enter Rome, as Father Peter of the Annunciation said in the Víta written by him of the compendium in chapter eleven.” (ibid., n.75). This makes us certain that Caputi based himself on the Vita del V. P. P. Giuseppe della Madre di Dio, by Fr. P. Mussesti, which remained unpublished (cf. original and a copy in RegCal 84, 85). Another version was included in part IX, 2, of the Notizie, Hist. Mussesti in turn invokes the testimony of the aforementioned James of Avila: “I have heard from Mr. James of Avila several times, since he is still alive [he was writing in 1663-65], and is already eighty years old...” (RegCal, 85, p.23). Mussesti was much more concise. Read this paragraph from chap. XI: “Calasanz found some people who easily agreed with him, and particularly the Parish Priest of Santa Dorotea in Trastevere who was living at that time, and started the Pious Schools, in the year 1597.... They began at first in the sacristy and in some rooms of the said Parish to gather poor children and to teach them to read, to write, to do accounts and to speak Latin in order to have them with this allurement every day under his dominion and more easily to teach them in the holy fear of God” (ib. p.24).

The three most important architects of the Calasanctian hagiographic tradition - Armini, Talenti, Tosetti - essentially adhered to this version. Armini wrote:

“He knew D. Antonio Brendani, the parish priest of Santa Dorotea, and was acquainted with him... and having communicated his thoughts to him, he was easily approved by him, giving Joseph some rooms and offering himself as a collaborator for such a pious work, and this was about the year 1597... So, he began to gather some poor children from the same quarter of Trastevere and to teach them in these rooms, according to their ability, reading, writing, abacus and the rudiments of grammar, having them every day and teaching them the things necessary to know God and obtain eternal life... It was easy for him, by his example, to enlist some brethren of the Christian Doctrine, friends of his, as helpers in the work. ... As the fame of such a pious work spread, and the benefits accomplished both in the Scriptures and in Christian piety, there were a great number of young people, not only from the Trastevere district ... but also from Rome...”[1500]

1500 ARMINI, Vita, p.74-75.

Talenti uses the same elements and a few more, but he arranges them differently and even emphasizes the protagonism and personal initiative of Calasanz. Here is a summary of his version: Convinced that he was chosen by God to instruct poor children, he discusses his plan with some fellow Christian Doctrine confreres, who promise to help him if he opens the schools. Of all the districts of Rome, he chose Trastevere as the poorest and spoke to the parish priest of Santa Dorotea and “discovered him his idea of opening free schools for poor children” He asked him where he could find suitable premises and the priest offered him “two rooms adjoining the sacristy” and even the sacristy itself, if necessary, and even offered himself as a collaborator. He informed Cardinal Colonna about everything and personally went to Clement VIII to ask him for a license to open the schools, which he received. He then bought benches, books, paper, inkwells and pens; he advised the two confreres of the Christian Doctrine and the parish priest to announce the opening of the free school; he did the same as Visitor of Trastevere. And the next morning... “in the name of God, at the end of the fall of 1597, he opened the schools next to Santa Dorotea” with the aforementioned companions.”[1501] You can almost hear the hyssop sprinkling holy water on everything new or the scissors cutting a ribbon of inauguration.

1501 TALENTI, Vita, p.58-60.

Tosetti reduced Talenti’s long narrative to a few lines.[1502] Italian biographers retained this scheme until the middle of our century.[1503] Nor was the Spanish Calasanctian bibliography any more original, which, based on the translations by Armini,[1504] Talenti[1505] and Tosetti[1506], produces nothing new and, until the appearance of Bau’s Biografía Crítica,[1507] repeats the usual and already stereotyped schemes of Talenti and Tosetti.

1502 See the outline of his story: Calasanz chooses Trastevere because it is the poorest and neediest neighborhood; he meets the parish priest, who offers him two rooms and his collaboration; he finds two priests collaborators of the Christian Doctrine; he obtains the approval of Clement VIII; he buys furniture and utensils; he inaugurates the school in the late autumn of 1597 (TOSETTI, Compendium, p.43-44).

1503 One of the last was Q. Santoloci, Giuseppe Calasanzio educatore e santo (Rome 1948) p.50-51.

1504 A. ARMINI, Vida del Ven. Siervo de Cristo P. Joseph de la Madre de Dios, trans. Dr. Don Peter Aquenza, pseudonym of Fr. A. Ginés de S. Medardo (Madrid 1726).

1505 V. TALENTI, Compendio histórico-chronológico de la vida, virtudes y milagros del B. P. José de Calassanz. Trans. A. (Caxón) de Christo (Madrid 1748). Talenti’s great Vita reaches Spain through the French translation and adaptation of TIMON-DAVID, Vida de S. José de Calasanz, translated by P. Dionisio Fierro Gasca (Zaragoza 1905).

1506 U. TOSETTI. Compendio histórico de la vida de S. José Calasanz, trans. P. Joseph (Jericó) de la Concepcion (Valencia 1768).

1507 Talenti’s outline, for example, is reflected in J. C. LOSADA, Vida de S. José de Calasanz (Madrid 1834, 1881, 1921), and Tosetti’s, among many others, in A. CLEMENTE, San José de Calasanz (Barcelona 1924), TEÓFILO, Vida de San José de Calasanz (Zaragoza 1949).

According to this version, Calasanz is thus presented as the creator of the Santa Dorotea school. All the threads and initiatives are in his hands: he conceives the new school; he searches for the neighborhood where it is to be opened; he convinces the parish priest and enlists him as a collaborator; he also seeks and convinces others to help him; he obtains the necessary permits; he prepares the premises and buys everything that goes with it; he invites the poor children of the neighborhood and others; he marks the day of the inauguration... Were things really like this?

The modern historical version

Berro’s version was no different when he wrote chapter 12 of his first book of the ‘Annotazioni’, in which he dealt with the origin of the Pious Schools in Trastevere. Here is the paragraph in question, translated by Bau:

“And for the same reason he decided to open the schools, which he actually did in 1597 with the authorization of Pope Clement VIII, in Trastevere, in the rooms of the parish of Santa Dorotea, assisted by two secular priests, members of the Christian Doctrine... In this neighborhood, the poorest in Rome, he began his schools, which he called the Pious Schools...”[1508]

1508 Cf. BAU, BC, P.278, and BERRO I, p. 73. In similar terms Berro expressed himself in his Brief Vita “Trusting in the Divine help, he submitted himself with so much affection and detachment from everything else to this Divine will that talking to some of his loving Priests he found two who promised to help him and knowing that the Parish Priest of Santa Dorotea in Trastevere was a very pious person, talking to him, he gave him two rooms to make the Pious Schools. There our D. Gioseppe began with great fervor...” (BERRO, Vita del P. Fondatore delle Scuole Pie, f.6v, in CAPUTTI, Notizie Hist., IX, 1 Frammenti).

But later, perhaps when revising the first volume in 1663,[1509] he added a marginal note to the transcribed paragraph, which should have come after “Santa Dorotea”, as the call sign suggests, and which reads: “The priest of the said church was already making school, paid for by the majority and free for some of his parish because they served him” (as altar boys?).[1510] No doubt he read the letter that the Founder himself had written to him in 1644, in which he said: “As for the beginnings of schools, I met two or three other of the Christian Doctrine who went to Trastevere to teach in certain schools that had been set up in Santa Dorotea, and in which, since a large proportion of the students were paying...”[1511]

1509 Cf. BERRO I, p.50.

1510 Ib.,.p.73. Imperfect transcription, checked against the original (Hist. Bibl., I, f.21r). Cf. the exact one in ‘Archivum’ 10 (1981) 226. Being a marginal note, some have included it exactly where the call is (BERRO I, p.73) and others add it at the end of the paragraph (Archivum, 1.c.; BAU, B.C., p.278; SÁNTHA,.SJC, p.54, n.2; BERRO III, p.256).

1511 C.4185. It is evident that he had this letter in mind, since at the beginning of this chapter 12 he also added in a marginal note the clause “and he himself wrote to me in a letter”, referring to the six or seven years of Visitor in the Confraternity of the Apostles (cf., text of n.1473 of this chapter).

Berro’s apostille thus radically changes the traditional version. If there was already a school in Santa Dorotea, where some were taught for free and most for a fee, and if two or three confreres of the Christian Doctrine with whom Calasanz met were already attending this school, it cannot be said that he was the one who sought out a neighborhood, a parish, premises, staff and children and started this school ‘ex novo’.

There were also other early texts that confirmed Berro’s apostille and the Founder’s letter. The latter had written a famous report in 1623 that began as follows:

“The Institute of Pious Schools was founded in the church of St. Dorothea in Trastevere, next to the Septimian Gate[1512], by some secular confreres of the Christian Doctrine, among whom Joseph of the Mother of God is presently living... And because it was taught there generally to the rich and the poor, the said Joseph had it taught only to the poor, who could find no one to teach them the rudiments.”[1513]

1512 It was opened by Alexander VI (1492-1503) in the Aurelian wall, which traced the definitive perimeter of Rome (years 270-275). The entire district of Trastevere remained inside, since the wall that from the height of Porta Flaminia bordered the Tiber along the left bank, passed to the right bank precisely next to the current Porta Settimiana, from where it went up to Porta Aurelia, in the Janiculum, to end up again in the river, in Porta Portuense (cf. Guida d’Italia. Roma e dintorni, p. 16- 17). The Trastevere (Trans Tiberim) was already, by Augustus’s disposition, the last of the 14 districts (rioni) into which the city was divided, and so it continues uninterruptedly until today. C. Vilá is therefore not right when he writes: “that suburb used to have its own walls and was a town totally different from Rome” (C. VILÁ, Berro, Santha or Calasanz? Archivum 10 [1981], 245).

1513 Cf. EGC II, p.170; BAU, BC, p.272.

In 1652, Fr. Lorenzo Ferrari stated: “He was many times a visitor and almoner [in the Confraternity of the Apostles]; on these occasions, when he was with the parish priest in Santa Dorotea, he saw that the said priest had some schoolchildren to whom he made this charity for the love of God, and he liked this work of charity so much that on many days, after he had made his visits and devotions, he went to help teach these students.”[1514] Father Baldi wrote something similar: “When he saw that the parish priest of Santa Dorotea was teaching in his parish free of charge, he urged him to take in all the others in Trastevere and offered himself as a companion.”[1515] It is significant that he crossed out this sentence after he had written it, perhaps because it was not quite correct about the gratuity – the same as Ferrari - but it is more likely that he was afraid of depriving the Founder of merit and initiative.

1514 Cf. A. GARCÍA-DURÁN, Itinerario, p.72, n.422.

1515 Ibid., n.424.

These few testimonies remained marginalized, and although the main biographers, especially the three great ones - Armini, Talenti and Tosetti - had these documents in their hands, they silenced them by turning to other sources already mentioned, fearing that this other version of the facts would damage the originality of the Founder[1516], without worrying about whether all this was in fact an attack on his greatness.

1516 Commenting Picanyol the paragraph in the Report of 1623, that we have just quoted, he says: “Talenti, to cite only the most authoritative, does not believe it opportune to transcribe the document textually at that point where it deals with the beginning of the Pious Schools in S. Dorotea, maybe because, in his opinion, the merit of Calasanz would be diminished if it was understood, as the Saint affirms, that “the Institute of the Pie Schools had its beginning... from some secular brothers of the Christian Doctrine...” (EGC II, p.173 ).

With Father Bau’s Biografía Crítica many things changed, including the case of the Santa Dorotea school. For the first time, the three documents or testimonies that spoke clearly on the subject were published in translation: the report of 1623, the founder’s letter of 1644 and the entire chapter 12 of Berro, with the important marginal note incorporated into the text. And when the clarity of these texts was not sufficient, the author added his comments.[1517] Nevertheless, we have the impression that Bau did not fully grasp the entire truth of the texts, since he does not adequately distinguish the foundation of the “little school of Santa Dorotea” and the foundation of the “Pious Schools”, nor the scope of gratuity as a characteristic nuance imposed by Calasanz.[1518] New studies, especially those of Sántha and García-Durán[1519], brought more clarity and historical consistency to this transcendental period in the life of the Founder and his work.

1517 Picanyol acknowledged this merit to Bau, adding to the paragraph quoted in the previous note the following: “This, however, is the historical truth and it is not legitimate to distort it. In this particular, the Biogr. crit. (p.175) has put things in place” (ibid.).

1518 “The little school of Santa Dorotea - Bau writes - is not the exclusive foundation of St. Joseph Calasanz. It is the foundation of three or four members of the Christian Doctrine, among whom is he. But there was nothing original about that little school: the children pay their teachers...” (Bau, BC, p.27). (Bau, BC, p.272-273). From the quoted texts it is clear that the little school already existed when Calasanz arrived in Santa Dorotea. Therefore, he had nothing to do with its foundation. Nor is it seen that the Confreres of the Christian Doctrine founded it. It is only said that they were going to give classes. And Bau goes on to say: “Calasanz transformed the little school of Santa Dorotea into a free school... he wants it to be taught there only for the love of God” (ibid. p.275). Gratuity refers only to the students. The teachers do not all teach or would teach “for the love of God”, since Calasanz will pay from his own pocket or from other sources, for many years, the salary of some of them.

1519 We have been quoting them frequently. Of all the immense research work of Sántha, the two articles dedicated to the Confraternities of the Apostles (cf. EphCal 7 [1958], 177-189) and of the Christian Doctrine (cf. EphCal 6 [1958], 149-161) are of particular interest in this topic of the origins of the Order. The work of García-Durán, Itinerarío espiritual... has the advantage of synthesizing the data of Sántha and completing them with new contributions.

Clarification of the facts

The uninterrupted tradition up to the present-day points to the late fall of 1597 as the beginning of the Pious Schools in Santa Dorotea. The surviving account, especially Talenti’s version, arranges the successive steps of the Founder with such logic and precision that the reader almost perceives the snapping of the scissors at the cutting of the inaugural ribbon of the premises and even the solemn formula of the inauguration of the work: “In the name of God ... it has begun.” Someone even regretted not knowing the exact day.[1520] Perhaps the preference for this time of year - when the fall recedes - is related to the beginning of the academic year, which at that time was precisely the beginning of November.[1521]

1520 “…vers la fin de I’automne 1597, nous n’avons pu savoir exactement quel jour, il commença avec ses autres collaborateurs, les Ecoles Pies de Sainte-Dorothée» (TIMON-DAVID, Vie de S. Joseph Calasanct [Marseille 1884] t.I, p.147).

1521 Cf. G. PELLICCIA, o.c., p.110-111, 246-247; R. GARCÍA-VILLOSLADA, o.c., p.87; SÁNTHA, SJC, p.340.

Of course, the date in question has nothing to do with the school of Santa Dorotea, which already existed when Calasanz arrived, as we have seen in the documents cited. It seems that it had already been functioning as a day school for ‘many years’.[1522] However, not only Bau and Picanyol, but also Sántha himself did not fully appreciate the difference between the two founding moments, fearing that the existence of a school in Santa Dorotea would cause difficulties in attributing the founding of the Pious Schools to Calasanz. To this end, it was necessary to interpret the documents in the sense that such a day school of Santa Dorotea was founded by Marco Antonio Arcangeli, Calasanz and some other confreres of Christian doctrine.[1523] However, this interpretation seems inadmissible, as it runs against the normal sense of the sentences and the strong agreement or mutual reinforcement of the texts.[1524]

1522 In the session of August 1, 1599, the president of the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine told the General Meeting that Mr. Marcantonio Arcangeli asked that they accept under his protection «l’opera della Scuola quotidiana, alla quale egli aveva giá atteso ‘molti anni’ et attendeva alla chiesa di Sánta Dorotea in Trastevere» (cf. G. SANTHA, De S. Fundatoris nostri in confraternitate doctrinae christianae..., p.158, n.13).

1523 Commenting on the text cited in the previous note, Sántha writes: «Illa verba hujus textus, quibus Marcus Antonius Archangeli asserit se per multos iam annos schólis quotidianis apud S. Dorotheam astitisse haud parum difficultatis nobis afferrent, si etiam textus superioris Congregationis Secretae [of June 10, 1599] idem diceret. Ast ille omittit quamlibet indicationem temporii, per quod dominus Marcus Antonius dictas scholas adiuvit [simply says: «la scuola quotidiana che egli fa]; ex quo seqitur vocabula «per molti anni» non tam serio esse intelligenda, ut non posset annus 1597 admitti tamquam primus dictarum scholarum. Calasanctius ergo autumno anni 1597 vel initio anni 1598 non iam perfectae cuidam atque omni numero absolutae scholae cotidianae adhaesit, sed easdem adhuc nascentes et in «statu fieri» adiuvandas, ordinandas atque regendas suscepit. Ceterum talis est sensus etiam Ep. 132a et Ep. 4185» (ibid.).

1524 To the “molti anni” of M. A. Arcangeli we have to add the clear “marginal apostille” of Berro, the two texts of Calasanz, quoted at the end of the previous note and the testimonies of Ferrari and Baldi. From all of them it is clear that the little school already existed when Calasanz arrived (cf. A. GARCÍA-DURÁN, o.c., p.71). It does not seem, therefore, exact that Bau and Picanyol affirmed “that the said school of St. Dorotea was already in operation when Joseph joined it in 1597 and made it free”, as Vilá says (cf. C. VILÁ, Fuentes inmediatas de la Pedagogía Calasancia, p.38). Bau said that that school was founded jointly by Calasanz and other confreres, as Picanyol and Sántha confirmed, and that later Calasanz transformed it. But the cited texts say, on the other hand, that it already existed.

The concatenation of facts and data, without forcing the documentary data, seems to be just that: Calasanz’s professional concerns arise from his personal experience as a Visitor to the poor and sick of the Confraternity of the Apostles. And the first time his name appears with this office in the official books of the confraternity is on May 27, 1596.[1525] So, this is the furthest date before which any of the facts with which we are concerned cannot go.

1525 Cf. G. Sántha, De S. Fundatoris nostri in Archiconfr. SS. XII Apost..., p.181. This is about Libro del Camerlengo for the years 1594-1596. Sántha notes the 28 months of silence regarding Calasanz until he is mentioned in the aforementioned date, that is, from the beginning of the book.

Calasanz’s concern to find a solution to the problem of schooling the poor must logically occur after several months in which the situation had deteriorated. Berro points out that his attempts with the teachers, the Capitol and the Jesuits were not successful, despite the recommendations of Cardinal Marco Antonio Colonna.[1526] However, this cardinal died on March 14, 1597 in his palace in Zagarolo,[1527] where he had already retired ill a few weeks earlier. Calasanz had therefore already undertaken the journey in aid of the poor children by this time.

1526 In his Annotazioni he writes: “and not having in any place made success, not even with the favor of His Em. Colonna” (BERRO I, p.72). In his brief Vita he specifies which Colonna it is: “Taking words from His Em. and Most Rev. Card. Mark Antony Colonna appeared our D. Gioseppe in the Campidoglio... but not being able to obtain the grace, recurred with the favor of the said cardinal to the Fathers of the Society of Jesus...” (BERRO, Vita del p. Fondatore delle Scuole Pie, in CAPUTI Notizie Hist., part IX, 1, f.6v).

1527 Cf. Hier. Cath., III, p.40.

One month after the cardinal’s death, on April 9, 1597, Calasanz was asked to visit the Trastevere district, and on May 29th he returned for another visit.[1528] It is therefore logical to assume that on one of these two occasions, accompanied by James de Avila, as Caputi reports, he entered the church of Santa Dorotea to inquire about the list of the sick and poor, and saw for the first time the small parish school, which was looked after by two or three members of the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, including Mark Antony Arcangeli, who had belonged to the Confraternity for many years, and perhaps also James de Avila, for both belonged to this Confraternity, although not the school itself.[1529]

1528 Cf. G. SÁNTHA, o.c., p.184-185.

1529 In a document of June 1597 were named the new priors of the 22 Roman churches that the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine had, and the one of Santa Dorotea does not appear among them, nor does it appear in a list naming all the churches in which the said Confraternity had schools (cf. A. GARCIA-DURAN, o.c., p.87, n.465).

It must have been the parish priest Don Antony Brandini[1530] who founded the school, which was very similar to the official schools in all districts of Rome. The subjects of basic education were the same: Reading, writing, grammar and catechism. Most of the boys paid, only a few were free to reward them for their service in the parish, probably because they were altar boys. On the other hand, this parish school was not an isolated case in Rome, as can be seen from the reports of Apostolic Visitations to parishes in the years immediately after the Council of Trent.[1531] It was therefore not a simple catechetical school, as these were held on Sundays and were free of charge,[1532] whereas the school of Santa Dorotea was held daily and was paid for.

1530 The Calasanctian biographies call him Brendani. On the tombstone at Santa Dorotea, it reads in Latin Brandanus (cf. C. VILA, La Iglesia de Santa Dorotea: EphCal 11 [1980] 467-468). In his death certificate he is called Brandini (cf. ibid., n.28; EGC II, p.47).

1531 In a questionnaire of June 12, I 564, for such visits, it is asked: “If there is a school for children and how they instruct them” And in the reports of the visit of 1566, “Tommaso Orfini mentions various parish priests and chaplains who have school for some children, teaching them reading and writing and grammar... However, the type of relationship in this service, which was only partially free, was changed, probably due to the fact that it was provided to the poor by grants of the Roman Senate to the teachers of the rioni” (G. PELLICCIA, o.c., p.65).

1532 ibid., p.29-37; A. GARCÍA-DURÁN, o.c., p.87, n.465.

Perhaps the reason for the founding of Santa Dorotea and other similar schools was that the official or municipal schools, which were subsidized by the Senate with public funds and of which there were 14 throughout Rome, one for each district (‘rione’),[1533] were inadequate or inconvenient. It may also have influenced the zeal of the parish priests, who wanted to impart the catechism to the children of their parish with more guarantee and did not trust the teachers too much, even though they had prescribed one lesson per week.[1534] The concern for the correct education of children could had greater weight than to entrust them to the care of municipal teachers whose science and morals left much to be desired.[1535] Cardinal Silvio Antoniano says of them in very gloomy tones that they are very often “vagabond and unstable persons and that they care little for the good of the children, but that sometimes they themselves are such that they ought to go to the school of the fear of God and of good morals. As a result of all this, although without reason, teaching children was an abominable and despicable exercise.”[1536]

1533 Cf. G. PELLICCIA, o.c., p.61. See three lists of the teachers and their schools, one of 1539, in which there were only 13 ‘rioni’, and two others of 1586 and 1655, in which the ‘rioni’ are already 14 (cf., ibid., p.431-434). “Really, - Sántha comments - 13 or 14 teachers for a city of 116,000 inhabitants, of whom a minimum number of 5,000 children needed elementary instruction, was little less than nothing” (SÁNTHA, SJC, p.43).

1534 In an ordinance to the teachers of the districts of Rome, not later than 1586, it is said: “that one day a week after lunch, at the election of the teachers, they make their students recite the Christian doctrine, and the day before the feast they remind and command them to go to the doctrine, where it will be held” (cf. G. PELLICCIA, o.c., p.42). There were doubts and fears about the orthodoxy of the teachers (cf. SANTHA, SJC, p.41).

1535 See allusions in various reports of 1556, 1567,1569-70, 1595, 1629 in G. SÁNTHA, SJC, p.39-40.

1536 M. S. ANTONIANO, Tre libri dell’educatione christiana (Verona 1583), p.142 (cit. in SÁNTHA, SJC, p.41).

The birth of a new school

Calasanz’s encounter with the school of St. Dorothea in April or May 1597 was a memorable event. “He liked it so much…”, says Brother Ferrari, confidant and servant of the Holy Founder in the last years of his life, “that on many days, after he had made his visits and his devotions, he went to help teach these schoolchildren.”[1537] And he, who had negotiated with the municipal teachers, the Aldermen of the Capitol, the Jesuits and the Dominicans to admit poor children to their schools free of charge, did the same with the parish priest of Santa Dorotea and his assistant teachers, pursuing his idea with perseverance and relentless logic until he succeeded. He himself tells us in his report of 1623: “And since rich and poor were taught together there, the said Father Joseph saw to it that only the poor were taught, who could not find anyone to teach them the basics.”[1538]

1537 Cited in A. GARCÍA-DURÁN, o.c., p.72, n.422.

1538 Cf. BAU, BC, p.272; EGC II, p.170. And in his 1644 letter to Berro he says: ”…most of the schoolchildren paid each one an amount per month” (C.4185).

It was as simple as that. This conquest was not his work alone. The tree would come later, little by little, like all trees. But it had already been born. And it was different from all the others that existed in Rome. And he knew everything, hill by hill - and there were seven of them -, quarter by quarter - and there were fourteen of them -, centimeter by centimeter... And nowhere had he found a school, however small, where every poor child who wanted to learn to read, write and do arithmetic could be enrolled free of charge... He knew full well that no such school existed, and he wanted to give others the opportunity to invent and shape this new idea. Nobody wanted it. And he kept it to himself. That is why we owe him the honor of having founded the first free elementary school for all children. Originally, when he was growing up, it was reserved exclusively for the poor, for those who could not attend school because they could not afford it. Then, after twenty years of education, it opened its doors and became a school for all, still favoring the poor (praesertim pauperes). But by then it was already a tree. That of Santa Dorotea had become the Congregation of Pious Schools, with religious with simple vows.

So Calasanz’s originality in Santa Dorotea was not that he founded this parish school where the majority paid and a minority went for free, as in the schools in the neighborhood, but that he radically transformed it so that it would be completely free and reserved for the poor. Only when he achieved this transformation could it be said that a new school was born, his own, the free elementary school. When did this happen?

The unanimous tradition points to the fall of 1597, beginning with the most reliable of the analists or biographers of the first hour, Father Berro: “He decided to open the schools, which he did... in 1597, in Trastevere, in the premises of Santa Dorotea.” And then he specifies that “the parish priest of Santa Dorotea died about two years or 30 months after the start of the Pious Schools.”[1539] The exact date of the death of the parish priest Don Antonio Brandini was February 26, 1600.[1540] What Berro logically does not know for sure is this last date, and for this reason he hesitates between two years or two and a half years approximately, in relation to what he knows for sure, which is the beginning of the Pious Schools in 1597, although he does not specify the month. Therefore, the reasoning of Sántha, who considers the traditional year 1597 to be plausible and refers to the beginning of 1598 as “perhaps more in line with historical truth”[1541], does not seem acceptable. The fall of 1599 seems much more unacceptable to us, not only because it violates all traditions, but above all because of the inconsistency of the arguments on which it is based.[1542]

1539 Cf. BERRO I, p.73; BAU, BC, p.278. As milestones of the tradition suffice it to cite ARMINI, Vita, p.74; TALLENTI, Vita, p.60; TOSETTI, Compendio, p.43-44; BAU, BC. p.279. B. BARTLIK, Chronologia historica seu Annales Religionís Cler. Reg. Sch. Piarum, but which goes only up to 1669, begins with Annus Christi 1597 Scholarum Piarum Primus Clementis VIII Sextus (cf. EphCal 2 [1932] 53).

1540 Cf. previous note 1530.

1541 The six months of oscillation proposed by Berro’s doubt would justify, according to Sántha, the plausibility of both hypotheses. He prefers that of January 1598 because in the minutes of the Confraternity of the Apostles, after recording the first two visits of Calasanz to Trastevere (April 9 and May 29, 1597), seven months pass without returning, and in January 1598 he only visits Trastevere, and no less than seven times. From where he concludes that the friendship and dealings of Calasanz with the parish priest and his teachers must have become closer in that month of January and not in the two previous sporadic visits. Then in that month it is “more plausible” that “prima fundamenta primaque elementa et psychologica et materialia scholarum piarum Urbis nascerentur quodam modo atque surgerent” (G. SÁNTHA, De S. Fund. nostri in Archi-confr. SS. XII Apost., p.185). Nevertheless, although this greater frequency of “official” visits to the poor of Trastevere proves that he felt a particular interest in that neighborhood, it should not be forgotten that such “official visits” do not refer to the school of Santa Dorotea, but to the poor of the neighborhood. Moreover, the seven months of hiatus in the visits to the poor do not mean seven months of absence of Trastevere. It is recorded that in the whole year 1959 he made only 65 visits in total (ibid., p. 582), that is, practically one per week (and twelve more). Therefore, they were not a great impediment for him to attend school, to which he could also go - as Br. Ferrari says - after his visits and devotions were over.

1542 Cf. C. VIlÁ, Fuentes inmediatas..., p.38-44; Id., Berro, Sántha, ¿o Calasanz?: Archivum 10 (1981) 223-262. As an example of his idea, we can take the following: “In the folio 16 of the manuscript (Dominic Mª. Marchesi) the author affirms that Calasanz arrived in Rome in ١٥٩٢, and in folio ٢٣v he says that he began the work of the schools in St. Dorothea in ١٥٩٤, that is, «due anni dopo la venuta» a Roma. Now then, a strange hand corrected.... (and) wrote a «٧» over the «٤» of ١٥٩٤, thus clearly reading ١٥٩٧, as the founding date; and the same hand in the phrase «due anni» clearly wrote «sette» over the word «due»; it can be seen that the corrector knew very well that the foundational work took place «seven» years after Calasanz was in Rome, but did not notice that in folio ١٦ it is said by Dominic that he arrived in Rome in the year ١٥٩٢. That is, according to the corrector, the foundational work took place in ١٥٩٩ in Santa Dorotea” (ibid., p.254). But the reader wonders why the proofreader was right in writing “sette” and wrong in writing “7”? Could it not have been the opposite? On the other hand, he did notice that on folio 16 there was the year 1592, and precisely for that reason -according to Vilá’s thesis- he wrote “sette”, because 1592+7 = 1599.

From April or May 1597, when Calasanz discovered the school of Santa Dorotea, until the end of the school year (mid-October), he had time to convince the parish priest and his assistants to change their tactics and make this school free, reserving it exclusively for the poor who could not pay. But things could not be done hastily. The wisest thing to do was to finish the school year as normal, without dismissing anyone or admitting new students. The change would be made at the beginning of the next school year, in early November. So, we arrive, without interpretative stridency, at the late fall of 1597, the date of the tradition.

However, one loose end remained: the economic question. So far, almost all the children have paid. To whom? Only to the priest, as Berro says?[1543] It should not be forgotten that in addition to paying for his own work, the teacher in the municipal schools also had to pay for the rent of the premises, the furniture and other school equipment.[1544] In this case, the premises belonged to the parish, but did not the priest receive compensation for their use? Did he not have to buy the necessities for the school? Did the teachers who helped him receive nothing?

1543 “The parish priest of that church was already doing school paid by the majority” (BERRO, I, p.73)..

1544 Cf. n.l484 of this chapter.

Since Calasanz could only have poor pupils without paying anything, someone had to bear the occasional expenses; perhaps even the rent of the premises or a certain salary for the current teachers or for those who would be needed later when the number of pupils gradually increased. And the person responsible had to be Calasanz, of course, “the father of the child”. So it is not surprising that this economic concern is documented and points to Calasanz. And it was precisely in these last months of 1597 that his work began to function. At that time, he was already thinking of reserving 36 annual ducats for eight years, which were due to him through the agreement or contract he had concluded as a result of his resignation of the “right” over the canonry of Barbastro. And he wanted to give them to “a pious cause”,” he said, “which I intend to do.”[1545]

1545 The summarized paragraph says: “When I resigned the right that I had in the canonry of Barbastro, ... H. Holiness reserved for me 36 ducats of Chamber... of annual pension, which I put in the head of Mossen Joseph Blanch de Benabarre, my nephew, and ‘after having already given up the petition’ I informed him of what I had done, saying that he would be pleased that for a period of eight years I could use said pension in ‘a pious cause that I intend to do’, and he was content...” (c.7). Father A. García-Duran subtly noted that, according to this letter (signed on June 27, 1599), Calasanz communicated to his nephew ‘after having already sent the request’, what he had done or asked for in it and ‘the intentions’ he had in doing so. This request was granted on January 1, 1598; then it had to be formulated some weeks or months before, that is, in November or December 1597, and by then Calasanz already had the idea of gathering a permanent fund or pension for the support of a pious work: the one that was being born in his hands (cf. A. GARCÍA-DURÁN, o.c., p.78, n.439).

The first steps

A free school for poor children. The matter was news. And as such, it soon spread throughout Rome. So, it was something completely new. And children from the other districts of the city began to flock to Trastevere. Never before had so many children crossed the Ponte Sisto, the only bridge the popes had built since imperial times.[1546]

1546 Built in 1474, under Sixtus IV, and disfigured when it was widened with cantilevered sidewalks in 1877-79 (cf. TCI, Guida d’Italia, Roma e dintorni, p.447).

The first small chamber, which served as a classroom, became too small and another one had to be added. Almost half a century later, Calasanz recalled to Berro: “The parish priest lent us a small room and a room on the first floor.”[1547] And Berro would pick up exactly the same information: “He borrowed two rooms to set up the Pious Schools.”[1548] Caputi would also say the same thing[1549] and keep this version also Armini and Tosetti.[1550]

1547 “…the Parish Priest, who lent us a small room and a room in the ground floor” (C.4185).

1548 “…he obtained [from the parish priest] the loan of two rooms to make the Pious Schools” (BERRO, Vita...; CAPUTI, Not. Hist.IX, f.6v). In his Annotationi he says: “…in the proper rooms of the Parish of Santa Dorotea” (BERRO I, p.73).

1549 “The Parish Priest answered him [to Calasanz] that there was a room that they could use as they liked and if that was not enough there were others...” (CAPUTI, Not.Hist., III, n.74).

1550 “…giving Joseph the convenience of some rooms...” (ARMINI, Vita, p.74); “Brendani... gave the use of two rooms”) TOSETTI, Compendio, p.43).

Strangely enough, however, another version was forged from the beginning and has prevailed to this day, according to which everything began ‘in the sacristy’ of Santa Dorotea.[1551] Talenti falsified the expression a little[1552] and made a fortune with his formula.[1553] And the glorification of this sacristy as a privileged place for the birth of Pious Schools and the first free elementary school continues to this day.[1554] And it is not that this is something improbable or anachronistic, because in the Rome of those years there were priests who even taught school in churches and sacristies. And edicts were issued against these “abuses”.[1555] In our case, however, the most reliable testimonies - such as those of Calasanz himself and those of Berro and Caputi quoted above - speak explicitly of two small rooms and do not allude to the sacristy at all. Unfortunately, none of this has been preserved in its original form. In 1729, the church and its outbuildings were handed over to the Conventuals and, given its ruinous state, it was completely demolished and rebuilt from scratch in 1752, as Talenti, a contemporary of these events, notes.[1556]

1551 One of the first was Fr. Peter Mussesti in his Vita ms. (cf. n.1499 of this chap.).

1552 “Brendani esteemed very opportune the two rooms contiguous to his sacristy and, if he wanted this one for a fruitful work, not only presented it to him without interest, but even he offered also...” (TALENTI, Vita, p.59).

1553 Among others cf. F. M. BONADA, Vita Divi Josephi Calasanctii (Rome 1764) t.I, p.130-131; A. CANATA, L’educatore cattolico (Savona 1848) p.31 J. C. LOSADA, Epitome de la vida del héroe español S. José de Calasanz (Madrid 1834) p.34: “the good priest offered him without any interest two rooms immediately next to the sacristy and even this one if necessary.”

1554 Bau writes: “Because in a sacristy and in a room next to a church a school has been opened which is not paid for, the first popular school in the world has been opened” (BAU, BC, p.275); ID, Historia de las EE. Pias en Cataluña. J. COMELLAS, Compendio Histórico de la Vida de S. José de Calasanz (Barcelona 1916) p.57; M. D0MINGUEZ, José de Calasanz (Madrid 1949) p.87; F. GIORDANO, Il Calasanzio, p.63; R. OLLER, Un capdavanter de casa nostra (Barcelona 1978) p.54.

1555 In 1589 the Cardinal Vicar of Rome ordered “no school should be done in the church.” And in 1591 he insisted again to the parish priests “that do not keep school in the church” (quoted in G. PELLICCIA, o.c., p.65). In 1654 the annual edict for teachers expressly forbids any kind of unauthorized private teaching “even in the sacristy” (ibid., p.66, n.64).

1556 Cf. TALENTl, Vita, p.60. This same church of Santa Dorotea was the seat where the Oratory or Society of Divine Love arose and was maintained. It was brought to Rome by Ettore Vernazza between 1513 and 1515, and was very important in pre-Tridentine Rome (cf. R. GARCIA-VILLOSLADA, Historia de la Iglesia Catolica, vol. III [BAC, Madrid 1960] p.586-587). And two outstanding members of this Society, St. Cajetan Thiene and John Peter Carafa (future Paul IV), also founded in this church the first Order of Clerics Regular, the Teatines, in 1524 (cf. ibid., p.814). Today, entering the church, on the right side, there is an altar with a large painting by Gioachino Martorana (XIX c.), representing the Holy Founders Cajetan and Calasanz; in one of the lunettes of the right transept there is another image of Calasanz, frescoed; on the exterior façade, to the right of the entrance, a slab, placed in November 1947, commemorates the 350th anniversary of the foundation (1597-1947) (cf. C. VILÁ, La iglesia de S. Dorotea: EphCal 11 [980] 460-471). Text of the slab in Q. SANTOLOCI, Giuseppe Calasanzio educatore e santo (Rome 1948) p.51.

Due to the growing influx of boys, the two classrooms were no longer sufficient and other rooms had to be rented in an adjoining house.[1557] And -Berro writes further- “the number of pupils grew in such a way that the teachers could not take care of them all, but he (Calasanz) tried to employ more workers at his own expense, so that when the number of pupils multiplied, he provided new teachers.”[1558]

1557 “…also renting a house near those rooms for 30 scudos a year” (BERRO, III, p.246). He wrote the same in the brief Vita (cf. CAPUTI, Not.Hist., IX, f.6v).

1558 BERRO III, p.246.

On December 24, 1598, one of the most catastrophic floods of the Tiber in living memory occurred in Rome. Even today, you can still see marble plaques in various parts of the city marking the line where the water arrived, such as on the façade of the Dominican church of Santa Maria sopra Minerva or on a column in Via Ripetta, next to the Cavour Bridge, on which the lines of several historical floods are marked. It seems incredible: about ten meters above the normal level of the river. Some say there were 1,400 victims, others claim there were 4,000. The material damage was also enormous and, according to rough estimates, exceeded two million gold escudos.[1559]

1559 P. PECCHIAI, Roma nel Cinquecento (Bologna 1948) p.421; PASTOR, o.c., vol.24, p.264-265.

One of the hardest hit neighborhoods was Trastevere due to its proximity to the Tiber, its low ground level and the poverty and instability of its houses. And the consequences were also felt in the schools of Santa Dorotea, located about a hundred meters from the riverbank, where one of the classrooms was “a room on the first floor”, as Calasanz wrote.[1560] The Christmas holidays gave him more freedom to devote himself fully to rescuing victims and helping everyone, but especially the poor, who always suffer the most in all public disasters. His status as a member of the Holy Apostles would impose greater duties and responsibilities on him. And although there is no early evidence to support this, it is very likely that Calasanz and Camilo de Lellis, friends of God and the poor, were once again engaged in charitable work in the streets that had become muddy.

1560 C.4185 (cf. n.1547 above).

The water receded and the damage to the schools had to be repaired. The need of the moment perhaps made it necessary to attend to the most urgent needs of the poor, and the ordinary funds that Calasanz had set aside for the upkeep of his schools were used for other purposes. There were probably debts that had to be paid and it was not known how. Moreover, looking realistically to the future, it was not possible to think only of Calasanz’s pocket to maintain the schools, which every day - not counting occasional disasters like this one - demanded more money, more teachers and more security. A stable solution was therefore devised.

One of Calasanz’s best collaborators was Mark Antony Arcangeli, a very prominent member of the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine. On June 10, 1599 - according to the official minutes of that day - “Mr. Mark Antony Arcangeli proposed in the secret session that the Confraternity would like to take under his protection the ‘daily school he makes in Santa Dorotea’ in order to favor it and help it as much as the Confraternity could. Those gentlemen accepted the proposal and submitted it to the approval and decision of the Board of Priors and Officers, offering to place the school under their protection and help it in every way.”[1561]

1561 Cf. G. SANTHA, De S. Fund. nostri in confrat. Doct. Christ..., p.158, n.12.

On August 1st of the same year, when the aforementioned general assembly was held, “in which all the members of the Confraternity must participate,” as the minutes state, the president Antonio Cisoni reported what had been agreed in the secret meeting of June 10th, and therefore proposed, if they agreed, “to have it under their protection and to help in everything that the Confraternity could do for the benefit and maintenance of the said work of so much charity. And the said Board of Priors had the good will and there was no one to oppose it.”[1562]

1562 Ibid., p.158, n.13. Sántha summarizes the act saying: ‘Congregatio vero Generalis die prima mensis Augusti habita rem sibi propositam ratam habuit scholamque quotidianam apud S. Dorotheam omni meliore modo adiuvandam decrevit; eam tamen ut suam admittere et regere propter numerum exiguum operariorum noluit’ (ibid., p.152). But this refusal is not recorded in the minutes of this day, but in those of March 27, 1601 (ibid., p.159, n.18), as we will see later.

The Confraternity’s generous response must have pleased not only Arcangeli, but above all Calasanz, who hoped that the Confraternity would go one step further and take full responsibility for the schools. And perhaps out of gratitude or with the intention of achieving this goal, and also at the request of Marcantony Arcangeli and other confreres who worked with him, Calasanz decided to enroll in the Confraternity, probably in the last months of 1599, because his name does not appear as a member of the secret board until the beginning of 1600.[1563]

1563 Cf. ibid., p.152. We have already said that the thesis of Sántha, according to which Calasanz must have been registered at the end of 1597 or the beginning of 1598, seemed unacceptable to us. Two long years of silence in the books of the confraternity seem to us more than eloquent enough to exclude his belonging to it.

“Crossing the Rubicon”

In the report of 1623, Calasanz wrote: “From Santa Dorotea, at the beginning of the last Holy Year 1600, the schools were transferred within Rome to a small house near the Paradise Inn, for which 56 escudos per year were paid as rent. And as the number of pupils increased sharply, another neighboring house had to be rented for one hundred escudos per year, which was attended by around 500 boys. The schools were housed in these two houses for almost two years.”[1564] Admirable conciseness and precision of data, but nothing is said about the reasons for the relocation.

1564 EGC II, p.170.

Some twenty years later, in a letter to Berro, he gives some further details: “When the pastor died,” he says, “I decided ... to locate them [the schools] in Rome, knowing the great poverty that prevailed there, having visited all the neighborhoods of Rome and having belonged for six or seven years to the Confraternity of the Holy Apostles; and of the companions I had in Trastevere, only one followed me; and the Institute was located in Rome.”[1565] For his part, after another twenty years, Berro noted in his memoirs that after the death of the parish priest of Santa Dorotea, “many thought and endeavored to give the parish to our Don Joseph, but he would not accept it under any circumstances... and replied that he would have had to leave the Pious Schools for the parish.”[1566] And adding a little to the news he had received in the above-mentioned letter, Berro continued:

1565 C.4185, dated May 20, 1644.

1566 BERRO I, p.73.

“…the good odor of the Pious Schools had spread throughout Rome to such an extent that the number of boys who came to Trastevere from all parts was incredible, which is why our Father Joseph, out of pity for the boys who came from so far away, and on the other to do greater honor to His Divine Majesty and to be more useful to our neighbors, on the occasion of the death of the said parish priest, he decided to transfer the Pious Schools to Rome..., but only one of the workers who had helped him in the Pious Schools of Trastevere followed him. But he was not discouraged when he saw that he had only one worker, but he put his trust in H.D.M. and sought and found excellent collaborators for this undertaking.”[1567]

1567 Ibid., p.73-74.

The occasion was the death of Don Antonio Brandini, which occurred on February 26, 1600. Calasanz lost a friend, a protector and a revered collaborator.[1568] And if what Berro says is true, then the decisive reason for the transfer would be that Don Antonio’s successor demanded that the two small rooms that served as a school should remain vacant.[1569] But even if the new priest’s alleged decision had no influence, there were more than enough reason for the change. Calasanz himself knew from personal experience how inconvenient it was to walk every day - morning and afternoon - from the remote neighborhoods on the other side of the river to the school in Trastevere, as he lived in the Colonna Palace. And it was a fact that poor boys from all corners of Rome came to Santa Dorotea. On the other hand, Trastevere was certainly a poor neighborhood, but poor people existed in every neighborhood, and he knew it because he was a visitor of the Confraternity of the Apostles. So, there was no reason to hesitate. He spoke to his collaborators and must have felt the effects of the general rejection in his heart. Only one followed him: Mark Antony Arcangeli. But the poor children... they all followed him.

1568 He was buried in his parish. In 1748, following the beatification of Calasanz, the following was added to his epitaph: “Vetus monumentum Antonii Brandani qui Scholis Piis instituendis B. Josephum Calasanctium hospitio recepit et adiuvit” (cf. C. VILÁ, La iglesia de Sta. Dorotea, p.467-468). His name has always been remembered among the Piarists with veneration and gratitude (cf. C. VILÁ, Galeria de escolapios “seculares”: Archivum 14 (1983) 264-265. M. PÉREZ, Corona Calasancia [Madrid 1865] I, p.45-47; E. LLANAS, Escolapios insignes, I, p.151-153; J. JERICÓ, Varones insignes, p.19-20).

1569 “The parish priest died and the successor wanting the two rooms free, it was thought the remedy” (BERRO, Vita brief in CAPUTTI, Not.Hist., IX, f.6v).

They passed the Ponte Sisto for the last time and perhaps the Tiber felt like the Rubicon to the determined Calasanz that day. It was certainly a decisive and risky step. In a way, he was breaking with his past and embarking on an adventure. It was enough to look around: What was he going to do with so many children and only one collaborator? But in reality, those who crossed the Sixtus Bridge that day were not just Calasanz, Arcangeli and a few hundred children, but the Institute of Pious Schools. And God with them: auctore Deo institutae, as Paul V would say.[1570]

1570 Cf. Brief Cum pridem (March 24, 1607) in Archivum VIII (1943) 23. Reading the letter of Calasanz to Berro, of 1644, it seems to be deduced that one of the determining causes of the transfer would be to be able to eliminate definitively the students of payment, something that he had not been able to achieve completely living Brandini (cf. A. GARCÍA-DURÁN, o.c., p.87-88). Calasanz wrote, in fact: “I found myself with two or three others of the Christian Doctrine who went to Trastevere to make certain schools that were made in Sta. Dorotea in which because most of the pupils paid a monthly fee and of the companions some came in the morning and some came in the evening, I resolved, when the parish priest passed away... to put them in Rome” (C.4185). A strict interpretation of the paragraph would lead us to the conclusion that indeed “he put them in Rome because most of the children paid a certain amount per month and he knew the great poverty that existed....” But the paragraph is inconclusive, since it does not say what his solution was: did he completely eliminate those who paid or did he simply content himself with inverting the terms, so that most of the children did not pay, but some did...? To decipher the ambiguity, it is enough to turn to the Report made by Calasanz himself some twenty years earlier, necessarily clearer and more truthful because of its character of public or historical report and because it is closer to the facts. And in it he expressly says that ‘already in Santa Dorotea’ he managed to eliminate “the rich” [those in payment] and admit “only the poor” (cf. text corresponding to n. 1513 of this chapter).

Santa Dorotea was left behind. But Calasanz, his Order and History will always remember that “the Institute of Pious Schools - as the Founder repeated in a memorandum in 1625 - which was introduced in Rome at the beginning of the Holy Year 1600, had its beginning in the church of Santa Dorotea, next to the Settimian Gate.”[1571]

1571 Cf. EGC II. p.344-345.

The Square of Paradise

“From Santa Dorotea... the schools were taken inside Rome to a small house near the Paradise Inn...”, Calasanz recalled in 1623. ‘Piazza del Paradiso’ is still located there today, next to the church of ‘St. Andrea della Valle’. He set foot in this neighborhood and never wanted to leave it, because from this small square he went to the other side of the church and from there to the nearby square of San Pantaleo, for good. It was a very popular neighborhood that revolved around the ‘Campo dei Fiori’, a street market, then as now. Undoubtedly one of the most important and busiest spots in papal Rome. The place of public executions and the official announcement of prohibitions and papal Bulls or Briefs. Exactly on February 17th of that holy year 1600, a few weeks before Calasanz settled nearby, the heretic Dominican Giordano Bruno was burned alive at the stake in the center of the Campo dei Fiori. This square was no less famous in ancient Rome either, as both the Paradise and Campo dei Fiori squares bordered on the area where the Theater of Pompey and the adjoining ‘Curia Pompeii’ were built. This is where Julius Caesar was murdered by Brutus and Cassius.[1572] These were not very pleasant memories, but they were very instructive in Latin lessons.

1572 Cf. TCI, Guide d’Italia. Roma e dintorni, p.223 and 234.

The huge dome of St. Andrew’s - the second in Rome after that of his brother Peter - did not yet dominate the area. It was not due to be completed until 1625. The entire mass of the temple, begun in 1591, was only sketched out, waiting for the great architect of the time, Charles Maderno, to resume work in 1608.[1573]

1573 ib. p.223.

The ever-increasing rents indicate, in a way, the enlargement of the premises and the growth of the students: 30 escudos the rented house next to the classrooms of Santa Dorotea[1574]; 56, the first one next to the Inn of Paradise; 100 the second one attached to the previous one; 200 the following one, Palazzo Vestri; 350 Palazzo Mannini and... 10.000 the last house, San Pantaleo, no longer rented but bought.[1575] In the two houses in Piazza del Paradiso, “the schools were held for almost two years”, says Calasanz,[1576] i.e. from March 1600 - Don Brandini had died at the end of February - until the beginning of 1602. And the number of students had already reached 500.

1574 Cf. n.1557 above.

1575 It is curious that it is Calasanz himself who specifies the amounts in the Report of 1623 (cf. EGC II, p.170-171).

1576 Cf. ibid., p.170.

For Calasanz, the transfer from Trastevere meant a radical change to his other duties. The visits he made as a confrere of the Holy Apostles decreased, while he devoted himself to the schools of Santa Dorotea. Thus in 1597 he was entrusted with 101 visits, but made only 65; in 1598 he made only 42 of the 102 visits he was supposed to make; in 1599 he made only 11 of the 105 visits he was supposed to make; in 1600 only three; in 1601 only two. On August 1, 1601, he was appointed Visitor for the last time.[1577] The drastic drop in the number of visits in the last two years is logically related to the full responsibility he assumed for the schools by taking them out of Santa Dorotea, where the number of collaborators and the more or less dedicated protection of the parish priest still gave him a reasonably free hand.

1577 Cf. G. SÁNTHA, De S. Fund. nostri in Archi. SS. XII Apost..., p.182-186.

On the other hand, since his name appeared on the books of the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine in early 1600, he gradually intensified his services, grateful in part for the help they were giving him according to the promises made to him the previous August, and confident that this Confraternity would be the sure quarry from which he could draw more collaborators and more financial resources. Thus, in January 1600, he began to attend the secret meetings; on August 13th, he was appointed extraordinary visitor of the catechetical schools for girls together with the Spaniard Francis Villoslada; three days later, together with Francis Lanterio, he was commissioned to negotiate with the gypsies about the right time to teach them the catechism. The following year, the services were expanded: On February 6th, Calasanz and Villoslada were assigned to divide among themselves the girls’ catechesis to be attended, and it was decided that Calasanz and Jerome Sánchez, also a Spaniard, would go the following Sunday to visit the catechesis of the girls of St. Nicholas in Campo Marzio. On the 26th of the same month, a general meeting of visitors was held to distribute the catechesis, and Joseph Calasanz was assigned the catechesis of St. Mary in Via, St. Mary in Constantinopoli, and Sts. Vincent and Anastasius.[1578] As the catechism classes took place on Sundays, they did not directly interfere with his school work.

1578 Cf. ID., De S. Fund. nostri in Confr. Doct. Christ..., p.158-159, n.14-17.

Undoubtedly, the Confraternity rewarded Calasanz’s duties by fulfilling his promises of help and protection regarding the daily school they called “of Saint Andrew della Valle”, as evidenced by the fact that we read in the session of March 13, 1601: “Mr. Fiammella and the secretary were instructed to speak with Mr. Francis de Rustici about the rent that the Pope wishes to pay for the children’s school of Saint Andrew.”[1579] And it is worth mentioning that we learn for the first time that on March 13, 1601, Clement VIII already knew of the existence of the schools of Calasanz before they were called ‘Pious Schools’ and, moreover, was willing to support them financially.

1579 Cf. ibid., p.159, n.18.

Providencial failures

Trusting in the benevolence of the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine towards his schools, Calasanz attempted to launch a final assault. Perhaps out of delicacy and caution, he did not want to present the question himself, and since the first time, two years earlier, Mark Antony Arcangeli had proposed the subject, it seemed more convenient to both of them that he should again be the petitioner. At the session of March 27, 1601, we read in the minutes: “Mr. Mark Antony Arcangelo spoke at length about the school of St. Andrew ‘della Valle’, whether our Confraternity wished to take over its protection and provide it with everything necessary, and that it would thus be called a work of the Christian Doctrine and no other. To this the Board replied that it did not want to take over such a matter because it did not feel able to do so, but that it would help with everything in its power.”[1580] Two years earlier, they had asked the Confraternity to help in any possible way. And they had promised. Now the Confraternity was asked to take responsibility and fulfill all their needs. And they refused.

1580 Ibid.

Elections for president of the fraternity were to be held in three months, and Calasanz, who probably saw the opportunity to achieve as president what he had not achieved as a simple confrere, presented his candidacy at the session at the end of March. On July 1, 160 confreres met in the house of Cardinal Alexander de Medici (later Leo XI) to conduct the election. After an initial examination of all the candidates, the three who had received the most votes were elected. Then one after the other was elected and this was the result: Mgr. Mellini received 69 white and 91 black beans; Joseph Calasanz 60 white and 100 black, and Mr. Antonio Cisoni, the outgoing president, 126 white and 34 black. He was thus confirmed in office.[1581] Calasanz had lost his last chance.

1581 A. GARCÍA-DURÁN, o.c., p.92, n.479; BAU, BC, p.262-263.

Two resounding failures in three months. At the end of March, they rejected his work, his schools. They would not accept them as their own, not even with the incentive of giving them its name. At the beginning of July, they rejected him. They do not want him as president. In this man’s life, every failure is a triumph, or rather a twisted line from God, who always writes so beautifully straight. And these two successive failures were decisive in his setting himself up as a Founder and in his work being born under his own name, Pious Schools, rather than remaining an appendix of the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine. With great clairvoyance, Sántha wrote in this context:

“The unfavorable decisions of the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine with regard to the daily schools of Calasanz and the defeat in the elections of 1601 are undoubtedly true providential events in favor of the institute of Pious Schools. For if the Confraternity had adopted as its own the daily schools of Calasanz, located first in Santa Dorotea and then next to St. Andrew de la Valle, or if Calasanz himself, who was elected president, had decided to adopt them as his own, the Institute of Pious Schools as such, that is, as an independent institution for the free daily education of poor children in piety and letters, would never have come into being or reached full maturity.”[1582]

1582 Cf. G. SÁNTHA, o.c., p.153-154.

There was, however, no quarrelsomeness, because in the same year 1601 Calasanz took part in almost all the secret meetings of the Confraternity and took on the office of visitor, nurse and many other tasks. In the following years, he also held the office of spiritual advisor until his name disappeared from the official books in 1605.[1583] For its part, the Confraternity also fulfilled its promises, especially through the selfless help of some of its members, who became generous collaborators of the daily schools for the poor, which left their anonymity and began to be called “Pious Schools”

1583 Ib., p.153; BAU, BC, p.263.

The burning of boats

When Joseph Calasanz arrived in Rome in the second half of February 1592, he gave the impression of having a return ticket in his pocket. He came with the air of a winner, a man who held all the cards and had an ace up his sleeve. In his first letter to the parish priest of Peralta, he writes that thanks to the influence of the secretary of the Spanish ambassador, the Aragonese Don Peter Jiménez Murillo, and a secret steward of the Pope, Don James Palafox, also from Aragón and later Marquis of Ariza, he was given a canonry in Urgel as soon as he arrived. But the Datario refused to give him the office because he was a newcomer and promised him the first canonry he would give up. In addition to these two protectors, he had the favor of a papal butler through a Carthusian friend, and he also relied on the help of the old Cardinal Colonna. It would only be a matter of a few months.

Ten months passed and Calasanz maintained the same optimistic attitude as on the first day, which he also expressed in a letter to his parish priest: “You will send greetings on my behalf to my nieces from the house of Peter Ferrer, as well as to my sister and her daughters; and you will tell them that I wish to return to Spain soon to be able to help them in what they need, and that I have great confidence that I will soon be provided for.”[1584] In May 1593, he still held on to the same wishes and hopes: “I will try to return as soon as possible.”[1585] The following year, in September, he continued to speak of a return, but he was no longer in a hurry: “Quando será Dios servido que yo buelva a esa tierra...” (When will God be good enough for me to return to this land...).[1586] In the following letters, he stops mentioning wishes and hopes for a return. Nevertheless, he continues to fight for a canonry, because without this office it would be humiliating to return to his homeland, a loser. He did indeed receive the coveted benefice in Barbastro, but after a long and furious legal battle, he renounced the rights he had acquired and an agreement was reached between the parties to the dispute at the beginning of 1598. He could then have returned to Spain, but he did not return, perhaps so as not to be left empty-handed and perhaps so as not to abandon the work of the schools of Santa Dorotea. So he did not completely break the ties that bound him to the Apostolic Dataria, and although he had renounced “residence benefits”, he sought some non-residencial benefits. And on June 27, 1599, he wrote again to Peralta that the Datario “has offered to give me simple ones when the opportunity arises.”[1587]

1584 C. 4.

1585 C. 5.

1586 C. 6.

1587 C. 7.

Another canonry was in the air for years, the best of all, which he does not mention, perhaps because the long process of granting it had not come to an end. From 1592 Philip II began the secularization of the Seo Chapter of Saragossa, which until then had consisted of Canons Regular of St Augustine. His ambassador in Rome, the Duke of Sesa, was the one who brought the matter before Pope Clement VIII.

On November 24, 1594, the King wrote a very important letter to the duke, suggesting to him who the new twenty-four canons should be, telling him, “the canons up to twenty-four according to the plan; six regular, which there are now in the church, should be the first. Then the following fifteen, who shall be considered the best subjects of the kingdom of Aragón, having previously received various information from the most serious persons of the kingdom... [and fifteen names follow] ... all were considered old Christians, ‘pure’ and of good behavior. The choice of the other three to 24 I wished to send to you... so that you do it of the eight Aragonese named in the memorandum that accompanies this one, who are thought to be at that Court [in Rome], choosing those who seem most appropriate to you and who have taken an interest in this matter.”[1588] Given the date of this procedure (1592-94) and the interest shown by the secretary of the embassy and the pope’s secret steward, both Aragonese, in Calasanz’s claims to the canonries, it would be strange if they had not obtained from the Duke of Sesa the inclusion in the list of Calasanz’s name, who occupied one of the three positions that the king had earmarked for the illustrious Aragonese in Rome.

1588 Cited in J. POCH, Mossén Josep Calassanç a la diòcesi d’Urgell (1587-1591): Cat 195 (1977) 38.

Among the documents relating to this matter, kept in the archives of the Seo of Zaragoza, a list of names proposed for the new Chapter appeared in 1952 (sic), and in number 26 we read: “D. Josephed (sic) de Calasanz, native of Peralta, near Monçón, who is in Rome.”[1589] And in the margin it says “pure”, as required in the king’s letter, i.e. of pure blood, without mixture of Jews or Moors etc., as it was called at the time. And everything indicates that this list of Zaragoza is directly related to the list that Philip II sent to his Roman ambassador, and that the inclusion of the name of Calasanz was the work of the Duke of Sesa, who was advised by his secretary and other influential friends who knew and appreciated the merits of the candidate of Peralta. This list of Zaragoza must therefore be dated from 1594-95.

1589 See photograph of that page in C. BAU, Historia de las Escuelas Pías en Cuba, next to p.1. As a result of this finding, the archivist canon, Francisco Fernández Serrano, wrote an article in El Noticiero with the title: San José de Calasanz, ¿canónigo de la Seo? (El Noticiero, July 3, 1952), published again in V. FAUBELL, Antología periodística calasancia, p.63 -66.

The king intended to obtain from the pope not only the secularization of the chapter, i.e. that the canons were secular clergy and not Canons Regular, but also royal patronage over all dignities and canonries, which Clement VIII refused, so that the matter dragged on. Calasanz had to know that he was included in the list of candidates. And since the dignities of doctor, magister, penitentiary and lector were to be chosen through a competition,[1590] it is very likely that Calasanz wrote a sketch with this possible competition in mind, in order to elaborate it later in words or in writing. The theme revolves around the advantages of Zaragoza over Rome, with explicit reference to Our Lady of Pilar.[1591]

1590 In the aforementioned letter of Philip II, we read: “and although the canons Doctoral, Magistral and Penitencial and Lector are to be provided by a contest of votes of the Archbishop and Cabildo, it is convenient that I appoint them, without them, this first time” (cit. in J. POCH, l.c.).

1591 We have already discussed this in chapter 1.

Philip II died (on September 13, 1598) without having received either the royal patronage or the change of Chapter, as both were united. His son and successor, Philip III, resumed the proceedings in 1599 and, being more lenient in his claims to the patronage, obtained the Bull (15 July 1604) for secularization and the reduction of the patronage to four months a year.[1592] In the new list of canons who took office on November 16, 1605, Dr. Calasanz was no longer listed, but neither were others, either because they had already died or because they had been promoted to Aragonese episcopal sees.[1593] However, Calasanz’s absence was due to the fact that he had decided not to apply for residencial benefits since the first months of 1599.[1594] The Seo of Saragossa thus lost a very worthy Canon.

1592 Philip III wrote to his Roman ambassador on October 14, 1607: ...” the King my lord, may he be glorified, asked His Holiness Clement VIII to be good enough to secularize it and give it the patronage of all the dignities and canonries; and because it was not finished during the life of his Majesty, I made the same request and his Holiness was good enough to secularize it and grant me the patronage of all the dignities and canonries for four months a year, keeping the provision of another four months and giving the Archbishop two months and the chapter another two....” And he asked the Pope to “be so kind as to grant me entirely the Patronage of all the dignities and canonries of the said church of Zaragoza as the King my Lord and I requested” (quoted in J. POCH, 1.c., p.39).

1593 Cf. ibid.

1594 F. Serrano in his article in El Noticiero suggests that the name of Calasanz was included in the last list by the Cabildo itself (cf. V. FAUBELL, o.c., p.65). López Navío, for his part, proposes that the main responsible for such nomination was Cardinal Ascanius Colonna, friend of Calasanz and Viceroy of Aragón from l60l-1604, in whose position he had enough influence to achieve his purpose (cf. J. LÓPEZI-NAVÍO, Ambiente histórico..., p.252-253). But the documentation adduced by Poch makes it more plausible that the inclusion of the name of Calasanz was due to the characters in Rome close to the Duke of Sesa and that it took place in the first attempt of Philip II and not in the time of Philip III. On the other hand, the Cabildo could not have had much influence if it was precisely to be formed with those lists.

It is curious that with all these claims to a canonry, Calasanz did not try to obtain one in the newly created diocese of Solsona. The circumstances could not have been more favorable: The diocese was established by the papal bull of August 1, 1593 with a Chapter consisting of four dignities (dean, archdeacon, cantor and treasurer) and twelve canons. Most of the new diocese consisted of the large monasteries of the Canons Regular of St. Augustine (St. Mary of Solsona, St. Peter of Ager and St. Vincent of Cardona) and 258 parishes that had previously belonged to the diocese of Urgel. Some of the new canons received their benefices by going directly to Rome.[1595] Perhaps Calasanz did not consider it honorable to claim a canonry in a diocese that was the result of an unpleasant legal dispute with his own diocese of Urgel, involving Bishop Capilla, who protested against the enormous dismemberment.

1595 Cf D. COSTA Y BOFARULL, Memorias de la ciudad de Solsona y su Iglesia (Ed. Balmes, Barcelona 1959), vol. I, p.334-347.

There was one more offer - the last one - from the secretary of the Spanish embassy, demonstrating the sincere friendship and interest in supporting Calasanz. Berro remembers this and places it in the Holy Year 1600, shortly after the death of the parish priest of Santa Dorotea. He says:

“... many thought and endeavoured that the parish [of Santa Dorotea] might be given to D. Joseph, but he would by no means accept, either this assignment or a canonry in the city of Seville, which was endowed with 1,200 escudos, saying that for the parish he would have had to give up the Pious Schools; and to the secretary of the embassy of the Catholic king he said, when he thanked him for the offer: “I have found in Rome a better way to serve God by helping this poor boys; I will not leave it for anything in the world.”[1596]

1596 BERRO, I, p.73.

This is undoubtedly a brilliant sentence that gives his whole life a full and joyful meaning. And he remained faithful to this decision until his death. In doing so, he gave up forever his pursuit of ecclesiastical benefices, for which, among other matters, he had gone to Rome. In a way, it was like burning the boats.

Chapter 14

Congregation of the Pious Schools of Rome

We return to Calasanz’s report from 1623: “In these two houses - next to the Inn of Paradise - the schools remained for almost two years. And as the number of students kept increasing, it was necessary to take a larger house, behind San Andrea della Valle, where the Theatine Fathers now have the porter’s lodge of their house, for 200 escudos a year, from Msgr. Vestri.”[1597] It was not necessary to go very far. You simply walked from the right side of the church - with a view of the façade - to the left side, into the street that is now called Via del Monte della Farina.

1597 EGC II, p.170.

Berro specified the location even further: “in the house of Mgr. Octaviano Vestri, of the Counts of Cuneo, Master of the House of our Lord Clement VIII, located in the street that leads from the porter’s lodge of S. Andrea della Valle to S. Carlo ai Catinari, just in front of the alley of the church of SS. Cosimo and Damiano dei Barbieri (today Via dei Barbieri), and which is located in the same house of the Theatine Fathers, our D. Joseph Calasanz had opened the Pious Schools since 1602.”[1598] And here they were exactly until November 1, 1605.[1599] It was almost four years, but the significance of the events was transcendent for Calasanz’s personal life and for the history of his institution.

1598 This new writing of Fr. Berro is entitled Delli operarii delle Scuole Pie e loro qualitá nel 1604, which has another version titled Delli operarii delle Scuole pie nel principio del 1604 e loro conditioni, published by G. SÁNTHA, Quattuor novi elenchi antiquissimorum S. Josephi Calanctii in Scholis Piis... cooperatorum: EphCal 11-12 (1959) 383-387. Sántha calls them Report B and Report A respectively, after the order of publication. And so we shall call them from now on. The quoted text is from Report B (p.385) and has its parallel in Report A (p.383).

1599 Cf. EGC II, p.171. The house of Bishop Vestri became the property of the Theatines, who remain there to this day.

The Pious Schools: Name and Congregation

On March 27, 1601, Mark Antony Arcangeli calls the school of Calasanz “the school of Saint Andrew della Valle”, with a toponymic reference, since it is located in the small square of Paradiso, next to the above-mentioned church under construction. It does not have its own name. He offered it to the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine so that, if accepted, it would bear the name of said Confraternity.[1600] A year later, precisely on April 4, 1602, the Florentine priest Giovanni Francesco Fiammelli declared himself “Brother of the Congregation of Pious Schools”, claiming to be the author of the work Il Principe Cristiano Guerriero, as it also appears on the printed cover of this work.[1601] Between these two dates, the schools of Calasanz moved from the small square of Paradiso to the house of Msgr. Vestri, received the name “Pious Schools” and constituted themselves as a Congregation. According to Berro, the move took place in 1602. The other two events most probably took place after July 1601, after the failure of the election of the president, because until then Fr. Joseph was confident that he could make the confraternity responsible for these schools, which did not yet have their own name. It is logical to assume that after this second failure, Calasanz and his collaborators began to think seriously about creating a stable association that would be responsible for the schools, and that they also decided to give the schools their own name. Perhaps everything happened at the same time: transfer, own name and Congregation.

1600 “…in questo modo si chiamaria opera della Dottrina Christiana et non altrimenti” (G. SÁNTHA, De S. Fundatoris n. in confr. Doctr. Christ., p.159, n.18).

1601 Il Principe Cristiano Guerriero. Di ‘Gio. Francesco Fiammelli Fiorentino, Matematico, Teórico e Pratico, Fratello della Congregazione delle Scuole Pie (cf. reprod. Fotogr. in BAU, BC, p.589, G. SÁNTHA, 1.c.).

At this time, Mr. Francesco Rustici seems to have been particularly active and influential. He was already known to Calasanz from the Confraternity of the Apostles, to which he had belonged since at least 1594, and was a former member of the Christian Doctrine. We have already seen that in March 1601 the board of this confraternity instructed Fiammelli and the secretary to negotiate with Rustici about the lease that the Pope wanted to give to the school of Calasanz. The reason for his influence on the Pope is given to us by another collaborator of Calasanz at this time, the priest Gelio Ghellini. In a letter to his brother dated July 20, 1602, he reports: “Mr. Rustici, a man who already had cardinals in his house and is the brother-in-law of Monsignor Vestri, the Secretary of Briefs, gave a great banquet for all the workers last week and he is the administrator of the alms of the schools, or rather, of our Congregation.”[1602]

1602 EC III, p.1552. In the two letters he writes to his brother Paul, dated July 20, 1602 and August 31, 1602, he speaks of the “congregation” several times and only once uses the expression “scole pie” in the second letter (cf. ibid. p.1555).

He was undoubtedly the one who had told his brother-in-law, Msgr. Vestri, about the existence and activity of the schools of Calasanz, who in turn told the Pope, whose interest and promises of help were already on record in March of last year. There is no doubt that, given the lack of space in Piazza del Paradiso, he arranged for his brother-in-law to rent his very large house, where some of the priest-teachers live “in good rooms” and around 700 boys attend the schools.[1603] Due to his influence - knight and Roman nobleman - he also intervened with the Conservators of the Capitol so that they would grant a certain pension to the schools, which were already known as Pious Schools, and in August 1602 they were actually allocated 25 escudos per year.[1604]

1603 “We are in a house that pays two hundred escudos, that has greenery and courtyard and cheerful air and good rooms... These boys, who -being 700- are scattered all over Rome...”

1604 Cf. n.1488 of the previous chapter. Sántha assures: “inter cives qui causam nostram tractaverunt, invenitur etiam noster Franciscus Rustici”, in the cited capitoline books (G. SANTHA, o.c., p.160, n.24).

The name Pious Schools, appropriate to the work of Calasanz, is already a fact in 1602, when they are established in the house of Msgr. Vestri. In 1603, even the official books of the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine speak of “the Fathers of the Pious Schools”.[1605] However, there is no documentable period between the introduction of the name and the existence of the Congregation, since the two appear together for the first time on the title page of the above-mentioned book by Fiammelli. Nor can it be doubted that Clement VIII approved the Institute and the Congregation of Pious Schools in the same year, 1602, at least by word of mouth. An apostolic Brief was also requested, but it seems that it was never issued. Msgr. Vestri was involved in all of this. An extraordinary witness is Gelio Ghellini, who writes on July 20, 1602: “Msgr. Vestri made this known to the Pope, who showed himself and said he was glad that such a work had begun in his pontificate. He was informed in detail about all the actions.”[1606] And the following month, on August 31, 1602, he added: “Mgr. Vestri... is trying very hard to get the Pope not only to approve the Institute, as we have done, but also to help the work and its Congregation with an Apostolic Brief and pensions. But things are progressing slowly, as is usual here in Rome.”[1607] The first papal document in which the Institute of Pious Schools is mentioned and in which it is explicitly stated that it was approved by the Pope dates from April 1604.[1608] The Brief of approval has not been found.[1609] But in the Briefs of later popes, explicit reference was made to the authorization that Clement VIII had originally granted to the Congregation of Pious Schools.[1610]

1605 Dated May 6, 1603 (cf. ibid., p.159, n.18).

1606 EC III, p.1552.

1607 Ibid., p.1554.

1608 It is a Brief by which it is granted to the priest Jerome Nicotera, official teacher of a district, that he can maintain the place and salary in his school, putting a substitute, and that he gives at the same time his free service in the Pious Schools. And it reads, ...” talentum tuum in servitio scholarum piarum in Urbe institutarum gratis et amore Dei juxta dictarum scholarum piarum institutum exercere desideras...” And on the back of the minute of the Brief reads “Sanctissimus pro utilitate Scholarum Piarum, quarum institutum approbavit, fuit contentus, ut in minuta (G. SANTHA, Sac. Hieronymus Nicotera, Magister deputatus...; EphCal 12 [1960] 346-348, n.7).

1609 Berro in his Report A states that Mgr. Vestri “procured and obtained an Apostolic Brief to be able to stay congregated together these workers...” (EphCal 11-12 [1959] 383) And he says the same in Report B (ibid., p.385). But in his Annotazioni he said that the Pope “gave the order that the draft of the Brief for the Congregation be made... even though prevented by death he could not send his holy deliberation into effect “ (BERRO I, p.75). Sántha confesses: “licet pluries iam indices Brevium Clementis VIII ad huiusmodi Breve inveniendum perlustraverimus, nihil tamen hucusque invenimus, quare omni cum probabilitate asserere nos posse putamus Clementem VIII directe oretenus tantum Institutum nostrum approbavisse” (G. SÁNTHA, o.c., p.344).

1610 Gregory XV, in the Bull In supremo (November 18, 1621), in which he declares the Pious Schools to be an Order, says: “praedictam Congregationem nuncupatam Pauperum Matris Dei, olim Romae fel.rec. Clementis Papae VIII Praedecessoris Nostri auctoritate erectam... (Bullarium Rel. Sch. P. p.22-23. The same can be read in the Decree of the Congregation of Regulars of August 31, 1621, in which they ask the Pope for this elevation to Religious Order (cf. G. SÁNTHA, Nova quaedam documenta..., p.197, n.4).

The full satisfaction expressed by the Pope found its appropriate complement in what Berro mentions:

“His Holiness Clement VIII, perceiving the good odor of such a work..., felt particular joy... and showed a desire to see our D. Joseph, who was presented to His Holiness by Msgr. Ottaviano Vestri and received by the Pope with extraordinary signs of joy... and said to him these very words: “We are very happy that you have begun the work of the Pious Schools. We wanted to start it, but the war in Hungary kept us so busy[1611] that we were unable to realize our wish. God has called you and we are happy, we are very happy. We want to see you. We want to help you. Tell us what you need and we will be happy to do it for you. And when he answered him by pointing out the rent of the house, and knowing that he was paying 200 escudos, he immediately ordered that 200 escudos a year be given to him from the Chamber, which was always paid by Pope Urban VIII until the fourth or fifth year.”[1612]

1611 The Pope surely meant that he had thought of opening free schools for the poor, as Alexander VII would do around 1655 with the so-called “scuole pie del papa” for girls (cf. G. PELLICCIA, o.c., p.77). But the war against the Turks, who planned to invade Hungary and Austria, forced the Pope to help Emperor Rudolph II with large sums of money (cf. PASTOR, o.c. 23, p. 241-277) restricting the possibilities of the pontifical treasury.

1612 BERRO III p. 247-248. In the report of 1623 Calasanz said that the Pope “ordered to his alms-giver Jerome Brusco to pay every year the rent of the house that was of 200 sc. per year and he paid it the two last years that he lived” (EGC II, p.170). That is, the years 1603-1605, since he died on March 5, 1605. Which makes us think that this pension was probably different from the one already mentioned on March 13, 1601 in the Christian Confraternity (cf. text of n.1579 of the previous chapter). Clement VIII had as ordinary alms-givers John Baddei and Paul Morelli successively, and as extraordinary alms giver Girolamo Abbrusca, of whom we read in a report on the alms of that the Pope “made to distribute through his secret alms-giver that was Mr. Girolamo Abrusca 1200 gold scudos in gold and 1200 of coin every month to different pious places and more he made to distribute other extraordinary alms in big sums every day as he liked them” (PASTOR, o.c., vol. 23, p.517, 59). The alms came from the income of the Dataria or of the Apostolic Chamber, to which Berro’s text alludes.

We must acknowledge Vestri’s good services to the Pope for the benefit of the Pious Schools, but one is somewhat dissatisfied with the idea that the 200 papal escudos should go into the monsignor’s pocket for rent.

The beginning of “the “common life”

Something new was slowly taking shape. How many things had changed since the spring of the Holy Year, when Calasanz and his sole follower Mark Antony Arcangeli had crossed the Sixtus Bridge. Even the latter had disappeared from the scene in late 1601 or early 1602, perhaps as a result of the change of house.[1613] But his vacuum had been filled by others who already formed a more or less homogeneous group that felt solidarity with the schools, which were no longer anonymous but bore the proper name of Pious Schools. A body that is neither a simple association of teachers - because not all of them are - nor a confraternity, but a Congregation approved by the Pope, at least in words.[1614] We are still at the beginning of what will one day be a religious Order with solemn vows, and one cannot help but notice this slow and steady process, which is guided and shaped by its creator and leader, Joseph Calasanz.

1613 Gelio Ghellini no longer names him among the collaborators in his letters of July-August 1602 (cf. EC III, p.1552-1556).

1614 One cannot understand the insistence of C. Vilá in presenting the work of Calasanz - until its elevation to Pauline Congregation of simple vows - as a simple Association of teachers (cf. C. VILÁ, Las Escuelas Pias seglares; Archivum 14 [1983] 218-219 and passim), or “simply free schools” (cf. ID...., En torno a la union de las Escuelas Pias con los PP. de Luca: Archivum 6 [1979] 198 and passim), or a work which “did not form any religious association with its collaborators” (PosCas, p.142 ), using and abusing ad nauseam the term secular and denying religious content to the term Congregation, which is the one used by Popes Paul V and Gregory XV, in their Briefs, Gelio Ghellini in his letters, Fiammelli in his book, Bernardini in his Chronicles, Berro in his Memoirs, the same components in Notarial Acts, etc.

It is he who reveals himself as the organizer and elected superior of the group when he says in his report of 1623: “And so that the said schools would be run with order and for the benefit of the poor students, the said Joseph of the Mother of God was elected superior by of all the workers as soon as they were installed in Rome.”[1615] When they moved to Vestri Palace[1616] and the “congregation of Pious Schools” began to form, Calasanz gave up his residence in the Colonna Palace and moved in with his collaborators.[1617]

1615 EGC II, p.170. For many years, practically until they are religious of simple vows, Calasanz calls his collaborators “operarii” (workers), whether they are priests or laymen.

1616 In the Calasanctian biographies, under the influence of Italian authors, they speak of the Vestri palace, Mannini palace, Torres palace, which does not have the same meaning in English (properly applicable to the Colonna palace or pontifical palaces). ‘Palazzo’ in Italian is simply a building or a uniform block of houses.

1617 Berro writes: “Our Don Gioseppe transferred to this house of Mons. Vestri and left the Palazzo of His Emm. Ascanio Colonna” (Report B: EphCal II-12 [1959] 385). He says the same in Report A (ibid., p.383). The occasion for leaving the Colonna Palace was not the “departure to Spain of Card. Ascanio Colonna, named Viceroy of Aragón”, as A. GARCÍA-DURÁN (o.c., p.96) affirms, since the cardinal undertook his trip to Spain at the end of 1600 and on October 17, 160l he was already Viceroy (cf. J. LÓPEZ NAVÍO, Historical and social environment..., p.243-245). However, it could be that Berro was mistaken (there is no document to support this), and that, indeed, Calasanz took advantage of the Cardinal’s trip and moved at the end of 1600 to live in the houses of the Square of Paradiso.

In mid-1602 Gelio Ghellini speaks of them all and says: “A Spaniard is the prefect (Calasanz); he has three assistants: a Florentine (Fiammelli), an Urbinate and a noble Roman (Rustici). For the abacus, there is a Florentine mathematician who is known throughout Rome.[1618] For the little ones of counting and reading there are two others, a layman and a priest... there are also supervisors of the schools; the supervision is exercised by the congregation, which also has an administrator who is the Knight Rustici.”[1619] There are a few more, others have already registered or are willing to join the group, but they cannot accommodate everyone due to lack of space. Therefore, another house next door is to be rented from Mr. Alexander Serena for 70 escudos per year, apparently only for the stay of those who cannot fit into the Vestri Palace. In September 1602, seven or eight of them were to move in.[1620]

1618 The priest John Francis Fiammelli, already mentioned, member of the Confraternities of the Christian Doctrine and of the Suffrage, like Calasanz. In addition to the aforementioned work, he published others in Rome on military topics. He collaborated in the Pious Schools perhaps from the second half of 1600 until 1606, as a teacher of mathematics or “abacus.” In Florence and Bologna, he founded Pious Schools, after the model of those he knew in Rome. Already in his old age, he ceded those of Florence to the Piarists in 1629 (cf. C. VILÁ, Galeria de escolapios “seculares”: Archivum 14 [1983] 273-299; F. MOROSI, Le Scuole Pie di Bologna: Ricerche 5 [1982] 78-93; O. TOSTI, Giovan Francesco Fiammelli e l’introduzione deglí Scolopi in Firenze: Ricerche 13 [1985] 3-67).

1619 EC III, p.1554.

1620 In August 1602 Ghellini writes: “I live here with some Priests in the building of the schools, which belongs to Monsignor Vestrio... (And) because for the schools here we are tight, (we will take) an adjoining house for 70 scudos per year... and this September I hope that we will enter the number of eight, and with them, that at least six will subscribe; I also contribute for my portion that will be of l5 scudos per year approximately...” (EC III, p.1554). Berro confused things, because eliminating the time of the square of Paradiso, he said that Calasanz “transferred the Pious Schools from Santa Dorotea to the House of Ms. Alessandro Serena, with the payment of rent of 70 scudi annually; this House was the first and.... he rented it for more than three years, and perhaps six, because in 1604 it was also under his name and some workers of the Pious Schools lived there...; it was not far from S. Carlo de Catinari.” (Report A, p.383). He said the same in Report B (p.385) and in the Annotazioni (BERRO I, p.74). To write both Relationships Berro used a Book B, autograph of Calasanz, which makes to suppose logically that another previous Book A existed, in which there were other news, among which -he says- the dates in which he passed from Santa Dorotea to the house of Serena, and of this one to the palace Vestri. But it was only his own deduction, since Calasanz himself spoke in detail of the various transfers. It is clear that Berro knew neither the report of 1623, nor the letters of Ghellini, whose details of the rented house -70 escudi per year, proximity to the Vestri palace, residence for some- identify it with that of Alexander Serena.

These were undoubtedly heroic years - as in the early days of any religious institution - especially for the Founder, who had to be involved in everything and felt the weight of the whole building on his shoulders. He was never short of collaborators. Perhaps he had too many at times. But he had all kinds of workforces: priests and lay people; teachers and simple servants or those employed in the household; those who paid their annual pension and those who paid nothing; those who only asked for daily sustenance or also demanded a salary; those who lived in their own houses and those who lived there; the opportunist who only wanted to learn how to organize a school and then open one themselves, or those who did their work out of love for God; those who belonged to this type of “congregation” and those who were temporarily as simple wage earners. All were ultimately free to stay or go, in constant movement around the only axis that was immovable, firm and determined, leaning on God and trusting in the protection of Our Lady.[1621]

1621 Cf. Report B, p.385. In the Report of 1623 Calasanz wrote: “the aforesaid Gioseppe della Madre di Dio... until the year 1617 with the favour of the Lord has sustained the aforesaid work with secular and free workers of whom many, after having learned well the way of teaching, went away to make school for interest in other parts, since in the aforesaid Pious Schools nothing was given except the food and the room” (EGC II, p.170). With this, the Pious Schools from their beginnings become a quarry of teachers, or rather a school of teachers.

The personal testimony of Gelio Ghellini confirms that in mid-1602, if not earlier, there is a certain kind of coexistence in the Vestri palace and then in the house of Mr. Serena, with differences in terms of the financial contribution of each individual. This cohabitation gradually improves and resembles the communal life of the religious, because to the common stay and meals, the more or less general dependence on the same economic fund, the dedication to the same task, etc., are added other details of common acts of piety and devotion. Apparently, both Msgr. Vestri and the founder of the Congregation of Lucca, John Leonardi, a great friend of Calasanz, followed the work closely and advised Calasanz and his collaborators, even attending meetings in the Vestri palace. And in one of these meetings, a very important decision was made. Berro tells us in one of his relationships:

“A true humbler who distrusted himself, Calasanz consulted the Most Ill. Prelate Ottaviano Vestri, Fr. John Leonardi, and with these and with the workers themselves, who, to the glory of God, met from time to time to discuss the good administration of the Pious Schools and their workers, it was decided in one of these meetings, held on July 14, 1604, that the workers of the Pious Schools should live in community; those who could contribute would do so, and those who could not would be provided for from the common fund, and many were even paid. But this community was founded in September of the said year 1604. The members of the community were 18, that is: Father Joseph Calasanz, founder, Aragonese; Father Gelio Ghellini, Venetian; Father Caspar Dragonetti, Sicilian; Father Flaminio Casella; Father Regolo Bellotti; Brother Joseph Mainente. They contributed to the community in this way: Flaminio with Mass and Regolo with Mass and serving as confessor at St. Anne’s; the others gave money in addition to Mass. Then Fr. Andrew Basso, Fr. Jerome Nicotera, Br. Nicolò of Bergamo, Br. Joseph de Gregorio of Messina, Br. Dominic Monechini, Vicenzian; Fr. Martin Tovar, Fr. Michael Ferrerio, the brother of Fr. Nicotera, Ventura Sarafellini, John Paul of N. and Br. Eusebio Manenti. These twelve were permanently employed and were managed in different ways. So there were 18 workers in total, seven priests and eleven laymen, but all wore long dresses except Sarafellini. Of these 18 workers, only two have persevered, namely our Father Joseph Calasanz, the Founder, and Father Caspar Dragonetti.”[1622]

1622 Report B, p.385-386. The mentioned data, as well as the others that follow regarding what they give or receive, dates of death or dismissals, deserve all credit, since he copies them from book B, Calasanz’s autograph. For news and bibliography on each one, cf. C. VILÁ, Galería de escolapios “seculares”: Archivum I4 [1983] 269-340.

This last apostille leaves a certain bitter aftertaste, but Berro sweetens it by adding optimistically: “When these left, the Lord provided for others with the diligence of our Calasanz.” And so it was.

More than just a simple get-together

At the meeting on July 14, 1604, the common life was decided in the presence of Father John Leonardi and Msgr. Vestri. It was probably not only the contribution of each of them to the common fund and the salaries to be paid that were discussed. Gelio Ghellini had already spoken more or less clearly about this in his letters two years earlier, as well as about a certain way of living together. This meeting was probably about more important issues than just economic ones. What was the significance of the meeting for this group? What did it mean to dedicate themselves to these free schools for the poor? Was it a business or a simple modus vivendi? Undoubtedly, for some it was a job like any other, and one could not ask much more of them than of the municipal teachers. They may have been a little more than mere wage earners. But others had deeper motives that justified their selfless service to poor children.

Apart from Calasanz, one cannot deny the good intentions and the spirit of charitable service of priests Fiammelli and Ghellini, nor those of another priest, a teacher in the Sant’Angelo district, when he asked to join the group at the end of 1603: “I see that Fr. Jerome Nicotera - we read in the request addressed to Msgr. Vestri - is very zealous and anxious and expects from His Holiness the freedom and ability to devote himself to the work and subjection of these Pious Schools, since he has renounced the income of his church and even almost that of his neighborhood because of his great desire to help this work.”[1623]

1623 Cf. G. SÁNTHÁ, Sac. Hieronymus Nicotera..., p.344, n.6.

Since it was charity and love of God that moved the best of them to serve in the Pious Schools,[1624] it was logical that an effort was made to intensify the spiritual atmosphere in the group and to give this coexistence a nuance clearly similar to that of a religious community that had already been called the Congregation of Pious Schools for more than two years. It is worth knowing the schedule or regulations that have been issued:

1624 In the Brief in which Nicotera is allowed to enter the Pious Schools it is said: ‘Exponi nobis nuper fecisti, quod tu... talentum tuum in servitio Scholarum Piarum in Urbe institutarum gratis et amore Dei iuxta dictarum Scholarum Piarum institutum exercere desideras...’” (ibid., p.346, n.7).

“In the months of May, June and July, when the bell of Collegio Romano strikes half past ten, the workers get up at the sound of the little school bell at eight o´ clock[1625] and have half an hour to dress and make their beds.

1625 That is, at 6.30 solar. In fact, the Roman College of the Jesuits was not far from the Vestri palace, from which its bell could be heard perfectly well. According to Roman custom, the day began to count its hours from the ringing of the evening Angelus, which was theoretically half an hour after sunset. In practice, the bell of the Roman College followed the timetable established throughout the year, according to which the zero hour of the Angelus, corresponding to our current time reckoning, was: in November, December and January, half past five in the afternoon; in February, half past six; in March, half past seven; in April, half past eight; in May, June and July, half past nine; in August it went down again to half past eight (like April); in September, half past seven (like March); in October, half past six (like February). With these changes it turned out that the famous bell that rang half an hour before the beginning of grammar classes, according to the current schedule, rang at eight o’clock in the morning all year round, so that the “grammar” classes began exactly at half past eight, and the first of the higher faculties, an hour later. Even if the time of the Angelus changed, the Jesuits’ schedule remained the same, starting one hour earlier or one hour later than the previous month, so that they always got up in the morning at the same time - at 5:30 a.m. - by our present reckoning. At the same time -which in May, June and July was 8 o’clock- the community of Calasanz also got up. It was not very early, since 5:30 a.m. in Spain is 6:30 a.m. in Italy, more or less. The system was undoubtedly complex and uncomfortable because of the excessive changes. In Spain, France and Germany, at least, a fixed timetable was kept, based simply on the clock (cf. R. GARCÍA-VILLOSLADA, Storia del Collegio Romano, p.85-86).

At half past eight they all assemble in the oratory and pray the spiritual prayer for half an hour, at the end of which they do the ordinary spiritual exercises for another half hour, and at half past nine they immediately pray the Prima and Terce for a quarter of an hour.

At three-quarters past nine the workers who are to say Mass before school will say it, and those who are to say it before the students or after school may go out into the fresh air and rest, but will return home at the ringing of the bell of Collegio Romano.

All workers will enter the schools at eleven o´clock at the ringing of the small school bell and everyone will participate in the exercise for two and a half hours in the form and manner ordered by the Congregation and admonished by the Prefect. At 13 and a half, all the classes will finish their lessons, and the four classes of the first floor will go in turn to the oratory to hear Mass, so that between the going of the students, the celebration of Mass and their dismissal everything is finished at a quarter past forteenth.; Mass for the students of the upper floor may be said at 12:30.

At 14 and a quarter they meet to pray Sexta and Nona for a quarter of an hour.

At 14:30 they go to the table where, after the blessing, a spiritual book is read for a quarter of an hour. After the reading, there is silence until the prefect gives the signal to speak seriously and without argument about what has been read or another spiritual topic. At the table they can stay for three quarters of an hour and after giving thanks to the Lord they can stay in recreation until 16, which takes about three quarters of an hour.

At 16 the workers can retire to their rooms for three hours, i.e. until 19, and at 19 they gather for vespers prayer.

At 19:30, all workers enter the classrooms at the ringing of the small bell and classes end at 22. Once the children are dismissed, the workers who need it most have a break until 23.

All the workers meet at 23 and after Compline they have half an hour of spiritual prayer and then do their exercises so that they go to table at a quarter past 24. The evening meal lasts for half an hour, i.e. until a quarter to one in the night, and the same rules are observed as for the meal with regard to reading a spiritual book and silence.

At a quarter to one in the night they will have spiritual conversations until the bell rings at two o´clock, and then they will retire to their rooms to sleep.

And just as the time of the bell of the (Roman) college changes, to which the students are to orient themselves, all hours are also changed.”[1626]

1626 Cf. Italian text with photocopy in CCP, p.73-75; a complete translation in C. VILÁ, Las Escuelas Pía seglares, p.222-224.

The surviving document is Calasanz’s autograph. It could therefore be his personal work, which was approved at one of the regular meetings with the group. The entire document shows that they were already living in community. On the first page of the document, in the upper middle part, we read the year 1603 between two lines, but the content forces us to assume that it could not have been written before July 14, 1604, when they decided to live together. Such a timetable would be absurd for a group not living together. A careful graphological examination of the numbers 1603 in comparison with the other authentic numbers from the saint’s manuscript[1627] gives us the certainty that the date was added by one of the many hands that have unfortunately entered notes and warnings in the venerable papers from the beginning to the present day.[1628]

1627 Very abundant in books of accounts and alms, catalogs of religious with various dates, etc. (cf. RegCal II and 12).

1628 See what Picanyol writes about Talenti and himself, commenting on the 7th document of the Epistolario: “Very important document... The memorandum is presented without date: Fr. Talenti, of which are the indications or notes placed on the side to the right of each letter, affixed the date 1610, evidently erroneous, as it should be reported to the period 1602-1605, as noted by the writer on the back of the document” (EGC II. p.48-49). And García-Durán, from another document: “On the paper that contains it the hand of Picanyol has written “forse verso I’anno 1610”, to which later another hand has added “e anche molto prima, 1603?” (A. GARCÍA-DURÁN, o.c., p.103, n.528). Both documents are thus contemporary to the one we have quoted, all without authentic date.

The meticulousness of the timetable, the distribution of common prayer acts and their abundance, together with other typical monastic rules such as reading during meals, give an impression of an atmosphere of religious observance. They have half an hour of mental prayer in the morning; half an hour of “ordinary exercises” after morning and evening mental prayer, which were probably litanies, examinations of conscience and other vocal devotions; they also pray the entire Divine Office together, with the exception of Matins and Lauds; an hour and a quarter of conversation or spiritual conferences in the evening; three hours of retreat in their own room, etc. It seems that the only thing they lacked to be truly ‘religious’ was the vows.

Other aspects of the community life of this Congregation

The detailed regulations we have just described refer exclusively to the workers and describe their movements, actions and duties, both those related to community life and didactic-pastoral activity with the children. There is another long document that complements the previous one and describes the life and activities of the school in detail. The very title “Breve Relazione” (Brief Report)[1629] indicates that its author, Joseph Calasanz, wrote it to inform someone properly, even making use of pre-existing decrees, norms and orders that he himself had written and were sanctioned by the Congregation.

1629 Breve relatione del modo che si tiene nelle Scuole Pie per insegnar li poveri scolari li quali per l’ordinario sono più di seicento (corrected above: settecento) non solo le lettere ma ancora il Sto. timor di Dio (RegCal 12, CXVDI. Edit. in Italian: Archivum 3 (1938) 46-51; in Spanish: SÁNTHA, SJC, 1st. ed., p.746-751; RevCal I (1955) 453-459; V. FABUELL, Antología Pedagógica Calasancia, Salamanca, 1988, p.61-66. The first to make it known was Fr. Tomás Garrido, translating it in its entirety into Latin in his article S. Josephus Calasanctius primus scholae publicae popularis christianae et gratuitae institutor: EphCal 2 (1932) 64-70.

This very important document consists of four clearly separated parts, with only the last one having a subtitle. The first two describe in detail the scholastic and religious activities of the students. The last two are a set of norms to be observed by the students and teachers respectively. The perfect coherence and harmony of the whole testifies to an obvious unity of composition in terms of author and time. The first two descriptive parts complement each other, even with the first words that define each of them: “Concerning letters...”, begins the first part; “Concerning spiritual things...”, begins the second part. Piety and letters, which will be the real motto of the new Institute of Pious Schools. Equally parallel, even in their articles, are the other two parts: the third presents “some decrees signed by the prefect, to be observed by all students....” And a ‘First’ is followed by a series of ‘Items’. The fourth part is subtitled “Orders to be observed by the workers”, and after a ‘First’ follows another series of ‘Items’.[1630] This memorable document was rightly described by Picanyol as the Documentum princeps paedagogiae calasanctianae, something like the Magna Carta of Calasanzian pedagogy.

1630 The original text is: 1) Quanto alle lettere... 2) Quanto alle cose spirituali... 3) ...alcuni decreti sottoscritti dal Prefetto da osservarsi... da tutti li scolari... 4) Ordini da osservarsi dalli operarii (cf. Archivum 3 [1938] 46-51).

The authors do not agree on when it was written: Some lean towards the period after the Vestri Palace, i.e. in 1605-1612[1631], while others believe it was written in 1604-1605[1632]. It seems more likely to us that it was written in this last period[1633], and undoubtedly some of the norms or injunctions were made after the decision on common life in the assembly of July 14, 1604, even at the suggestion of Father Giovanni Leonardi, who attended it together with Msgr. Vestri.[1634]

1631 Cf. L. PICANYOL (Archivum, 1.c., p.45); BAU, BC, p.422; SÁNTHA, SJC, 1ª. ed., p.746, n.7.

1632 GARCÍA-DURÁN, o.c., p.103, n.528; C. VILÁ, Las Escuelas Pías seglares, p.209,228.

1633 The most convincing argument is in the same title of Breve relatione, in which it is said that the students sono piú di seicento (cf. n.1629 above). Only in the Vestri palace (1602-1605) they reached 600. In that of the square of the Paradiso they arrived presso a 500 scolari (cf. EGC II, p.170) and when they did not fit, they passed to the Vestri, where already in July of 1602 they are 700 (cf. EC III, p.1552). There was a drop, as we will see later, but if they changed houses because of the lack of space, the number of students rose again to 700 or more. On the other hand, as we will say later, the document assumes that they were already living in common, and therefore it is later than September 1604.

1634 Father Alessandro Bernardini, speaking of Leonardi’s influence on the Pious Schools, wrote in his chronicles that “he formed some very well-adjusted Orders for the schools and commanded that anyone who did not wish to serve them should leave the Congregation.” And the first of the Ordini da osservari dalli Operarii says: “Primo, che tutti I’Operarii debbano esser obedienti alli decreti della Congregatione, altrimenti chi contraverrá sara mandato via, se così parerá conveniente” (cf. C. VILÁ, Las Escuelas Pías seglares, p.228). Fr. Leonardi could not order anything, but he could suggest in the meetings he attended, according to Berro (cf. text of n. 1622 above).

For the moment, it is interesting to highlight some references to community life that complete the picture already seen in the chronological table or the regulations for the workers. Here are some of them:

“First, that all workers must obey the decrees of the Congregation, otherwise anyone who resists will be dismissed if it seems appropriate.[1635]

1635 Without sanctioning it with expulsion, already at the beginning of 1604, therefore, before accepting the common life, they had given much value to the decisions taken in common by vote. Thus writes Don Andrés Basso to Mgr. Vestri: “I also remind Your Rev. that the other day in congregation it was proposed in a holy way, negotiated and resolved that when the matter is seen, and a decision is concluded with the votes of the major part of the brothers, no one can withdraw or suspend under any pretext what is concluded” (EphCal 12 [1960] 344-345, n.6).

Item, that all workers who are not priests receive communion every Sunday in the oratory at home and hear Mass every day.

Item, that all be present at spiritual prayer and all other common exercises...

Item that they do neither solicit or accept anything from the students or their parents without the permission of the Prefect, even if it is a fruit given as a token of appreciation, and that they place it at the disposal of the community...

Item that no worker enters the house of a student without the permission of the Prefect.

Item that no worker shall leave the house without the permission of the Prefect and, in his absence, the elder priest.”[1636]

1636 In addition to what is indicated in n.1629 above, cf. original text in A. GARCÍA-DURÁN, o.c., p.103-105.

In these ordinances, the element corresponding to obedience in religious life is clearly perceived, not only in relation to the Decrees of the Congregation that regulate common life, but in a particular way in relation to the Prefect, who appears in the norms for the students as director of the school and also as superior of the community.

Another essential element of religious life is also present: poverty. Although they do not take vows, many contribute to the common fund with their donations, especially Calasanz, of whom several testimonies say that he spent all his income in his institution and took care to receive all the fruits of his Spanish goods legitimately.[1637] But neither his fortune nor the meager contributions of his companions were sufficient to cover the cost of people’s living expenses, the rent of the premises, the salaries of the paid teachers and the maintenance of the teaching materials.[1638] And they are forced to resort to charity. A large part of this came from more or less fixed and stable pensions from the Pope[1639] and various cardinal sympathizers, as Berro recalls: “The biggest benefactors were the Cardinals, their Eminences Aldobrandini, who gave very generous alms (molto grosse) and above all Card. San Cesario and Card. Montalto, nephew of Pope Sixtus V, who donated 12 scudi a month, St. George and many other cardinals...”[1640] In 1602, Gelio Ghellini wrote with much optimism: “Card. Montalto and others, and the Roman people of the Capitol and the Councilors (S. P. Q. R.) give and will give more and more, since the poor people already have someone to teach them and lead the poor children to the arts (and trades) with the abacus, to reading and writing and, whoever wants to progress, to grammar.”[1641]

1637 Cf. G. SANTHA Quinque instrumenta...; EphCal 6 (1969) 219-226. The Englishman Cocchetti declared in 1651: I have heard by public rumor and fame that he founded the Pious Schools, and there he spent all his income and I have heard it from a certain Fr. Caspar (Dragonetti, who joined Calasanz in 1603) ...who said that the income of Fr. General was very rich and all his income was spent in this work of the Pious Schools...’. (A. GARCÍA-DURÁN, o.c., p.111, n.563).

1638 “…in this new house (of Monsignor Vestri)... were not enough for the expenses of food, clothing and wages of some workers, for the necessary expenses of the benches of the schools, paper, pens, ink and booklets that were given to all the poor schoolchildren, neither from the income that our D. Joseph received from Spain from his patrimonial property, nor with the sale of his own ... and what he had had of the provision from His Em.Card. Colonna ...” (BERRO III, P.249).

1639 Calasanz expressly recalls the 200 escudi that Clement VIII paid for the rent of the Vestri palace, “et la pagò li dui ultimi anni che visse” (EGC II, p.170). Later he will write down in detail the alms of Paul V (RegCal, 12,33).

1640 BERRO III, p.25O. The cardinal of S. Cesareo was the nepote Silvester Aldobrandini appointed on December 17, 1603, at the age of fourteen, and died in 1612 (cf. PASTOR, o.c., vol. 23, p.69-70). And that of St. George was another nepote, Cincio Fasseri or Aldobrandini, appointed on September 17, 1593, together with another nepote, Peter Aldobrandini (cf. ibid., p.62). Talenti completes with other sources the list of cardinal benefactors: ...” they were: the said Card. Vicar Borghese (future Paul V), the card. Camerlingo Peter Aldobrandini, the card. Benedict Giustiniani, Odoardo Farnese, Domenico Pinelli, Ottavio Bandini, Francis d’Avila, Robert Belarmini, Silvester Aldobrandini, called by his title S. Cesareo, to whom many others were subsequently added” (TALENTI, Vita, p.88-89).

1641 EC III, p.1554.

In view of these statements, one might think that this is a constant shower of roses. But abundance does not last long in the homes of the poor and - as Berro wrote - “sometimes they were plunged into great distress and misery.[1642]” There is a very curious letter that Calasanz wrote to Card. Montalto, who has already been mentioned as a great benefactor. It is undated, but undoubtedly dates from the time of the Vestri Palace, as it states that the rent of the house cost 200 escudos and that it is located near San Andrea della Valle. In this we can see Calasanz’s interest in receiving alms safely and regularly, as these from Card. Montalto was in danger of disappearing. And the saint said:

1642 BERRO, l.c.

“...by your kindness, for several years your Most Illustrious Lordship has favored the Fathers of the schools living next to St. Andrew della Valle with 20 escudos at Christmas and another 20 at Easter as alms... and now they have noticed that... instead of the Fathers of the Pious Shools who received these alms, the Fathers of the Christian Doctrine of Trastevere have been put on the list. They therefore humbly request Your Excellency to order that the Fathers of the Pious Schools be helped and placed on the list.”[1643]

1643 EGC II, p.47-48.

Living on alms is a matter for the poor. In our case, the alms of the great were not enough, because in the end they were too small. And they had to resort to the last extreme of the poor: begging. Berro alludes three times to the permission to beg for alms on behalf of the Pious Schools in Rome, and it seems that this happened in the years of the Vestri Palace or perhaps in the first years of the period that followed.[1644] And certainly, the prefect Joseph Calasanz began from time to time to practice this humble and humiliating office of begging from door to door, with saddlebags on his shoulder, and he would continue to do so later, already as General of the Order, as he himself would recall at almost eighty years of age.[1645] And the chroniclers report that in April 1626, when he was only sixty-eight, he went out begging one day and it rained so hard that the old saint caught a very serious case of pneumonia, which brought him to the brink of the grave, with the consequent agony for all.[1646] Begging is one of the elements that he will later retain when this society becomes a Congregation with simple vows and eventually a religious Order with solemn vows.

1644 In the Report A tells that “D. Giuseppe Calasanz (got) license to hold in the said House (Vestri) Sacerdoti Operarii paid and to be able to send to the cerca (begging) for the city under the name of the Pious Schools” (EphCal II-12 [1959] 159). In the Report B tells that “From 1606 they had a license to cerca in Rome” (ib., p.386). But on November 1, 1605 they had left the Vestri palace (cf. EGC II, p. 171). In Annotazioni he writes: “our D. Giuseppe presented a memorandum to card. Vicar, then His Em. Camillo Borghese, who assumed the Pontificate and was called Paul V, asking to be able to send two of the said Workers to seek alms. The Memorandum was signed and the first to go there was Fr. Thomas (Victoria) of the Visitation...” (BERRO III, p.250) Paul V was elected on May 16, 1605; then they were still in the Vestri palace. But Fr. Thomas Victoria does not appear among the collaborators of Calasanz until 1609 (cf. G. SANTHA, Quattuor novi elenchi..., p.373-374).

1645 “As for the matter of washing the dishes not only I did, who toil not less than those who have the school, but still I went in search of bread with the sacks in neck for Rome et accompany the students, et I am ready to do it now, because ‘regnum coelorum vim patitur et violenti rapiunt illud’” (C.2757, fechada el 18 de julio de 1637).

1646 Cf. BERRO I, p.146-147.

As far as chastity, the third vow of the religious, is concerned, it is known that all those who belonged to this Congregation were celibate and most of them were priests. Only one later married and worked in the Pious Schools until his death in 1664. It was Ventura Sarafellini, a very faithful collaborator of Calasanz, at least since 1604. But although he lived with all of them, he seems never to have belonged to the Congregation, because Berro, who includes him among the eighteen in his first list, says that “all of them wore long dresses, except Sarafellini”.[1647] The long dress, with cassock or habit, was usually a distinguishing feature of the clergy or religious, of whom those who formed this Congregation, still without vows, were so close in their outlook on life.

1647 Report B, p.386. Nor does his name appear among those who sign the purchase of the house of San Pantaleón, as “Rector, Patres ac Fratres Venerabilis Congregationis Scholarum Piarum Urbi”, although he lived with them. (cf. G. SÁNTHA, 350 anni a condita domo S. Pantaleonis exacti...: EphCal 9-10 [1962] 268; C. VIlÁ, Galería de escolapios “seculares”, p.309-316).

The shadow of the devil again

In June 1602, a bell was installed in the Vestri Palace to regulate the timetable of classes. It was a solemn act, as Msgr. Leonard Abela, titular bishop of Sidon and Vicegerent of the Pope, blessed it.[1648] After a year, Father Calasanz, who was still robust at forty-six, had to go upstairs to fix something - perhaps the rope had simply broken - but he tripped and fell from a height into the courtyard. It would have been enough to kill him, but he did not get that far; he only broke his leg and hip. Naturally, there was cause for amazement, and the conviction of a miracle was in the air: the devil had wanted to kill him, but God had not allowed it. Some even claimed to have seen an evil shadow pushing him. The shadow of Peralta’s olive grove returned; this time it was his initiative...

1648 G. Ghellini says: “Monsignor of Sidonia came as suffragan of Our Lord to bless our bell and remained fully satisfied” (EC III, -p.1552, dated 20 July, 1602). Cf. Dizionario Biografico degli italiani, I, 46-47.

Berro’s narrative is a page of epic tones, nervously combining diabolical action and divine permission to act, because, after all, nothing can happen in the lives of the saints without the will of God. Here is Berro’s account, trimmed a little of its baroque nuance:

“The enemy of the human race ... seeing that great harm was being done to his Tartarian kingdom by the Pious Schools ... thought of killing him [Calasanz] ... And so God, in order to make better known both the virtue of this great servant and that the work of the Pious Schools was his -[‘auctore Deo’, Paul V will say] - and not from a man, made that while our D. Joseph was placing a small bell on a small roof in the open air for the signs of the schools and their devotions, he was visibly caught by a shadow (as the neighbors confirmed) and plunget down into the courtyard of the schools, and the height was so great that he should have burst in the air; he fell to the ground in such a way that at the cry and voices of those who saw him, all the inhabitants of the house and even the neighbors came to him. By the grace of God they found our fighter, conqueror of the devil by patience, but with such a broken leg and hip that he was put to bed, and the doctors thought it impossible that this could be repaired in a man of his age.”[1649]

1649 BERRO I, p.76.

In a side note, Berro added that “this happened in Bishop Vestri’s house...and the brother of a lady who saw the shadow told me about it, and Father Joseph himself told me that it happened while he was fixing the little bell for the signals.” Despite the testimony of the “seeing neighbors”, the miracle may not have been the push - rather the imagination - but not being killed. But the memory stayed with him for the rest of his life, as he felt pain in his legs from time to time.[1650]

1650 “Healed at last, but His Divine Majesty for the occasion of his greater merit from time to time sent him some pains in both legs with erysipelas which he often suffered” (ib., p.78). Calasanz mentions sometimes in his letters: “I cannot come there (Frascati) for the indisposition of the leg” (c.844, dated 13 May, 1618); “since I’ve had my foot swollen so much for 4 or 5 days, I can’t ride the horse. (to Frascati) ... “ (C.1405, dated 3 June, 1630).

In another side note, Berro gave us this interesting information: “The said fall of D. Joseph occurred in 1603, for which he appointed as prefect of the Pious Schools Mr. Andrew Basso de Aquila, who helped as a worker.”[1651] If one can doubt that an evil shadow appeared on the rooftops, there is no reason to doubt the consequences of the fall. And the immediate consequence was that he was bedridden for several months and then needed crutches to be able to move again. All this was recorded by the analyst.[1652] The schools followed his rhythm and he could not run them from his bed. It was therefore necessary to put someone else in charge. In addition to Berro’s repeated testimony,[1653] there are other documents that introduce us to this interim prefect.

1651 Ib., p.77, n.3.

1652 “He started to go down from his bed after some months, and even though with the crutch he didn’t stop to work in the schools.” (ib., p.78).

1653 In addition to the marginal note cited above, he also noted in his two Reports the fact, citing the autograph book B of Calasánz: “It happened to him, as it was told, to fell down while fixing the bell for common signs; because of that in book B is seen that this time Rev. Don Andrea Basso was nominated Prefect of the Pious Schools. He was living with us and was paid. After recovering he left him the management of the House and the title; with all this he lasted little in this Holy Work, because on October 7 1604 he was given ten scudos as a gift and left for his country” (BERRO, Report A, p.383-384 (BERRO, Report B, p.386).

In fact, at the end of 1603, the priest Jerome Nicotera, teacher in the school of Sant Angelo district, expressed a desire to work in the Pious Schools. However, he imposed certain conditions, such as retaining ownership of his school and living with the group of workers from the Vestri Palace before they decided to live together. It was Don Andrew Basso who took the case to Msgr. Vestri to obtain a letter from the Pope in favor of Nicotera, signing the request with these words: “From your reverend lordship, the unworthy prefect Don Andrew Basso”[1654] The letter was granted in mid-April 1604 and Nicotera probably joined the group immediately, but he did not stay long, as his name does not appear in the 1605 lists. He most likely left the Pious Schools in October 1604, together with Andrew Basso.[1655]

1654 G. SÁNTHA, Sac. Hieronymus Nicotera..., p.344-345, n.6. The request does not bear a date, but the minute of the Brief reads: ‘Die 23 Martii’ and the Brief bears that of ‘13 Aprilis 1604)’” (ibid., p.346-348).

1655 Ibid., p.341.

On April 27, 1604, Calasanz signed a certificate of good conduct for the priest Don Simon Fiori, which began as follows: “We, Andrew Basso and the other workers of the Pious Schools...” and concluded as follows: “I, Joseph Calasanz, lieutenant of the above-mentioned absent prefect, have signed.”[1656] This is the last document in which it is recorded that Basso was still prefect. It is not clear from Berro’s notes when he actually left office, which undoubtedly links him to the temporary invalidity of Prefect Calasanz. We have already seen that on July 14, 1604, the momentous meeting was held in which “it was decided that the operators of the Pious Schools should live together”[1657] This suggests that by this time the reins of the Congregation had returned to the hands of Calasanz. The prefecture of Basso was therefore only an occasional parenthesis, for when the schools “were transferred “within Rome, the aforementioned Joseph of the Mother of God was elected superior by all the workers.”[1658]

1656 Cf. C. VILÁ, Galeria de escolapios “seculares”, p.302.

1657 Cf. Report B, p.385.

1658 Cf. EGC II, p.170. We believe, therefore, unacceptable, for lack of convincing documentary support, the opinions of C. Vilá on the mobility of the office of Prefect from 1600 to 1604, which would be elected year by year, as well as those referring to the prominence of Mark Antony Arcangeli against Calasanz from Santa Dorotea onwards, or the transformation of the prefecture from annual to perpetual, by the work of John Leonardi (cf. C. VILÁ, Las Escuelas Pias seglares; ID., Galeria de escolapios “seculares”).

Cardinals Antoniano and Baronio in the Pious Schools

In mid-1602, a few months after moving into the Vestri Palace, there was an atmosphere of optimism, hope, approval and general admiration. This is reflected in the two letters written by Gelio Ghellini in July and August of the same year: “the bishop blessing the bell for the classroom was fully satisfied”; “there is no prelate who comes who is not admired by the ruling order”; “our visitor, Cardinal Antoniano, is a very kind gentleman and, although he is poor, he has left ten escudos alms for the rent and for the paper and ink, which are given free of charge, and he wishes to return with Cardinal Baronio’. In short, things are going very well and this year we will have frequent visits from Prelates.”[1659]

1659 EC III, p.1552-1555.

Silvio Antoniano is one of the great figures of the 16th century in the field of pedagogy for his famous work on the education of children, which was written on the insistence of St. Charles Borromeo[1660] and which Calasanz would most likely read. It is therefore not surprising that he was interested in the newly emerging elementary schools and wanted to get to know them personally. The person who informed him of their existence and prepared the visit was - perhaps out of interest - Msgr. Vestri, who was already working in the Secretariat of Briefs when Silvio Antoniano was also appointed Secretary of Latin Briefs in 1593. When Silvio Antoniano was appointed Cardinal in 1599, he was still in charge of this secretariat, where Msgr. Vestri was also still working.[1661] It was therefore an honor that the two famous and highly learned cardinals Antoniano and Baronio visited the schools of Calasanz. He considered it so, because in his report of 1623 he did not forget to remind that when Mgr. Vestri reported to Clement VIII about the Pious Schools, “His Holiness commissioned the Reverend Cardinals Baronio and Antoniano to visit the schools of Calasanz and inform him, and through their report he ordered his almoner Jerome Brusco to pay the rent of the house every year, which amounted to 200 escudos per year, and he paid it for the last two years he lived.”[1662] In the dark years of the Apostolic Visitation of Pietrasanta, the visit of these two important cardinals was recalled in the memoranda addressed to cardinals and friends in defense of the Order as an unmistakable sign of Clement VIII’s benevolence towards the Pious Schools.[1663]

1660 The work has the title Tre libri dell’educatione christiana dei figliuoli (Verona 1583).

1661 Cf. PASTOR, o.c., vol.23, p.55-56. It is curious to find the signature of Mgr. Marcello Vestri Barbiani in the Brief of June 10, 1593 in which Calasanz was granted the benefice of Fraga, the first he obtained upon his arrival in Rome. (cf. G. SÁNTHA, Primum Beneficium ecclesiasticum...: EphCal II [1960] 312).

1662 EGC II, p.170. Cf. n.1613 of this chapter. Both Cardinals have their tumb in Chiesa Nuova.

1663 “The institute of the Pious Schools was approved and greatly commended by Clement VIII who, on his behalf, had it visited by two Cardinals Baronio and Antoniano, distinguished persons in the Church...” (EC V, p.2498). Cf. also EC II, p.615 and 617.

Neither Ghellini’s letters nor Calasanz’s report reveal the reason for the two cardinals’ visit. Ghellini calls Antoniano “our visitor” and Calasanz says that they were commissioned by Clement VIII. What was going on in the Pious Schools? In another official report from 1625, Calasanz wrote: “The Institute of Pious Schools, established in Rome since the beginning of the Holy Year 1600, had its origin in the church of Santa Dorotea near the Septimian Gate, and notwithstanding the persecutions and obstacles that the teachers of the neighborhoods and other schools opposed it, it has always progressed and advanced in the service and learning of the poor boys.”[1664] Father Castelli explained laconically in the process of 1652: “All the pedanti (teachers) of Rome have joined together to speak ill of him and write memoranda against him.”[1665] Berro clarifies the matter a little more by saying:

1664 EGC 11, p.344-345.

1665 ProcIn, p.456-457.

“...the common enemy fought him ... with public disturbances, which caused the teachers of the districts to riot and quarrel, and giving His Em. Card. Vicar (Camillo Borghese) a very passionate memorandum. It seemed to them that the said work would mean their ruin and deprive them of their profits, but having recognized the purpose of the work, they had no power to prevent it. Even the Rector of the ‘Sapienza’ (University of Rome) opposed it, pretending to visit the schools and examine the teachers, but when he knew that they had been visited on behalf of Pope Clement VIII by the eminences Card. Baronio and Antoniano, and the great esteem in which His Holiness held this Work, he reverently withdrew.”[1666]

1666 BERRO I, p.80.

So there were two complementary fronts: the University and the municipal schools. The first asserted its rights of control and its official monopoly: no one was allowed to teach in the public schools without the express examination and approval of the rector of the Sapienza, although the frequent repetition of such regulations suggests that they were not rigorously applied or that they practically only applied to the municipal schools of the districts, which were the only ones officially subsidized by the state treasury.[1667] On the other hand, in addition to the rights and duties of Rectors of the Sapienza to visit the schools which emerged in greater number in Rome, there was the responsibility of those who, on behalf of the Cardinal Vicar or the Holy See, made Apostolic Visitations from time to time to all the churches and ecclesiastical institutions in Rome, without the various types of schools escaping their control.[1668]

1667 Cf. SÁNTHA, SJC, p.39-40; G. PELLICCIA, o.c., p.101-128, 134-135, etc., and doc. from Apend., p.436-443.

1668 Cf. G. PELLICCIA, o.c, p.65, 74, 163, etc.

Interesting is the detail that Gelio Ghellini writes in his letter of August 31, 1602: “’our visitor’ Card. Antoniano...”, which gives him the feeling of being an official Visitor or a Visitator sent by someone, or who did not just come out of curiosity or sympathy. His personality was also very suitable for a supervisory visit to these new schools, both because of his direct relationship with the Sapienza and because of his experience and personal knowledge of the Roman schools.[1669] It is not surprising that he was very satisfied with his first visit and then returned with Baronio, considering the pejorative judgment that the teachers of the municipal schools of Rome deserved: They are very often - he says - “vagabonds and unstable people, who care little for the welfare of the children, but they themselves are sometimes so much in need of going to the school of the fear of God and good morals; and for all that, even without reason, teaching children is a detestable and contemptible exercise.”[1670]

1669 “The humanist Silvio Antoniano must have been well known and a reference in the circles of the Sapienza and of the Roman Districts Schools, since he had been lecturer and vice-rector of the Roman Studio” (G. PELLICCIA, o.c., p.141).

1670 Cit. in SÁNTHA, SJC, p.41.

The rector of the Sapienza therefore understood that the visit of the two illustrious prelates was enough and desisted.

The mutiny of the municipal teachers and the “certificate” of poverty” for the children

Even more understandable than the attitude of the rector of La Sapienza was the attitude of the teachers of the districts, who saw the number of their paying pupils dwindle day by day in order to fill the ranks of those who preferred the free schools of Vestri Palace. The smear campaign they unleashed must have reached the ears of the Pope and Cardinal Vicar. Nor was it the first time this had happened, for the rapid flourishing of Collegio Romano had already provoked the same resistance from the city teachers at the beginning - half a century earlier - who saw their meager income seriously threatened by the flight of students to the prestigious and free classrooms of the Jesuit college.[1671]

1671 Cf. R. GARCÍA-VILLOSLADA, Storia del Collegio Romano, p.23. An identical reaction happened in Paris by the public teachers of minor schools against the gratuitous Christian Schools in the street of St. Placide, in the parish of St. Sulpice, at the end of the 17th century (cf. S. GALLEGO, San Juan Bautista de La Salle, BAC [Madrid 1984], p.124-125).

The seriousness of the accusations perhaps prompted Clement VIII to ask Cardinals Antoniano and Baronio for information or even to instruct them to visit the disputed schools in order to verify the truth of the accusations. The Purpurates’ impression was satisfactory and as a result of their positive report - according to Berro - the Pope decided to pay the 200 escuos a year for the rent of the house. Moreover, Cardinal Antoniano confirmed his appreciation and admiration for the Pious Schools and left them a legacy of 200 escudos upon his death on August 16, 1603.[1672] This date makes us certain that both the teachers’ revolt and the cardinal’s visits took place in the last year of Antoniano’s life.[1673]

1672 Cf. Hier. Cath. IV, 7.

1673 In August 1602 Ghellini already spoke of Antoniano’s visits and announced another one with Baronio, which must have happened later (cf. EC III, p.1555). Ghellini says nothing of the denigrating campaign of the teachers, from which it is deduced that it had not yet happened in August 1602. Nor does he link the visit of Antoniano and Baronio to a papal mandate to investigate accusations. This seems to indicate that, as the teachers launched their invectives against the Pious Schools, the Pope would ask for reports from both cardinals who - at least from Vestri’s reference - he knew had visited the schools, or perhaps he asked them to return for a visit of inspection. In both cases the visit was made, and with satisfactory results.

Perhaps the teachers’ interested complaints were partly heard and an agreement was reached that was proposed or even approved by the two visitors. In the Pious Schools, the poor were admitted free of charge, but this social category was much broader in those days than it is today and there were certainly some pupils whose parents were not so extremely poor that they could not afford to attend school. And it was precisely these pupils that the neighborhood teachers wanted to bring back. Perhaps this is why Calasanz decided - either of his own accord or because of some prompting from the appeasing cardinals - to require his pupils to present a ‘certificate of poverty’ signed by their parish priests from then on.[1674] The immediate result was a drop in the number of students from 700 to 500[1675], but the gap left by these 200 would soon be filled by others.[1676]

1674 The first document that mentions this certificate is the Memorandum to Card. Montalto. It speaks of the schools next to St. Andrew della Valle, which pay 200 scudi a year in rent, then it is about the period of the Vestri palace. He says: “there they teach only by charity... to all those who with faith of poverty of their parish priest there attend... a good part of which are from the Parish of S. Lorenzo in Damaso, of which all are accepted with the certificate of the Rev. Father Felice...” (cf. EGC II, p.47-48).

1675 In July 1602, before the visit of the two cardinals, there were 700 students, according to Ghellini (cf. EC III, p.1552); in the memorandum to Card. Montalto says Calasanz “today the poor schoolchildren taught by them are at least 500” (cf. EGC II, p. 48). But according to the memorandum of 1623 of Calasanz, already before passing to the palace Vestri “there were about 500 pupils... and because the number of pupils was constantly increasing, they were forced to take another house”, that was the said Vestri palace (cf. EGC II, p.170). Then, that drop of about 200 must have a reason.

1676 Probably it fits here the data of the Breve Relatione or Documentum princeps, in whose complete title Calasanz put at first that the pupils were “più di seicento”, and then someone corrected settecento (cf. n.1629 and 1633 of this chapter). We noted that such a document seemed to us to have been composed in the years 1604 or 1605, after the establishment of the common life (July-Sep. 1604), and therefore a year or so after the imposition of the certificate of poverty, which expressly mentions this Breve relatione: ...” no one will be received without the testimony of the parish priest that he is poor...” (cf. SÁNTHA, SJC, 1st ed., p.749). The number of students, then, had already exceeded 600 or 700 at the end of a year.

It seems obvious that the “certificate of poverty” was humiliating for the children and their families. And Calasanz knew from his experience as visitor of the Confraternity of the Apostles how difficult it was for people to call themselves poor. Charitable care for the “shameful poor” was one of the Confraternity’s main objectives. So there had to be a strong reason for Calasanz to demand this “certificate of poverty” from his students. And the reason we have suggested, for lack of a better reason, seems sufficient to us: it was an act of conformity with the paid teachers of the city schools. But as soon as he has the opportunity to abolish this certificate, he will do so. Ten years later, when he united his work with the Fathers of the Congregation of Lucca and optimistically sought the expansion of his Pious Schools throughout the world[1677], he stated in the memorandum he addressed to Paul V in November 1613 to authorize the union, he set as one of the conditions “that only the poor be admitted to the Pious Schools in the city of Rome with the testimony of their pastors who are such, or as children of noble families who have fallen into decay, with the testimony of the confessor or some other trustworthy person. But outside the city of Rome, all may be admitted without any other testimony.”[1678] And the reason for this distinction would be that only in Rome had he accepted this requirement to appease the city teachers. Outside Rome, it was not necessary to require such offensive evidence; it was enough that they were poor without having to certify this. The papal Brief (1614) confined itself to confirming the need for certification only in Rome, without mentioning possible foundations outside the city.[1679] And when it came to the foundation of the Pauline Congregation of Pious Schools, there was no allusion to the poverty certification clause, neither in the memoranda, nor in the projects, nor in the final Brief Ad ea, per quae (1617).[1680] The formula mentioned in the said Brief, that the institute of Pious Schools is at the service of children “praesertim pauperum”, i.e. neither exclusively for the poor, nor for all without distinction, but for the children, but mainly for the poor, is maintained.[1681] The institutional firmness conferred by papal authorization made it possible to leave aside the enforced conditionings of the Roman teachers of earlier times.

1677 “…having had this Prefect (Calasanz) for many years, having seen the great usefulness and fruit of these schools, he wished to perpetuate and increase them not only for the city of Rome, but for the whole world...” (cf. G. SANTHA, Nova quaedam documenta...; EphCal 6 [1960] 199, n.18).

1678 Ibid., p.189. Only from Calasanz and not from the Lucca Fathers could have come this clause of liberation from the certificate of poverty outside Rome, since those Fathers neither thought nor wanted to admit schools outside Rome, as the General eloquently proved when Calasanz founded the Pious Schools of Frascati (cf. EGC II, p.57-59).

1679 Cf. Bull. Sch. P., p.15, n.4.

1680 Cf. G. SÁNTHA, Iter Calasanctii ad condendam Religionem Sch. P...: EphCal 2 (1967) 82; Bull. Sch. P., p.18-21. Which confirms the idea that the opening proposed as early as 1613 (cf. n.1678 above) came from Calasanz and not from the Lucca Fathers, who had nothing to do with the creation of the Pauline Congregation.

1681 “…nos, ne tam pium, ac praesertim pauperum liberorum liberorum Christianae educationi et eruditioni proficuum opus aliquod propterea detrimentum patiatur...” (Brief Ad ea, per quae: Bull. Sch. P. p.19). For all these reasons, it seems unacceptable to us the opinion of C. Vilá that the personal charism of Calasanz was to teach exclusively to the poor with certificate of poverty, and that both the religious of Lucca and Paul V forced him to renounce this exclusivism; moreover, the said Pope would be the creator of the institute by leaving the charism of the Order in “teaching children gratuitously; thus, without any adjective and without any certificate.” The mentality of Calasanz is very clear and immutable from the beginning to the end that his Institute has been founded for the poor mainly and not for all kinds of children without distinction (cf. Juicio historico-critico sobre la “Positio super virtutibus” del P. Pedro Casani, Sch. P. [Salamanca 1983] p.173-188).

Strangely enough, these Roman teachers were supposed to admit the poor to their schools free of charge, but they only admitted a few, while the majority of pupils had to pay. The school authorities insisted that more poor people be admitted free of charge, but in vain. And in 1646, the ordinances of the rector of the Sapienza, Charles Cartari, stipulated that the primary school teachers of each district “must teach free of charge all students who present them with their pastors’ certificate of poverty, endorsed by the Rector.”[1682] This was the same formula that Calasanz had adopted, probably forced by the protests of the teachers, but from which Paul V had finally freed him in 1617 with the Brief Ad ea, per quae, with which he established the Pauline Congregation. The difference was enormous, however, because for Calasanz this formula meant discrimination: he could only admit the poor who could produce this certificate and not others; for the teachers - not all, but only the primary teachers in each district - it meant the obligation to admit those who demonstrated the faith of poverty free of charge and make the others pay. From 1617, however, the Pious Schools remained open free of charge to all children, but preferably to the poor, without the need for a certificate.

1682 Cf. G. PELLICCIA, o.c, p.457. In these same ordinances are given the fees to be charged to paying students for each subject. See also ibid., n.59-60, 90, 135, 345, etc.

Other external and internal conflicts

In the course of the beatification of St. John Leonardi, St. Joseph de Calasanz spoke out in 1639 and said that Clement VIII, who recognized him as a wise man, “had chosen him to settle certain differences and pretensions that had arisen between some gentlemen and the teachers of the Pious Schools, which on this occasion was very useful for the work of the Pious Schools.”[1683] What was the problem? That is not easy to answer. It was certainly not an internal disagreement among the members of the Congregation, nor was it a question of the organization of the common life, in whose decisive meeting Leonardi took part together with Mgr Vestri.[1684]

1683 Cf. full text and commentary in Archivum 4 (1978) 277.

1684 This is how C. Vilá understands it, extending the problematic in which Leonardi had to intervene. But it is not clear who were the “gentlemen” who provoked “the differences and pretensions”, nor what these were (cf. Archivum 4 [1978] 281-283; C. VILÁ, Las Escuelas Pias seglares, p.226-229).

Rather, it was a conflict between an external group (some gentlemen) and the group that made up the Congregation (the teachers of the Pious Schools). At first glance, one might think it was the conspiracy of the teachers from the neighborhood that we have just seen. But no one, neither then nor now, would think of applying the qualification ‘gentlemen’ to the Roman teachers of the neighborhood, because it is normal that they were simple people, “often vagabonds and fickle people”, as Cardinal Silvio Antoniano wrote.[1685] Nevertheless, Talenti insinuates that they were the instigators of a new campaign to denigrate and discredit the Pious Schools in front of the nobles or “gentlemen” who sent their own children there, accusing these teachers of being ignorant, indiscreet and unjust, since they treated poor and rich children, nobles and commoners, without distinction.[1686] Talenti did not know, however, that at the time of the pontificate of Clement VIII, as we have seen, there were no rich or noble people in the Pious Schools, but only poor people who had to prove their poverty through the written testimony of their parish priests.[1687]

1685 Cf. SÁNTHA, SJC, p.41.

1686 TALENTI, Vita, p.86.

1687 No doubt chronologically disoriented, Talenti applied to this period what will be true much later: then it was taught in the Pious Schools... to youngsters of every kind, to commoners and nobles, rich and poor, great and small... (ibid.). This same idea was maintained by Bau, giving to Leonardi’s intervention the meaning proposed by Talenti (cf. Bau, BC, p.321-323).

It is very likely that this mysterious conflict was the same one that Calasanz spoke of in a letter of 1628. He said:

“...I want to tell you what happened to me with the gentlemen of the Confraternity of the Holy Name of Jesus, which was founded in the Minerva of Rome and is a very rich confraternity. They came to me many years ago and told me that these gentlemen would offer to cover all the necessary expenses for the house and the upkeep of the teachers if they came once a week to meet with us and see how things were going in order to give us the necessary help. I replied to them that whoever wanted to come to dispose of our things should work as we did, and that they should take care of their work while we would take care of ours, since the Lord, who knows all things and can provide for all things, would help us in our needs.”[1688]

1688 Cf. c.822. Vilá specifies that in the Minerva there were three confraternities: Anunciata, Smo. Salvatore and Nome di Dio, not of Jesus, as Calasanz says. The latter was poor, while that of the Savior was very rich. Therefore, Calasanz refers to this one. Vilá revised, without fruit, the Libro delli decreti della Ven. Compagnia del Smo. Salvatore 1597-1623, as well as the one corresponding to the confraternity of the Name of God. There is no allusion to this offer (cf.C. VILÁ, o.c., p.221, n.46.).

It is not possible to say exactly when this event took place, but it can be assumed that it was before 1612, when the house of San Pantaleon was purchased. The remembrance comes to mind because the point is that the claims of a benefactor trying to get his way should not be allowed. Leonardi’s case was also about settling “certain differences and pretensions” The Confraternity was very rich and Calasanz emphasizes the word ‘lords’ twice, referring to the confreres. This suggests that it was indeed the aforementioned gentlemen. Perhaps Calasanz’s refusal, although more polite than the text of his letter suggests, angered the confreres and their complaints reached Pope Clement VIII, who instructed John Leonardi to appease the offended spirits and thus avoid unpleasant consequences for the Pious Schools.

Another internal conflict within the Congregation arose at the beginning of 1604, six months before it was decided to introduce common life. These were the months in which Calasanz was unable to act due to his serious fall and the priest Andrew Basso was Prefect of the schools. In the request addressed to Msgr. Vestri to obtain the letter of approval from Jerome Nicotera, Basso adds an interesting piece of information about the binding nature of the decisions taken by the majority within this Congregation, even before the introduction of common life.[1689] And one of these decisions was to make the list of all those who belonged to the Congregation publicly accessible. But although the majority had agreed to this, a minority seems to have disagreed, and even others had subsequently changed their minds and perhaps wanted the decision to be revoked.[1690]

1689 Cf. G. SÁNTHA, Sac. Hieronymus Nicotera..., p.344-346, n.6 (cit. in n.1635 of this chap.).

1690 “I never dared to say either yes or no, when Your Excellency asked me for my opinion on putting the name of the brothers on paper, fearing to be in fault. But when I saw that the opinion won, it seems to me that I cannot falter in following the will and opinion of the majority of the brothers. I have told this to Your Excellency because I feel that some of the brothers at home have changed, but stat sententia facta” (ibid., p.346). Something similar was prescribed in 1658 for the schools of Christian Doctrine, in Rome, ordering them to have a poster exposed in public “with the names of all the brothers and of the operarii which, while the teaching lasts, should be kept in view of all” (Forma delle scuole della D. Cristiana in Roma et regola nell’insegnare, 1658: cit. in C. VILÁ o.c., p.226-227, n.61). But the social situation of such catechesis was very different from that of the Pious Schools of the Vestri palace.

We do not know the exact purpose of such a public list, nor the reason for the displeasure of those who opposed it. Perhaps the purpose was to strengthen the perseverance and commitment of the members of the congregation.[1691] And perhaps the reason for the resentment was the fear of being discredited for belonging to schools that, like all schools for children in general, deserved the contempt of the humanists of the time[1692], and even more so the Pious Schools, which in those years were open only to the poorest children of Rome, since it had been decided not so long ago that only those who brought a certificate of poverty should be admitted. Years later, there were people who sarcastically referred to the Pious Schools as sewers into which the feces and garbage of all of Rome flowed.[1693] So, it is understandable that some did not want his name to appear in public, especially after the recent smear campaign promoted by the city’s teachers.[1694]

1691 This is what Sántha believes (cf. ibid., p.343).

1692 Cf. G. PELLICCIA, o.c., p.64. Silvio Antoniano lamented that it had turned out in his time, “although without reason, to teach children a vile and despicable exercise” (cf. in SANTHA, SJC, p.41). John Louis Vives wrote to Erasmus: “I feel such disgust for schools that I would do anything rather than return to these filth places and deal with children” (ALLEN, Opus epist. Des. Erasmi, V, p.113).

1693 Jano Nicio Eritreo, the learned pseudonym of Gian Vittorio Rossi (1577-1647), speaking of Andrea Bayano (1566-1639), who taught and died in the Pious Schools, says “ac postremo vitae suae tempore hanc eandam Grammaticae artem professus est apud eos (the Piarists), ad quos puerorum Urbis faex atque quisquiliae, tamquam in cloacam aliquam confluunt, ut literelis imbuatur” (Pinacotheca imaginum illustrium virorum, I, no. I44. I44. Cit. in EC IV, p.1808). Vilá also relates this internal conflict with the visit of Leonardi (cf. C. VILÁ, o.c., p.238-239).

1694 Two years earlier, Gelio Ghellini considered these same Pious Schools of Palazzo Vestri as a sort of springboard to fame, being the object of observation and admiration of the cardinals and prelates who visited them. He wrote on August 31, 1602: “In short, things are making great progress; and this year we shall have frequent visits from the Prelates. The occasion to become known is too great and more than I thought, because since the matter of the spirit of these children (the students) and of their prayer rests with me, I have many things to do, which these Cardinals see and will see in the daytime, wanting to know everything minutely “ (EC III, p.1555).

The collaborators of Calasanz

Difficult times, no doubt. The contradictions had been mounting lately. The poverty was obvious. The alms of the great failed. They had to resort to public begging. They were certainly not religious, but they lived the vow of poverty without having taken it. Moreover, the common life was perhaps too demanding. It seemed to them like a strict monastic plan that had to be adhered to. And in addition to the rigors of communal life, there was the hardship of school work, work in the service of the poor, the poorest of the poor.

It took a lot of spirit to bear the burden of days and hours in a thankless and ungrateful task, and to top it all off, discredited. And as if that was not enough, the waves of envy and slander reached the threshold of these schools like an overflowing and threatening Tiber. And not everyone had the heroic spirit of this almost fifty-year-old Spaniard who was well on his way to becoming a Saint. And then came discouragement and giving up. Even from the best. And these were mainly the ones who left the same sadness in Calasanz’s soul as Christ’s when he saw the rich young man leave. But in this case, they were not even rich.

For example, this Don Simon Fiori, a priest who only stayed for a few months and whom Calasanz described as follows: “In these Pious Schools, out of charity and piety, he was commendably occupied for a few months not only with teaching, but also with exhorting the students through pious lectures filled with the Spirit of God. And that the said Father Simon is not only a good man who does not even harbor the slightest suspicion of a crime, but that he is endowed with many virtues and above all with zeal for souls and has proven himself to be a good and faithful servant of God.”[1695] And he left at the end of April 1604, before they accepted life together.

1695 C. VILÁ, Galeria..., p.300 and 302.

And this other priest, Don Jerome Nicotera, who in early 1604 “showed himself “very eager and anxious to expect from His Holiness the permission and ability to devote himself to the labors and submissions of these Pious Schools, having deprived himself of the income of his church and almost also of the income (of the school) of his neighborhood, because he had a great desire to help this work....”[1696] And he did not finish the year at Vestri Palace and returned to his own school. And with him he dragged his brother.

1696 Ibid., p.304.

And Don Andrew Basso, also a priest, whose excellent qualities are guaranteed by the fact that he was elected prefect of the Pious Schools, replacing Calasanz, and that shortly after the introduction of common life in September 1604, he left the Congregation on October 7th.[1697]

1697 Ibid., p.299-301.

And the other, also a priest, Don John Francis Fiammelli, “a Florentine mathematician known throughout Rome”, as Ghellini said.[1698] We know with certainty that he taught mathematics (abacus) at the Vestri Palace in the school year 1601-1602, but everything suggests that, although he remained in Rome until 1610, he left the Pious Schools as early as 1603.[1699] Nevertheless, he continued to treat Calasanz as a brother, as both remained members of the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine at least until 1605.[1700] Moreover, his attachment to Calasanz’s ideals led him to open Pious Schools in Bologna and Florence, entrusting the latter to Calasanz and his Order at the age of seventy-six in 1630.[1701]

1698 Cf. EC III, p.1554.

1699 When he published his book Il Principe Cristiano Guerriero, in 1602, he called himself Fratello della Congregazione delle Scuole Pie, but the following year, 1603, when he published his work Il modo di ordinare e disporre un esercito, he no longer mentions his membership in that Congregation, nor in the other works that he continued to publish in Rome until he left in 1610. Neither is he mentioned in the enumerations of Calasanz’ collaborators, made by Berro and referring to the years 1604 onwards, nor in the later lists found by Sántha and referring to the years 1603 onwards. (cf. G. SÁNTHA, Quattuor novi elenchi..., p.362-390). In one letter in 1612 he refers to himself: “The year 1610 a brother-in-law died, and since the Florentines are merchants, I had to leave Rome and move to Florence” (cit. en O. TOSTI, G. F. Fiammelli e l’introduzione degli scolopi in Firenze: Ricerche 13 [1985] 15).

1700 Regarding Fiammelli cf. O. TOSTI, o.c., p.7; regarding Calasanz cf. G. SÁNTHA, De S. Fundatoris n. in confr. Doctr. Christ..., p.159, n.21. Perhaps his absorbing activity as a writer in these years forced him to leave teaching in the Pious Schools, as Tosti believes (cf. O. TOSTI, o.c., p.11).

1701 Cf. O. TOSTI, o.c., p.16-67; F. MOROSI, Le Scuole Pie di Bologna: Ricerche 5 (1982) 78-93; C. VILÁ, Galeria..., p.273-299.

And that other priest, a holy man, Don Gelio Ghellini, who worked in the Pious Schools for five years (1602-1607) and then also left them, perhaps at the request of his own bishop of Vicenza. Calasanz must have mourned his departure, for he held him in great esteem and admiration, as he made clear in a letter to his brother when he expressed his condolences on his death, which took place in 1616 with the fame of sanctity:

“...It is a great consolation to me - he wrote - to know some of the many graces that His Divine Majesty bestows on those who entrust themselves with devotion to the holy memory of Father Gelio. And since I knew the goodness of the said Fr. Gelio from within, it is not difficult for me to believe such things, especially the integrity of his body after he had lain in the ground for seven months, and I believe that he would have been preserved for many, many years, for it is usually a special grace of those who have preserved cleanliness and purity of body and soul during their lifetime, which he was very careful to do. He had attained such a degree of prayer that it seemed to be his greatest joy to be among children of pure age and to teach them to love the Lord and to pray. It also seemed that with his purity he attracted like a magnet the hearts of the pure children, who found no greater joy at school than to be in the company of this Father. And to this day I have never noticed such an extraordinary effect on anyone. I could still write about the feelings he had in prayer and meditation on the Passion of the Lord, and about the singular gift of tears and the most ardent zeal for the glory of God...”[1702]

1702 C.16. Within two years of his death the process of beatification was opened, but it was interrupted in the time of Urban VIII and resumed in 1674. Cf. c. VILÁ, o.c., p.269-273.

Among those who have not gone, that memorable old man occupies a privileged place, venerable like no other, a simple cleric of minor orders, of whom Calasanz, in the small anthology of historical news that is his account of 1623, speaks as of a miracle worthy to be remembered. “In 1603 - he writes - a venerable old man of great spirit, who for perhaps more than 40 years kept a school of grammar and humanities in Rome and is now 110 years old, came to help with the said work. He has always persevered and continues to run the school with the same vigor as if he were young, with great benefit to the boys, named Caspar Dragonetti, from Leontino in Sicily.”[1703] And he lived until 1628, when he reached the age of one hundred and fifteen… We cannot forget to recount some anecdotes from these happy years of his life later on.

1703 EGC II, p.170-171. See a perfect biographical study: G. SÁNTHA, P. Gasparus Dragonetti (1513-1628): EphCal 5 (1960) 146-173.

There was one more -the seventh and last of this reduced parade of clear men of the first hour - a simple layman, a very faithful companion of Calasanz and dear friend, the only one who remained in the active service of the Pious Schools during the Founder’s many years. His name already appears in the first lists of Berro, referring to 1604, and he died in Rome in 1664. He was Ventura Sarafellini from Imola, an illustrious personality, an extraordinary calligrapher who, while teaching writing to the poorest of the poor boys in Rome in the schools of the Vestri Palace, designed the cardboard silhouettes for the gigantic letters of the inner ring frieze of the Vatican dome, which read: Tu es Petrus...[1704] In addition to the children, Calasanz himself was also his pupil, outstanding indeed, as can be seen from so many signatures in his own hand.[1705]

1704 Caputi already recalled it (cf. SÁNTHA, SJC, p.144, n.17). but with personal satisfaction I found myself in the Archivo de la Rda. Fabrica de S. Pedro two confirming notes that read: “1605. On the 16th of September. To master Ventura Sarafellini da Imola sc (scudi) twenty-five of money as a good account of the cardboards that he makes for the frieze of the dome where Tu es Petrus is written, etc..” (l.c., 1 piano, Serie Armadi, vol. 178, f.27v). “1606 on the 19th day of May. To Ventura Farfallini (sic) sc. Twenty-five moneta. (coin) for the good account of the letters that he has made in the frieze of the Dome where it is written ‘Tu es Petrus etc...” (ibid., f.68v) (cit. in S. GINER, The Process of Beatification of St. Joseph Calasanz, p.70, n.62).

1705 In 1641 he wrote: “I have always been busy in various things and I have learned the perfection of writing and also many parts of the abacus in order to be able to teach it to our people” (C.3673).

The great esteem in which he held this faithful collaborator is eloquently attested to by the lifelong employment contract he signed with him in 1618, with clauses of admirable social sense for the time, ending with the words: “I have made this concession to him because he has served this place with great perseverance and love from the very beginning, when this blessed work of Pious Schools was begun.”[1706]

1706 Cf. SÁNTHA, SJC, p.157. n. 17; C. VILÁ, Galería ..., p.313. Here are some paragraphes: “I Joseph of the Mother of God, Prefect of the Pauline Congregation of the Poor of the Mother of God make agreement with Mr. Ventura Sarafellini from Imola, calligrapher in Rome to give writing lessons during all his life in the schools of our Congregation every day after meals from the begining of the schools until the end without taking anything from the students who attend our schools. However, outside the school, he can have particular diligences when called by the parents to their houses. And he must be given for his provision and emolument 30 scudi of coin a year, and failing to serve, provided it is not due to the impediment of infirmity, it must be taken from him the pro rata of the said provision. And so, I order and exhort that no one of our Brothers ever in the future will dare to contravene this agreement and my order... and that our Brothers keep him as one of them, and that he be a participant in all the works and merits of the Congregation... I want him to be valid as if he were an instrument in forma Camerae Apostolicae....” (SÁNTHA, l.c., p. 156-157). It is an agreement for life; part-time; freedom to have paid clases out of the school; he is also paid if he is sick; it is an irrevocable agreement from the part of Pious Schools, that is, he cannot be dismissed until his death; it has value as public notarized document.

Only two of the seven mentioned were faithful and persevering until death, but without joining the Order. The others left it. But not only these five outstanding priests, but also others, both priests and lay people. The long series of entries and exits was constant. In the nine years of common life from Vestri Palace to the purchase of the final house of San Pantaleo (1604-1612), there were seventy-three collaborators, of whom eight died and fifty-four left the work. Only eleven joined the new house and perhaps a few more who do not appear in the documented lists.[1707]

1707 Cf. G. SÁNTHA, Quattuor novi elenchi..., p.377. Se the biographical notes of all in C. VILÁ, Galería..., p.263-340.

The seven companions of Calasanz we have presented can give us an idea of the quality of the teachers in the Vestri Palace. And the large number of those who joined and left the Congregation of Pious Schools suggests that the schools were sufficiently well looked after, despite the volatility and mobility of the group. Over the years, when Calasanz spoke to Berro about these matters in his old age, this was the positive judgment he had of them:

“There were not a few times that the workers themselves decided to leave because of the great necessity (sic) they had about necessary things and because the obligations that grew due to the debts of the house, and some of them actually left. But in spite of everything, our father Joseph never lost heart, but was more and more confirmed and supported by Divine Providence, knowing that it was up to him to maintain and provide for the school as his own, which he always did by such means that everyone could see how much H.D.M. accepted the work of the Pious Schools. And I know all this,” Berro concludes, “from the mouth of the V. Founder, D. Joseph Calasanz.”[1708]

1708 BERRO I, p.81.

Move to San Pantaleo Square

In the meticulous report of 1623, Calasanz notes another date and another historical event: “From the said house that the Fathers (Theatines) of St. Andrew ‘de la Valle’ have today, the Pious Schools moved on the first of November 1605 to San Pantaleo Square, to the house of Mr. Ottavio Mannini, for which they paid 350 escudos in rent and where they lived for almost seven years. And the Holiness Paul V of happy memory always helped to pay the rent.”[1709] Berro completed the message by stating the reason for the transfer and its positive results: “And since not even the house of Mons. Vestri de Comitibus Cunei was no longer able to accommodate the growing number of students, the Pious Schools were moved to Piazza San Pantaleo, near Piazza Navona, where the number of students and workers increased due to the greater comfort.”[1710]

1709 EGC II, p.171. Calasanz is very precise when he says that Paul V “always helped to pay this rent” because of the seven years that they lived there (1606-1612) the Pope only paid the 350 escudi a year in 1609 and 1610 in two installments of 175 escudi; in the other years he only “helped”: in 1606 he gave 312.50; 175 only in 1607 and 1608; 300 in 1611 and 200 in 1612. In 1612 the house of San Pantaleón was bought, ending the payment of rents. However, since 1613, Paul V and his successors continued to give the Pious Schools 200 escudos annually in two installments: one in St. John’s and the other at Christmas. All this is minutely recorded in two autograph reports of Calasanz, almost exactly identical, whose title reads “Alms given by the happy memory of Paul Fifth and Gregorio XV and also of Urban 8th to the Fathers of the Pious Schools for the benefit of the work and above all to pay the rent of the house” The list goes from 1600 to 1624 (cf. RegCal, XII, 33 and 34).

1710 BERRO I, p.79-80.

This continuous increase in the number of pupils once again aroused envy, which led to accusations, slander and memoranda. The resolute protector of Pious Schools, Clement VIII, had died in March 1605 and was succeeded by Leo XI, who, as the protector of the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, knew Calasanz very well. It was in his presence, as Cardinal Alexander de Medici, that the memorable vote took place in which Calasanz thought he would become president, but he came third. So much was expected of this new pope in favor of his Pious Schools, but he lasted only twenty-seven days. A new conclave and a new election. This time it was Cardinal Camillo Borghese, with the name Paul V, who also knew Father Joseph from the years when he was Cardinal Vicar.[1711] He had no time to regret the death of Leo XI, for he was much more satisfied with the choice of Paul V and expressed this with an elaborate parchment that he wanted to offer him on behalf of his children and which, for unknown reasons, remained in the General Archives of the Order.[1712]

1711 Berro testifies to the esteem he felt for him: “His Em Cardinal Camilo Borghese Vicar of the Supreme Pontiff, who is very desirous of reforming the nuns and of introducing in them the communal life in conformity with the sound ordinances of the Holy Council of Trent, elected for this purpose our Calasanzio for the Ven. Monastery of S. Silverio in Campo Marzio, as confessor of those Mothers...” (BERRO I, pp. 66).

1712 Bartlik describes it as follows: “Artificis nimirum penicillo fecit aedis Lauretanae formari effigiem, in cuius medio Deipara, hinc S. Anna, illinc S. Josepho stipata caelesti Patri sublevatum offerebat filiolum. A fronte stabant Scholarum Piarum diicipuli capita submisse inclinantes, ad quos directi e nubibus Genii cum epigrafhe: Vos cum oblato offerte. Propylaeum autem ornabat haec inscripto: Santae Domus Lauretanae pium Mysterium, pueri Sch. P. venerabundi tam pro se, quam pro Smi, Domini Pauli V longaevitate, ac S. Rom. Eccl. felici statu deprecantur. Romae anno 1605, mense Maio (Paul V was elected on May 16, 1605). Et subscriptio sic munusculum adornabat:

Excipe Virgo simul, quae fert pia vota precantum.

Casta Cohors, Summo defer et ista Patri.

Sic tua nutantes sustentet dextera mentes.

Te Duce nec tenebras sentiat ulla suas.”

(B. BARTLIK, Annales Ordinis nostri: EphCal 3 [1933] 102-103). Probably the Latin distiches and dedication were the work of the Latinist Fr. Caspar Dragonetti.

If the opponents of the Pious Schools believed that they would achieve their goals with the new pope, they were mistaken, for he proved to be the staunchest protector of Calasanz and his schools. However, it seems that in order to calm tempers and even his own conscience, he instructed some cardinals to revisit the Pious Schools and inform him correctly.[1713] But the one who dispelled the possible doubts and firmly stood up for Calasanz was the Carmelite Father John of Jesus Mary, who was highly esteemed by Paul V and was a great friend of Father Joseph, along with the other venerable Carmelites of La Scala.[1714]

1713 According to Berro, in addition to the municipal teachers and the rector of La Sapienza, with whom the visit of Baronio and Antoniano is related, there were “others”, not better identified, whose denunciations reached a Congregation of cardinals “with the pretense that the teachers (of the Pious Schools) being ignorant, could make errors against the Holy Faith.” And Card. Alemanno came to the defense of the slandered, since a few days before he had been visiting the said schools. Berro does not remember any more “apostolic visitors” and even in this last incident he seems to have been there before the election of Paul V, for he then writes: “At the beginning of the pontificate of Pope Paul V, His Holiness was also badly informed...” (BERRO I, p.80-81). Bartlik, without giving documentary sources, speaks of Card. Alemanno and Montalto, sent by Paul V in 1606 as apostolic visitors (cf. text quoted in A. GARCÍA-DURÁN, o.c., p.113, n.567). Talenti, however, appoints as visitors Card. Cintio Passeri Aldobrandini and Alessandro Peretti Montalto (cf. TALENTI, Vita, p.92), whose version Bau accepts (cf. BAU, BC, p.323). Fr. Bandini also mentioned Card. Mellini as Visitor on this occasion (ibid.).

1714 In this new onslaught of the adversaries against the Pious Schools, Berro presents Fr. John as the only one to whom Paul V turns for reassurance (cf. BERRO, I, p. 81). Armini followed Berro’s Brief testimony (cf. ARMINI, Vita, p.95).

These new attacks against the Pious Schools prompted Calasanz, perhaps on the advice of Father John and his friends, to ask the Pope for a cardinal protector for his “work”, to which Paul V gladly agreed and appointed Cardinal Ludovico Torres from Monreale on March 24, 1607.[1715] Both Calasanz’s request and the papal Brief state that the Pious Schools were set up for the poor, without any further details.[1716] And in the letter of greeting and congratulations that Calasanz dedicated to the Protector, some terms already appear that he later repeated in various documents and letters, with which he justified the importance of his educational institution, invoking Sacred Scripture, the councils and experience, even emphasizing the usefulness of educating children “a teneris annis” and seeing in this devotion to the poor and little ones the fulfillment of the Lord’s wishes.[1717]

1715 The memorandum of Calasanz to the Pope, in EphCal 6 (1960) 197, n.6. The Brief of Appointment, in EphCal 5 (1933) 196-197.

1716 The plea reads: “So that the work of the Pious Schools, no less useful than necessary in Rome for the poor, may be promoted with some stable foundation...” (EphCal 6 [1960] 197, n.6). And the Brief “Cum pridem in Alma Urbe Nostra nonnullae Scholae Piae nuncupate ad pueros inopes gratis erudiendos auctore Deo institutae sint...” (EphCal 5 [1933] 196). It is not specified whether they are “only” or “principally” (praesertim) for the poor. Until 1617, the certificate of poverty will be required, thus being only for the poor. From the foundation of the Pauline Congregation in 1617 they will be praesertim for the poor, without requiring any certificate.

1717 The letter begins: “Quam utilis et quam necessaria sit educatio iuventutis in comni Republica Christiana, neque sacrae Sripturae neque Conciliorum auctoritatibus, neque etiam rationibus ad hoc propositum congruis demostrare sufficio. Ita namque communis rerum omnium magistra experientia nos distincte informat... Si proinde tantae utilitatis est in terris novellas illas plantulas mox a teneris annis aqua salutaris doctrinae irrigare, ut dulces fructus Domino proferant in tempore suo, quanti erit in coelis meriti talibus operam suam impendere.... Sane pridem dixit Vates Regius beatum illum qui intelligit super egenum ef pauperem (Sl 41, 1); et benignissimus Salvator, factum illis sibi factum appropians, proferre dignatus est. Quod uni ex minimis meis fecistis, mihi fecistis (Mt 25:40) ...” (quoted in BARTLIK, Annales: EphCal 5 [1933] 197-198, Sántha accepts this text as belonging to Calasanz, as presented by Bartlik (cf. G. SÁNTHA, Nova quaedam documenta... EphCal 6 [1960] 187, 198, n.9). We are left, however, with the doubt that it is a composition of the analyst, since the parallelism with nos. 2 and 4 of the Proemium of the Constitutions that he composed in 1620-1621, using even the expression a teneris annis and the quotation of Mt 25, 40, identical in both texts, but different from that of the Gospel, suggests that Bartlik composed that letter inspired in part by the cited numbers of the Proemium.

Cardinal Torres’ protection did not last long, for he died on July 8, 1609,[1718] and in these two years we have little news of his deeds, except for his generosity. Berro says that “he gave ten escudi every month and other large sums during the year”.[1719]

1718 Cf. Hier. Cath., IV,9.

1719 BERRO, III, p. 250. Bartlik adds that he also left a bequest of one hundred escudos (cf. BARTLIK, o.c., in EphCal I [1934] 14).

During the seven years that the Pious Schools spent in the Mannini palace, despite the campaign of discredit already mentioned, they continued to enjoy the esteem of the great, receiving their frequent visits and their tokens of admiration. Berro expresses himself as follows:

“...and the good odor of the virtues of the workers and especially of Father Joseph, with his admirable way of leading such a numerous army of boys of all ages, attracted all sorts of personalities to visit the schools and entrust themselves to his prayers and marvel at such a great work. I know that among them were more than once Cardinals Mellini, Lancellotti, Aldobrandini, Borghese, Tonti, Lanti, Torres and others, as well as many and many prelates, princes and royal ambassadors.”[1720]

1720 BERRO, I, p.82.

Poverty and Providence

This long parade of cardinals and prelates, princes of the Roman nobility and ambassadors through the halls of Palazzo Mannini continued the one already begun in Palazzo Vestri and once again one might think that their praise and admiration for this work for the poor went hand in hand with their alms and generosity. And there is no lack of allusions by Berro, Caputi and other witnesses to this or that cardinal who gave alms every month. The Pope’s help was not much more generous, not even covering the 350 escudos a year for the rent of the house.

These alms from the greats were joined by the personal contributions of the workers themselves, who were not content to provide their services free of charge, but in some cases contributed to the common expenses with their own money[1721], starting with Calasanz himself, who even in these years repeatedly urged his Spanish procurators to obtain the rents of his properties, especially that of his personado in Claverol and Ortoneda.[1722] The last resort was to beg from door to door with saddlebags over his shoulder, which was also granted as a privilege, as it was the right of the mendicant friars.

1721 In his Reports A and B Berro notes the specific amounts of some, or in general terms recalls who contributed. For example, Dragonetti “contributed three escudos a month “; Bellotti “4 escudos a month”; Casella “three escudos a month “; Tovar “three scudos a month “; Ghellini “he contributed for himself and for another” and after leaving in 1607 “he continued until 14 febr. 1609 to give 5 escudos a month to help the Work”, etc. cf EphCal 11-12 [1959] 384-385.

1722 In 1607 and 1609 he appoints new procurators so that “proeo omnes et quascumque pecuniarum, rerum et bonorum summas ipsi constituenti (Domino) quavis de causa et occasiones debitas et in futurum debendas a quibusvis personis et per medium ciusvis banchi exigendum...” (G. SANTHA, Quinque instrumenta..., EphCal 6 [1959] 335, n.15 and the whole article).

But all this was not enough to cover the expenses, and the accounts of the house were always written in the red... There was no doubt about it: they were really poor and served the poor. The children showed their poverty certificate signed by the parish priest, the teachers their account books in which you could guess the signature of... Providence. Here is a very beautiful page, like a little Franciscan flower. Caputi has written it in his generous and novelistic style and Bau has translated it with his usual freedom:

“In 1650, the said Sarafellini told me that there were ten classes in the palace opposite the church of San Pantaleo, when you go to the Pasquino. The first (Latin) was taught by Father Caspar Dragonetti and had a large number of students. The abacus and writing classes were taught by Father Founder with the help of Sarafellini... When difficulties arose, he borrowed money; and when God provided, he made the bills and paid the debts. One morning, when Father Prefect (Calasanz) was at the head of his school, giving the abacus lesson, some of Father Caspar’s students ran into confusion. The prefect went out and asked them where they were going. They replied that they had been dismissed and that class was over. He ordered them to return to the classroom. He called the old teacher aside:

-What’s going on? What’s the news?

-To be honest, Fr. Prefect, things can not go on like this. We are up to our necks in debt. I can not cope with so much poverty any more. There’s no future in sight.

-But is this the word you gave to Our Lady to dedicate herself to her children? I do not think I understood what you were trying to say. Is it possible that you distrust Our Lady? Have you already forgotten the Gospel and the birds of the air that neither weave nor knit? Scare away temptation, Father Caspar. Drive away all melancholy. The children are waiting for you.

And old Father Dragonetti bowed his head, mumbled an apology and returned to the school. Perhaps he was not entirely convinced. Father Joseph called Sarafellini. “Go, he told him, to a carpenter; have him make a collection box with three keys and hurry up with it”. The next morning, the carpenter brought the box.

-Mr. Ventura, please do me the favor of writing a large and beautiful plaque: Alms for the Pious Schools.

And the box and sign were attached to the door of the schools. When the afternoon came and the school day was over, Father Prefect called Father Caspar and Mr. Ventura. The box had to be opened, even though it had only been exposed for one day. The smiles of the two men showed a somewhat mocking skepticism. But they took out their keys, opened the box and found 40 escudos in cash and a policy for 200 escudos against the Bonanni Bank in favor of Father Joseph Calasanz. It was assumed that it was Cardinal Cesareo Silvester Aldobrandini.[1723] But that was never certain. When he went to the bank, Father Joseph signed the receipt and took the 200 gold escudos; but he could not find the name of the donor.”[1724]

1723 Card. Silvester Aldobrandini, of the title of St. Caesarius.

1724 BAU, BC, p.307-309.

Berro also recorded the fact in his memoirs and says that Sarafellini told him about it, but he does not attribute the incident to the elder Dragonetti, but generalizes it by saying that “one morning after the schools, at lunchtime, when they had nothing prepared and also felt very uncomfortable because of the debts of the house, all the workers took the coat to leave and abandon work after dismissing the students...”, etc.[1725] Bartlik states that the event took place in 1608 and according to the economic books, 600 escudos were taken in that year, but the food was rather scarce and meager, as they hardly tasted meat and had to live with vegetables, legumes, fish, bread, cheese and a little wine.[1726]

1725 BERR0, III, p.251.

1726 “…vix carnibus (teste libro economico) per hebdomadam aliquando reficerentur, sed herbis, leguminibus et simplicibus obsoniis cum pane, caseo et modico vino victitarent (BARTLIK, o.c. in EphCal a [1934] 11).

Perhaps no one left that day, and deep in their souls they all felt a little like lilies of the field and birds of the air, under the fatherly gaze of God. But this kind of life was not exactly easy, with so many hardships and so much hard work, sometimes shared among so few. Nor did they all have the heroic qualities of Father Prefect, who was on his way to becoming a saint. The temptation to give up was great, for there was no serious commitment or canonical bond binding them to persevere. To strengthen the spirits and exhort them to persevere, Father John of Jesus Mary wrote his valuable Liber de pia educatione seu de cultura pueritiae at the request and with the probable ideological inspiration of Calasanz.[1727] The third part of the booklet is an Exhortation to teachers, in which they are expressly encouraged to continue on the path they have chosen with supernatural motives and to keep their eyes on the eternal reward.[1728]

1727 Bartlik believed it was written in 1609 because it is dedicated to Casd. Giustiniani, being appointed Protector of the Pious Schools that year as he believed, in the absence of documents. (cf. Ibid., p.15) But the appointment was in 1613 and in the dedication, he says that he wrote the book “ante annos aliquot” (cf. Complete edition of the book in Latin and Spanish in Archivum 16 [1984] 209-225). The purpose, however, remains unchanged, since the inconstancy of Calasanz’s collaborators has been present since the foundation of his work.

1728 The little work ends as follows: “This work will certainly be rewarded with a very large prize in the heavenly city that we seek. Truly, the weight will seem momentary and light when compared to the accumulation of eternal glory that will be received in heaven. Blessed, then, are those who are called to the cultivation of piety without remuneration from men ... Teachers, then, who have undertaken without laziness an action most pleasing to God, let them be constant in what they have begun and while they overcome the difficulties of the schools ... let them gather the very soft fruits of triumph and hasten to enjoy the supreme and everlasting Good” (cf. Archivium, 1c., p.224-225).

Despite these spiritual recommendations, this was roughly the reality during the years of permanence in Mannini palace: in 1605 there were 12 at the end of the year; in the triennium 1606-1608 there were 20, of whom 4 died, 7 left and 9 remained at the beginning of the following triennium 1609-1611; in the latter there were 34 in total, of whom 3 died, 13 left and 18 remained at the end of the year 1611.[1729]

1729 Cf. G. SANTHA, Quattuor novi elenchi ... in EphCal 11-12 (1959) 362-390.The calculations are not exact, but rather fall short because comparing the lists in the parish books of San Lorenzo in Damaso with Berro’s Reports A and B, it can be seen that there are collaborators in the Reports who do not appear in the Parish Books, for example, Sarafellini and Mark Antony Delfini.

Abbé Glicerio Landriani

In the brief Report of 1623, so often recalled, Calasanz gave this news as a worthy memory: “On the last day of May 1612, Abbé Glicerio Landriani arrived from Milan with five companions to work in the Pious Schools, who then became a novice in the Congregation of the Pious Schools in 1617, on the second of July, and died on February 15, 1618, at 6 o´clock in the evening, with the fame of holiness.”[1730]

1730 EGC II, p.171 In a memorandum addressed to Paul V at the end of 1616 Calasanz wrote: “to which exercise [of the pious schools] likewise attends from the month of April of 1612 onwards with much fruit the Abbe Glicerio Landriano with order of Fr. Domenico della Scala his confessor “ (EGC II, p.49).

He was like a shooting star because of his brevity and brilliance. Of the more than eighty collaborators he had from Santa Dorotea to the historic investiture of the first Piarists on March 25, 1617[1731], Calasanz explicitly mentions only two by name and date of entry in this report: the hundred-year-old Dragonetti and the young Glicerio, who was twenty-four years old. Perhaps he pinned his hopes on him to continue the work, as the Founder was already fifty-four years old and of course did not know that he still had thirty-six years to live.

1731 Cf. C. VILÁ, Gallery..., p.263-340. To the 73 biographies must be added the six named on p.263, who were later Piarists, and Dragonetti, not mentioned in the said Galería. Undoubtedly there were others, whose names have not been preserved.

He was perhaps the most famous of Calasanz’s many associates, for the Landriani were one of the oldest families of the Milanese nobility and his own father was, among other things, one of the LX decurions of the city, as well as being Lord of the castle and lands of Vidigulfo and other jurisdictions. His mother belonged to the Viscontis and Borromeos families. They were five brothers and seven sisters, including two clergymen and two nuns. One of his father’s brothers was Marsilio Landriani, bishop of Vigevano from 1593, the commendator abbot of St. Anthony of Milan and St. Anthony of Piacenza, which later on were entrusted to his nephews Fabricio and Glicerio Landriani respectively. This is why both Calasanz and his contemporaries usually referred to Glycerio as ‘Father Abate’. On his mother’s side, Glycerio’s uncles were the two great Cardinal Archbishops of Milan, St. Charles and Frederick Borromeo, from whom he received his first tonsure at the age of eighteen on April 8, 1606, and it does not appear that he received any minor orders.[1732]

1732 Among the numerous ancient and modern bibliography referring to Landriani, it is worth mentioning the recent edition of the unpublished work of Berro, entitled Vita del Servo di Dio Glicerio di Christo, not only for being one of the first ones written and for being by such author, but also for the abundant documentary contribution and consequent clarifications with which its editor P. C. Vilá has enriched it (cf. Archivum II [1982] 1-52). A list of other published or unpublished biographies can be found in ibid., p.3, to which we can add that of Armini translated into Spanish (Madrid 1887) by Father Manuel Pérez.

At the age of twenty he went to Rome to thrive in the Curia - like Calasanz - and lived for a time in the house of his brother, Msgr. Fabricio, Bishop of Pavia, showing off his luxurious clothes and behaving with a certain arrogance and exaggerated vanity. Fearing that he might be involved in a scandal, his brother had him admonished by a cardinal friend and the young man changed his life. He had certainly not come to anything serious, but his conversion was profound. His intense life of piety and penance led him to join a circle of clergy centered around a Portuguese priest named Francis Mendes, or Mendez, whose austerities and oddities went beyond the requirements of true piety. It was therefore a suitable environment for a “new convert” like Glicerio, who retained certain traces of these exaggerations until his death, being already a Piarist novice. The extravagant Portuguese priest had to leave Rome on the orders of Paul V. In Spain, he continued to show signs of his incoherences, was finally persecuted by the Inquisition and, already deceased, was burned in image in an auto de fe in 1624.[1733]

1733 Cf. Archivum, l.c., p.11, n.23. A contemporary of the events writes in a letter: “In the report of the Auto de fe celebrated on November 30, 1624... we read the following: The first of the six statues that accompanied the living prisoners was that of Father Francis Mendez, of Portuguese nationality, deceased priest. He came out in clerical habit, as he walked around Seville, girded with a rope instead of a cincture. It was condemned that he was of the sect of the “alumbrados”, and had this way of praying: “God, my heart, my good face.” He had a house of recollection for women, where he said mass and communicated to them every day and to those closest to him with many hosts. At the end of the mass, stripping off his priestly vestments, instead of giving thanks to God, the women sang and he danced discomposedly. He pretended to be a saint and had raptures and ecstasies. Saying mass, he would cross himself and bellowed and laughed. He said a mass of 26 hours. He had many hypocrisies and said many nonsenses, all in order to gain the opinion that he was a saint and that he would be canonized very soon. His doctrine was considered bad and they ordered his relics to be collected” (quoted in A. GARCÍA-DURÁN, o.c., p.118-119, n.589).

Berro says in one of his relations that “the Reverend Abbé Landriani began to take an interest in the Pious Schools in 1610; from August 1611, on the recommendation of Father Dominic de la Scala, he visited the house and helped with money and his person; but from the first of May 1612 he came to live in the Pious Schools, bringing with him five companions, including Francis Selvaggi.”[1734] Father Dominic Ruzola, for his part, testified in the beatification process of Glicerio that he had known him since 1610, because - he says - “he often came to visit us and I had much contact and familiarity with him, so that he immediately began to want to confess to me and, in fact, he confessed continuously until his death.”[1735]

1734 Cf. Report B, de Berro, p.386. Note the date of entry: May 1, 1612. In his Annotazioni he says it was “March 30, 1612” (BERRO I, p.84). Calasanz gave two others: April and the last of May of the same year (cf. n.1730 above).

1735 Cf. AGEP. RegServ 41, f.3r. Glycerio wanted to be a Discalced Carmelite and lived for a while at La Scala, but he was not admitted because of his precarious health. He confesses it himself in a letter to Card. Frederik Borromeo (cf. EC III, p.1634, dated November 6, 1611).

When the pseudo-mystic Mendes left for Spain, his group was disbanded and Glicerio, on the advice of his confessor Ruzola, decided to join Calasanz’s group, dragging five companions from his own circle with him.[1736] At the end of September 1612, he wrote to his uncle, Cardinal Frederic Borromeo, expressing his satisfaction at having joined the Pious Schools and his certainty that this was his vocation. He writes:

1736 There is no agreement among authors on the names of these companions (cf. G. SÁNTHA, Quattuor novi elenchi..., p.388, n.22; C. VILÁ, o.c., Archivum 11 [1982] 16, n.31). All of them admit at least the already mentioned F. Selvaggi and two other Spaniards: Diego López and Thomas Victoria, the latter will remain faithful to Calasanz until his death, being one of the venerable Piarist men of the early times, of whom the Founder will weave a precious eulogy in a letter of 1644 (cf. C.4242). As for the intervention of Fr. Ruzola, cf. the testimony of Calasanz in n.1730 above.

“I am in the Pious Schools in Rome, which are attended by 800 boys and youths who have not yet progressed beyond grammar. And I came here without seeking it, only out of pure obedience to the superiors (to his confessor Ruzola?). It is true that my heart longed for it very much, but I did not show it by showing any affection for anything, but by surrendering in everything to the will of God our Lord and the superiors. Now I am convinced that it is God’s calling, and I hope that the Lord will want to use me for this work of his, which is so important that it astonishes me, for these children of the poor, who usually walk the streets without any restraint of the fear of God Our Lord and indulge in all kinds of indecencies in word and deed, here turn away from idleness and evil and, with divine help, occupy themselves with exercises and nourish the spirit with the knowledge of Christian doctrine.”[1737]

1737 EC III, p.1636.

Glicerio also said these and similar things to Calasanz, who could see in the young man the staff of his age and the continuator of his work. Only one letter from Calasanz to Glicerio has survived, which begins as follows: “Jesus and Mary always keep the whole heart of our dearest in the Lord, Abbé Glicerio.”[1738] But he died too soon.

1738 C. 10.

The final house: San Pantaleo

History was repeating itself. Once again, they were up to their eyes with work. By the end of September 1612 - Glicerio had just said - the number of children had reached 800. They had already spent twelve years paying rent in someone else’s house and with forced moves that gave a sense of insecurity and instability. It was time to settle down permanently and buy a suitable house with the possibility of extensions. Father Dominic Ruzola was in the middle of all these plans. With his usual conciseness, Calasanz wrote in the report of 1623:

“On the first of October 1612, at the intervention of Father Dominic della Scala, the palace attached to San Pantaleo was bought from the Lords de Torres, which had previously belonged to the Lords Muti, for the price of ten thousand escudos, with three or four stores on the ground floor, and from this palace they paid 6 percent interest. And Cardinal Giustiniani of good memory, who as Protector of this work gave ten escudos a month, gave the Lords de Torres two thousand escudos in cash and took over the burden of paying the interest, and when he died he ordered his heir to take over this count. And of the bequest of six thousand escudos later made by Cardinal Lancellotti, four thousand escudos were paid to the Lords de Torres in various installments.”[1739]

1739 EGC II, p.171.

This was indeed a real opportunity. In mid-1612, Doña Vittoria Cenci sued her husband, the Marquis Ludovico de Torres, who was squandering the family fortune, and demanded the return of her dowry of 14,000 escudos. As the marquis had no money, he handed over the palace next to the church of San Pantaleo, which he had bought from the Muti family in 1604 for 7,200 escudos. The handover took place on July 12, 1612. Doña Victoria immediately put it up for sale and asked for 15,000 escudos, but Father Dominic Ruzola managed to lower the price to 10,000. Thus, on September 25th, in Palazzo Mannini, they appointed in a notarial deed “the Rector, the Fathers and Brothers of the Venerable Congregation of the Pious Schools of Rome”, that is, the Rector, Father Joseph Calasanz, Fr. Lorenzo Santilli, Fr. Scipione de Santis, Fr. Virgilio Marcelli, Fr. Caspar Dragonetti, Fr. Glicerio Landriani, John Garcia del Castillo, Thomas de Victoria, Diego Lopez, Francis Franchi and John Martinez.[1740] On October 1st, the purchase was made by the procurator Cosme Contini, a great friend of Glicerio and since then a collaborator of Calasanz in various services.[1741] And on the 16th of the same month, Father Joseph Calasanz, as rector of the Congregation of Pious Schools and procurator specially appointed for this purpose by his companions, took “real, actual, civil and physical possession of the said house, walking through it, standing and sitting, opening and closing doors and windows, and performing other acts of possession, etc.,” as stated in the Minutes. According to the deed of sale, the house was acquired “from the center of the earth to the heavens” (a centro terrae usque ad coelum).[1742]

1740 Besides the eleven Signatories, there were some more who were part of the Congregation, but they do not appear either because they were sick or absent (cf. G. SÁNTHA, Quattuor novi elenchi..., p.376).

1741 He ended up settling in San Pantaleo, teaching the children. He was a witness in the process of Beatification of Glicerio and after almost two lustrums of self-sacrificing service he died in 1621 and wanted to be buried next to his friend Glicerio (cf. C. VILÁ, Galería..., p.324-325).

1742 For these and other texts and details of this sale and purchase see the exhaustive study of C. SÁNTHA, 350 anni a condita Domo S. Pantaleonis exacti... EphCal 9-10 (1962) 266-301. Cf. the two texts cited in ibid, p.268-269.

The terms of payment were less formal, but all the more worrying: 2,000 escudos were to be paid within two months of taking possession of the house, a further 3,000 within the first three years, another 3,000 within the following two years and the final 2,000 at the end of the aforementioned five years. In the meantime, they were to pay an interest rate of six percent on the debt. Glicerio Landriani was the guarantor for the operation and ultimately for the Congregation itself. Oh holy audacity of the poor who trusted in Providence! They had only 200 escudos, which probably came from Glicerio’s pocket, and with these Calasanz paid on October 16 - in advance - the interest for the first quarter and part of the second quarter.[1743] But the first installment expired on December 16th... and the coffers were empty. Another five months passed and on May 25th, perhaps due to the demands of Doña Vittoria Cenci’s heirs, a loan of two thousand escudos had to be taken out to pay them the first installment.

1743 Cf. ibid., p.269.

During these months there was a memorable date: on January 12th, Paul V had appointed Cardinal Benedict Giustiniani as Protector of the Pious Schools, whose care and decisive intervention in the affairs of the Congregation he protected was to be paramount. Once again, Father Dominic Ruzola, the confessor and spiritual guide of the pious cardinal, provided blessed help. In his petition to the Pope, Calasanz expressed it clearly: “His Excellency Cardinal Giustiniani, at the request of Father Dominic, Prior of La Scala, has agreed to take over the protection of the work of the Pious Schools so necessary in Rome...”[1744]

1744 Cf. G. SÁNTHA, Nova quaedam documenta..., p.198, n.14. The text of the Brief of appointment in ibid., n.16.

As soon as the cardinal learned that a loan had been requested to pay the first installment, he had it transferred to his account and paid the annual interest until his death, thereby obliging his heir to pay the debt of two thousand escudos, as Calasanz gratefully recalled in his report of 1623.[1745] The following installments also expired in 1615 and 1617 and the stipulated five-year period ended without the debt being paid. cardinal Horacio Lancellotti died in 1620 and left the Pious Schools a legacy of 6,000 escudos[1746], of which 4,000 escudos were withdrawn in 1621 to pay off the debt. The remaining 4,000 escudos were paid in 1623, and in 1626 a new loan was requested and paid off, thanks to the bequest of the great friend Don Santos Orlandi, the former secretary of the great Cardinal Lancellotti.[1747] Fourteen years to pay off an account of ten thousand escudos! Perhaps old Professor Dragonetti once mockingly evoked Virgil’s profound verse and applied it to the house: “Tantae molis erat romanam condere gentem.”[1748]

1745 And also in the letter of 30 March 1621, in which he speaks of his recent death (cf. c.74). Both this first payment and those that followed until the entire debt of 10,000 escudos was paid off are clearly explained in AGEP, Dom. Gen., 11, f.10v-11r, forming part of the documentation relating to the purchase of the house.

1746 To perpetuate the memory of this gesture of generosity, Calasanz asked the famous Portuguese Latinist Andrew Bayano - who would end his days as a teacher of the Pious Schools in San Pantaleo - to compose an epitaph to be engraved in marble, and it can still be read today in the courtyard of the house (cf. C.104 and its commentary).

1747 Cf. AGEP, Dom. Gen., 11, f.10-11. Of Mr. Orlandi and his inheritance Calasanz speaks in two letters of January 1626 (cf. c.383 and 387). Calasanz, Ruzola and Fr. Castilla said that Landriani disbursed about 5,000 escudos to pay for the house of San Pantaleon and for maintenance and other purposes (cf. AGEP, RegServ 41, f.7-8, 39v and 142r). The documentation adduced, however, excludes his contribution in the payment of the 10,000 escudos of the price of the house. Perhaps he helped to pay the interest and other expenses that were neither small nor scarce. The notarial document in which he promises to deliver 2,000 escudos owed to him by his brother (cf. BARTLIK, Annales: EphCal 4 [1934] 164-165), given its date of June 8, 1613, rather than an act of delivery is an endorsement or guarantee in relation to the loan requested by Calasanz on the 25th of the previous month, but both that loan and its interest were assumed by Card. Giustiniani.

1748 Aeneid, I, v.33.

Chapter 15

The Ephemereal Union with Lucca Fathers

The acquisition of the house of San Pantaleon was undoubtedly a guarantee of stability. Today, after 380 years, it is still the headquarters of the Pious Schools, just as Father Joseph Calasanz had wished when he bought it. But the stable house was not enough to ensure the future of the work, nor could the Venerable Congregation of the Pious Schools of Rome offer any reasonable hope of continuity, given the advanced age of the Prefect and the uncertain strength of the bonds that held his companions together. Calasanz, Father Ruzola and Cardinal Giustiniani felt the same way. It was necessary and urgent to find a satisfactory solution.

Preliminary remarks

The logical consequence of the facts, after more than fifteen years of experience, without departing from the clear objective of the work, in a climate so similar to that of religious life, was to think seriously about founding a new congregation with vows. It was, so to speak, the next and obligatory step after so many years of existence of the Venerable Congregation of Pious Schools, secular and without vows.

The hagiographers, who were always obsessed with extolling the virtues of their protagonist, overemphasized Calasanz’s humility, which made him feel a certain inner aversion to the idea of being the Founder of a new Congregation. He was too humble,” wrote Talenti, “to think of becoming the Founder and head of a special and perpetual Congregation or a regular Order.”[1749] Even in our day, there has been no shortage of those who claim that Calasanz proved to be a “Founder by force”.[1750] And it is not that we want to take the place of the undeniable humility that pervades his life and without which it would be impossible to understand his total dedication to the poor children. We merely have the impression that humility is sometimes used as an excuse to shirk responsibility or to alleviate powerlessness or a lack of self-confidence.

1749 TALENTI, Vita, p.106; F. M. BONADA, Vita B. Josephi Calasanctii, Rome 1764, t.1, p.221; TOSETTI, Compendio, p.69; TIMON-DAVID, Vida, p.114, etc.

1750 C. VILÁ, Fuentes inmediatas, p.38.

Calasanz’s attitude towards his own work could be interpreted as the fruit of this false humility, because from the moment he conceived his institutional idea, he tried to entrust it to others, such as the municipal teachers, the Jesuits and the Dominicans at first. Later, he resorted to the Brotherhood of Christian Doctrine, which, like the previous ones, was as unconcerned as the others. The one who does not break away is Calasanz, who in all these and later attempts tried to give stability, solidity and permanence to his work without letting it out of his hands. And the new experience we are about to have is further proof of this, because despite the cession or renunciation that comes with the union with an already established Congregation, one of the conditions he will impose is that he be recognized again as Prefect of the Schools for as long as he lives. This was not arrogance, but it was not humility either. He kept the reins of his institution despite the cession, and his tenacity to secure its future led him to extreme tensions that would be difficult to reconcile with the usual modesty and restraint.

He is a man who knows from the outset what he wants and chooses the means he considers most appropriate to achieve it, without being too hasty. And given the experiences he has had over the last fifteen years, it would be almost absurd if he had not thought more than once of “becoming a founder”, i.e. transforming his secular Congregation into a religious Congregation. To date, no text had appeared that alluded to these premature wishes. Fortunately, the - as yet unpublished - testimony of Father Alexander Bernardini, General of the Congregation of Lucca, with which the union with the Pious Schools was to take place, has come to light. In his handwritten chronicle, he writes this very interesting paragraph about the said union:

“...it was a wonderful thing that Father Prefect (Calasanz), who had long desired to found a Religion of such perfection, made us realize that he had thought about the same things as we had; that he had the same aims and the same motives as we had. This agreement in thought gave us great hope for the good. Each of us was moved to see that the world was full of ugly vices and that only Italy and Spain, as the Prefect said, were free from heresy. Other nations were schismatic, others unfaithful, and perhaps so great an evil was produced by the sleep of the religious, which necessarily follows from many pleasures and comforts. To tame such terrible monsters, it was necessary to have men of rare virtue, accustomed to suffer without any interest, and who, after an apostolic manner, had only the honor and glory of God before their eyes.”[1751]

1751 A. BERNARDINI, Delle croniche della congregatione delli chierici regolari della Madre di Dio, edited in part in PosCas I, p.256-284. The cited paragraph corresponds to f.34v-35 of the original, omitted in the referred edition.

Not only had he thought of founding a new Order, but he had also laid down certain principles of austerity which he tried to demand from the Congregation of Lucca during his union with it and which he later wanted to enforce for himself. However, before deciding to found a new Religion, he opted for another path that would be sufficient to leave his work in a solid way and with the guarantee of permanence: joining a religious Congregation. The only thing that mattered to him was that his Pious Schools remained open and their future was secure. The same impulse that led him to go to the Capitol to ask for a raise for the teachers, or to knock on the doors of Collegio Romano and the Dominicans of Minerva, or to turn to the Fraternity of Christian Doctrine - all in vain - now moved him to look for a religious Congregation on which he could rely. But it was not in vain that a dozen years have passed. His schools today are a far cry from those of yesterday, when the new century was born. Certain pedagogical and disciplinary lines have slowly stabilized. At the same time, despite the mobility and instability of its members, the nascent secular Venerable Congregation of Pious Schools had maintained its character as a religious body that necessarily shapes the education of its students.

At that time, when Calasanz was looking for a religious Congregation to support him, he was still very clear about his ideas in order to choose the one that offered him the best guarantee not only of the stability and permanence of his work, but also of fidelity or conformity to the guidelines that defined his institution. And before choosing the Congregation of Lucca, founded by his friend John Leonardi, he had the opportunity to accept other requests - we do not know which ones - which he kindly declined, as Father Bernardini informs us in a splendid letter to his religious, in which he informs them of the union with the Pious Schools:

“I want... you to know the reason why the Prefect of the Pious Schools [Calasanz] has decided to place this very serious matter under the care and administration of our Congregation. He, who is a great servant of God, told me, after much prayer, when I first met him to discuss the matter, that this work [of the Pious Schools] had been desired and requested by others, but he had never accepted, almost without knowing the reason. A Father of our Congregation, of which he had known since the time of Our Father [John Leonardi], had come to him, and he suddenly became aware of it and felt so drawn to it that nothing could ever remove this thought from his mind, and he carried it through with such joy that it is a thing to be admired and truly willed by God. Then he told me that he had not turned his attention to us for any other reason, but because he had the impression that there were men in our Congregation who longed for Christ and were eager to do the true service of God. This thought of this holy man spurs us on to take up this matter with great zeal and to live up to the good hopes placed in us.”[1752]

1752 Cf. C. VILÁ, En torno a la unión de las Escuelas Pías con los PP. de Lucca: Archivum 6 (1979) 243-244.

On the threshold of this new epoch of his life and work, one is astonished to hear Father Bernardini praise Calasanz, calling him a “great servant of God” and a “holy man”.” And here the Prefect’s profound humility would certainly have protested against.

Initiative and protagonists

The above-mentioned testimony of Father Bernardini, based on the personal confidences of the Prefect of the Pious Schools, makes it clear that the initiative to unite with the Congregation of Lucca came from Calasanz. However, it is undeniable that Cardinal Giustiniani, Pope Paul V, the Carmelites Father Dominic Ruzola and Father John of Jesus Mary played a leading role in the whole process, as well as Father Prefect and Father Bernardini, as the ultimate responsible persons and representatives of their respective institutions. The recent documentation exhumed and published by Father Vilá would have changed the minds of those who more or less critically claimed that the initiative came from Giustiniani or others, explicitly denying Calasanz.[1753] If there are testimonies that focus on some of these people, they should not be understood as wanting to attribute the initiative to them, but simply recognizing the importance of their intervention.

1753 Bau favors Fr. John, Fr. Dominic, the cardinal (cf. BAU, BC, p.334); García-Durán prefers the cardinal (cf. A. GARCÍA-DURÁN, o.c., p.123, n.600); Vilá shares Bau’s opinion (cf. C. VILÁ, Fuentes inmediatas, p.50) and, although later, supported by Bernardini, he decided in favor of Calasanz (cf. C. VILÁ, En torno a la unión, p.233), and he again preferred Giustiniani (cf. PosCas, p.143, n.11). Sántha, although unaware of the recent documentation, proposed Calasanz, who would communicate it to Ruzola and the latter to Giustiniani (cf. G. SÁNTHA, Nova quaedam documenta..., p.194).

This is clear from this short paragraph of a report by Calasanz, in which he avoids referring to the initiative: “In January 1614, at the intervention of Cardinal Giustiniani and Father Dominic de la Scala, the union between the Fathers of St. Mary in Portico and the Fathers of the Pious Schools was carried out with the Apostolic Brief, so that the said Institute of Schools could be carried out with greater zeal.”[1754] And the same importance must be attached to certain statements made by Giustiniani in relation to himself and by Berro in relation to the Cardinal and the Pope.[1755]

1754 Report of 1623 (cf. EGC II, p.171). In the memorandum addressed to the Pope in 1616, it might seem that Calasanz attributes the initiative of the union to the Lucchesi in general, by pointing out the motive for which they united. With this, however, he is only trying to recall the reason why they accepted the union that was proposed to them, and not to present them as those who by their own initiative seek and propose such a union to solve their problem.

1755 Giustiniani writes to the Lucchesi, once the union is realized: “the Pious Schools reduced through my efforts by the Holiness of Our Lord under the government of this Congregation” (cf. C. VILÁ, En torno a la unión..., p.238). Berro writes in his Breve vita...: “Card. Benedetto Giustiniani... knowing the importance of the Pious Schools in the Holy Church... supported them with the Rev. Frs. of the Congregation of Lucca...” (cf. A. GARCÍA-DURÁN, o.c., p.123, n.600). And in his Annotationi..., “Seeing His Holiness Pope Paul V that the work of the Pious Schools was of such good fame... he thought of giving it more than ordinary help by entrusting it to the Congregation of the Clerics Secular of the Blessed Virgin” (BERRO, I; p.85). The parallelism of these two texts of Berro confirms the idea that he does not intend to attribute initiatives, but to note interventions.

In his chronicles, Father Bernardini describes the first steps of the future union as follows:

“While I was in Lucca that summer [1613], I received letters from Rome, from Father Rector,[1756] informing me that Card. Giustiniani, the protector of the Pious Schools, had expressed the wish, albeit in passing, in a conversation with him, that our Congregation should take upon itself the burden of the said schools. I was also told that the Prefect and other Fathers of the said schools thought the same. About a year before, the said Cardinal had hinted something of this to me, for he had asked me for one of our Fathers as confessor for the children in the schools; I answered him that though we had but few, yet all were at his service. He answered me with great affection that I could do nothing more pleasant for him, and added these precise words: “These schools will one day fall on your shoulders, for Father Prefect is old and ill, and if he should die before this work is taken care of, it would be in danger of being dissolved. To fulfil the Cardinal’s wish, I asked Father John Preami, our priest, to go to the schools a few days a week to hear confessions, which he did for about a year. I think this fact made the school fathers think about putting this burden on us.”[1757]

1756 Fr. Joseph Matraia, rector of the house of Santa Maria in Portico.

1757 A. BERNARDINI, o.c., PosCas I, p.261. Giustiniani was appointed Protector on January 12, 1613 (cf. ibid., p.155), therefore the request to confess could not have been made “circa d’un anno prima”, but only half a year before.

Giustiniani’s suggestion to Father Rector and the previous intimation to Father Bernardini “more or less a year before” regarding the future reception of the Pious Schools could again lead us to believe that the initiative actually came from the Cardinal. It is logical, however, that he was informed of the state and needs of the Pious Schools when he was appointed Protector and that it was Calasanz himself who suggested to him the current problem of the need for confessors and the future survival of the Institute, proposing recourse to the Lucca Fathers as a solution for both cases. Only in this way do Bernardini’s two almost contemporary texts coincide: that of his Chronicle (later) and that of his letter to Lucca (earlier), in which he recalls with such precision the confidences of Calasanz regarding the choice of the Congregation of Lucca to entrust his schools to.

Both the Prefect and the other Fathers of the Venerable Congregation of Pious Schools agreed to unite with the Fathers of Lucca, as Bernardini had just said twice. Before leaving for Rome at the beginning of October, “I judged,” he adds, “that this matter was serious and important and likely to advance the Congregation, and consulted with the principal Fathers of the House of Lucca, who were very pleased (piacque sommamente) and agreed that this opportunity should not be missed, which seemed to them to be offered by God to lead the Congregation out of the mire and servitude.”[1758] And when he arrived in Rome, he also consulted with this community and it was decided that it would be good to hold a meeting with the fathers of the Pious Schools, which was done immediately.”[1759] The entire Congregation, which only had the two communities of Lucca and Rome, welcomed the idea with great satisfaction.

1758 Ibid., p.261.

1759 Ibid., p.261-262.

At the first joint meeting, it was Calasanz who issued an apology for the Pious Schools and a hymn of praise for the Lucchesi, a summary of which Bernardini gives in his Chronicle as follows:

“Father Prefect declared in the name of all his desire that we should welcome the weight of the Pious Schools. He pointed out how useful this work would be for the Christian Republic if it were carried out as it should be, and to achieve this it was necessary that the men of the Congregation be endowed with perfect virtues. He said that they had gladly taken notice of us (all be it said to the glory of God) because it seemed to him that we were men ready to endure hardships with good zeal and without earthly interests.”[1760]

1760 Ibid., p.262.

The magnificent speech of this man of God, who at the age of fifty-six was looking for successors to whom he could bequeath his work, must have seemed like a swan song to many. But it was only the rehearsal for many more to come.

The outcome of the meeting was communicated to Giustiniani and the cardinal handed the matter over to Father Dominic Ruzola. Both began to deal with the question with admirable tenacity and responsibility, perhaps even excessively, and maintained their support for the Pious Schools, even at the expense of the interests of the Congregation of Lucca. Father Bernardini shows his particular prudence by emphasizing that he discussed the question “several times” with Father Ruzola, who even wanted to examine the Constitutions and praised their rigor and merits. And to these consultations he added others, “with men of spirit, wisdom and experience in the affairs of the world, whether it was appropriate for the Congregation to take on this responsibility, knowing that the burden was very heavy and entailed many difficulties.”[1761]

1761 Ibid., p.262-264.

All this shows that it was an agreement that had been carefully thought through, duly consulted and satisfactorily approved within both Congregations with the advice of outsiders, and also discussed among the leaders of both Congregations before it was finally accepted.

The signatories and their motivations

Cardinal Giustiniani set the date for the last joint meetings, which took place in the Carmelite monastery of La Scala in the presence of the Cardinal, Father Ruzola and probably also Father John of Jesus Mary. The Pious Schools were represented by Father Prefect (Joseph Calasanz), Abbé Glicerio Landriani and Father Caspar Dragonetti. And Bernardini adds: “The entire authority of the Congregation of Pious Schools rested on them, as the others were all mobile and did not belong to the Congregation.”[1762] The three members of the extraordinary Diet convened on November 9, 1613 to deal with this very matter were present on the Lucchesi side: Father Alexander Bernardini, General, Father Joseph Matraia, Rector of the Roman House of Santa Maria in Portico, and Father Gian Battista Cioni, vice-rector of the house of Santa Maria in Corteorlandini in Lucca, on behalf of its rector.[1763] All the authority of the Congregation of Lucca rested on these three, as stated in the official document in which they accepted the apostolic Brief.[1764]

1762 Ibid., p.263.

1763 Cf. C. VILÁ, En torno a la unión..., p.200.

1764 “Nos infrascripti, penes quos residet plena et independens auctoritas totius nostrae Congregationis...” And they three sign (cf. ibid., p.235).

The parallelism of the formula applied to the two groups or triads of representatives lessens the pessimistic impression of Bernardini’s apostilles concerning the Calasanzian group and suggests to us that Calasanz, Giustiniani and the Carmelites exaggerated the situation of the Congregation of the Pious Schools in these first steps in order to justify the urgent need for unification. In fact, Bernardini says that “the others were all mobile and not numbered in the Congregation. That they were mobile is logical, since they were not bound by a vow; but it is not clear what “unnumbered” means, considering that a year earlier, in October 1612, when they bought the house of San Pantaleo, eleven people signed the document explicitly defining themselves as members of the said Congregation.[1765]

1765 “…omnes Rector, Patres et Fratres respective Venerabilis Congregationis Scholarum Piarum Urbis totam Congregationem facientes” (cf. A. GARCÍA-DURÁN, o.c., p.118, n.587). Vilà, commenting on Bernardini’s paragraph, says: “Others did not come, because they did not belong in a stable way to the association: they were salaried” (PosCas.I, p.145). They had, however, the stability proper to a secular Congregation without vows and no other. Moreover, according to Bernardini in his Chronicles, these Workers only received “il puro vitto” (only the food) (f.48v), and of all of them he only alludes to the “salary of the maestro del scrivere” (teacher of writing) (Sarafellini) (f.40v), who was never considered a member of the Congregation (ibid., p.269 and 265).

Bernardini goes on to write that of the three people named, “the prefect was already old and not very healthy, so that little could be expected of his health and life. Father Abbé, who devoted himself more to the exercises of mortification and piety than to other things, and Father Gaspar, who only taught one class due to his advanced age, could not bear this burden in the prefect’s absence.”[1766] The facts, however, refuted this perhaps deliberate pessimism, not only because of the unexpected longevity of Calasanz and even Dragonetti, but also because of the eleven signatories purchaising the house in the previous year, in addition to the three mentioned, three more persevered in the Congregation of Pious Schools until their deaths, including Father John García del Castillo, usually called Father Castilla, successor of Calasanz as General of the Order.[1767] What is certain is that the Pious Schools, with more or less pessimistic view, needed solidity and constitutional stability for their future prospects, and this was the reason that led them to unite.

1766 Ibid., p.263. The prognosis was right, since Calasanz was already fifty-six years old, Dragonetti had already reached one hundred; but while Glicerio, the young man of hopes, would die four years later being thirty years old, Calasanz would reach almost ninety-one and Dragonetti one hundred and fifteen.

1767 The other two were Frs. Lawrence Santilli and the Spaniard Thomas de Victoria (cf. G. SÁNTHA, 350 anni a condita domo S. Pantaleonis..., p.268).

The Lucchesi’s reasons were different, but equally strong. Calasanz summarized them in a memorandum of 1616 as follows: “In 1614, the Fathers of the Congregation of Lucca, seeing that their congregation had not numbered more than 40 or 50 members for 40 years, thought that there was no more suitable means of making it a Religion than to unite with the Institute of Pious Schools, since they considered it the most useful and necessary of all the others.”[1768]

1768 EGC II, p.49-50. According to reliable data of 1614, the religious of the Congregation were 45, of which 25 in Lucca (cf. C. VILÁ, En torno a la unión..., P.215, n.53). Casani wrote in October 1615: “It is said that at present in the Congregation there are no more than 18 professed priests and one novice and other young men addressed to take holy orders” (EC VI, P.2725).

This stagnation was partly due to the fact that only the natives of the autonomous Republic of Lucca were admitted to the Congregation, and since they did not take a vow of poverty, they received the major orders under the title of patrimony, which inevitably reduced the number of members, since only the wealthy could join. And indeed, the members of the Congregation generally came from wealthy families in Lucca and bore important surnames. In order to become Order, they had to take the solemn vow of poverty and were then ordained under the title of poverty, which facilitated access to simpler people without wealth and ensured the survival of the society. However, it was not easy to obtain elevation to the Order from the Holy See, as official opposition was based on Canon 13 of the IV Lateran Council of 1215, which forbade the creation of new Religions in the Church. The new institute of Pious Schools was considered by all to be very useful and profitable for the Church, and it was also highly appreciated and favored by the Pope and many cardinals, so that it would not be so difficult to achieve the purpose by relying on it. Bernardini expressly confirms these ideas and assures us that not only Giustiniani and Ruzola, but also all the prelates and religious with whom they had consulted, gave them well-founded hopes of achieving what they wanted.[1769] Undoubtedly, therefore, both parties pinned their hopes on this union as a sure means of stabilizing themselves and achieving their goals, and so an atmosphere of satisfaction and euphoria prevailed.

1769 “All of them (Giustiniani and Ruzola) encouraged and gave us great hope to achieve this goal of Religion, because they considered how useful this institution was in the Holy Church..... they say that this comitment would have been an excellent way to make us obtain this status, assuring us that otherwise, because of the multiplicity of the Religions, we would never have arrived... The same advice was received from other prelates and religious of quality and intelligence, and it was known that the work (of the Pious Schools) was esteemed by the Supreme Pontiff, several cardinals and gentlemen of the Court, and that it was desired by the main cities of Italy and outside Italy. It was judged that with this means the congregation could be elevated from the dust of the earth in which it had been for a long time involved to a good and perfect state for the greater service of God” (A. BERNARDINI, o.c., p.264).

The apostolic Brief

At the meetings that took place in the monastery of La Scala between the three representatives of the Pious Schools and the three representatives of the Congregation of Lucca, presided over by Cardinal Giustiniani and in the presence of Father Dominic Ruzola, they arrived “after much deliberation”, as Bernardini notes,[1770] at the draft of a letter in which they asked the Pope for the union of the two congregations and set out the reasons and conditions for the union.

1770 Cf. ibid., p.262.

Nothing is said about the motives relating to the Congregation of Lucca, which leads us to suppose that they had not yet been explicitly communicated to Calasanz, which he was later to regret in another memorandum when he asked for the separation.[1771] The justification concerns only the Pious Schools and their Prefect and is expressed as follows:

1771 “They thought (the Lucchesi) that there was not more opportune means to make Religion its congregation that to unite with the institute of the Pious Schools judging it the most useful and necessary of all the others and without manifesting then their thought they came to the agreement in the presence of the Most Rev. Card. Giustiniano Protettor of the said schools and of Fr. Dominic della Scala...” (EGC II, p.50).

“...the said Prefect, having seen from the experience of many years the great usefulness and fruit of these schools, wished to ensure their continuance and to enlarge them not only for the city of Rome but also for the whole world, and being himself already old, having prayed much to God and negotiated many times with Father Prior of la Scala...”[1772]

1772 Cf. C. VILÁ, o.c., p.201. Italian text in G. SÁNTHA, Nova quaedam documenta...; EphCal 6 (1960) 199, n.18.

Even if at the beginning and at the end of the memorandum it is said that the spokespersons or petitioners are the Prefect of the Pious Schools and the General of Santa Maria in Portico, in reality the main actor is still the Prefect and the central theme is the Pious Schools. And these are the modalities of the association:

1. The said Prefect must continue to exercise the office as long as he lives, and both he and his present companions must continue to live according to the present Rules; those who are to be admitted in the future must live according to the Rules and Constitutions of the Congregation of Lucca, “unless it appears otherwise to the General and the Prefect.”

2. That in the Pious Schools in Rome only the poor should be admitted with the authenticated testimony of their parish priests or, as sons of noble families who have fallen into decay, with the testimony of the confessor or other reliable persons; outside Rome, however, all may be admitted without testimony.

3. They are to be taught in the said schools wherever they are, without any reward or gift, only out of charity and love of God.

4. That this congregation henceforth be called the Congregation of the Mother of God, according to the Rules and Constitutions confirmed by Clement VIII, abolishing only “what stands in the way of the present agreement and union”. In particular, they asked for the abrogation of the article of the said Constitutions in which “the said Fathers are forbidden to instruct children in grammar and humanities.”[1773]
1773 Cf. C. VILÁ, o.c., p.201-202; G. SÁNTHA, o.c., p.189 and 199, n.18. The alluded text of the Constitutions says: “Non accipiantur cum obligationibus erudiendae adolescentiae rudimenta Grammaticae, aut litteras humaniores, aut cum aliis quibusvis obligationibus, quibus nostri extra propriam ecclesiam inservire teneantur” (Part 1, c.8, n.2).

This memorandum was presented to Paul V personally by Cardinal Giustiniani, who added his reports and recommendations orally. To reassure himself, the Pope handed the memorandum to Cardinal John Garcia Millini, the Vicar of Rome, who discussed the matter with Cardinal Ferdinand Taberna, and both concluded that the requested Brief could be issued. The Pope gave his approval on December 9, 1613, and on January 14, 1614, the Brief Inter pastoralis officii was issued, constituting the Union.[1774]

1774 Cf. C. VILÁ, o.c., p.202; G. SÁNTHA, o.c., p.189. On December 9, 1613, the official phrase “Sanctissimo placet” was added to the end of the memorandum. This was followed by the minutes of the Brief, which is found unpublished in the Arch. Sec. Vat., Secr. Brev. 499, f.232r-233v, 238r, and after the minutes, the Brief. All very fast. The Latin text of the Brief see in PosCas, p.163-165, tranlated in C. VILÁ, o.c., p.203-204.

The letter granted everything that had been requested in the memorandum, with the exception of two details and omissions that were probably attributable to the censors Millini and Taberna rather than the pope himself. And these were:

1. In paragraph 1, the last sentence, which left the matter to the discretion of the General and the Prefect, was deleted;

2. in paragraph 2, it was made clear that the proof of poverty in Rome is required, not only in the present Pious Schools but also in those to be opened in the future, omitting the reference to foundations outside Rome, thus implicitly granting the request.

But let us examine and contrast the two documents more closely by first determining the meaning and scope of this union, for in modern times there has been an excessive insistence on emptying the term union of its content, minimizing the entity of the Pious Schools and denying them the character of a Congregation that they possessed. It was written: “Obviously it is not possible to speak of a union of the Pious Schools of San Pantaleo with the Congregation of Lucca. The teachers of San Pantaleo did not form a religious Congregation that could be united with or added to another canonically established Congregation, such as that of the Lucchesi. In San Pantaleo there are only some free “schools” founded by Calasanz...”[1775]; “Brief on the misnamed union of the Congregation of Lucca with the Pious Schools...”[1776]

1775 C. VILÁ, o.c., p.197-198.

1776 ID., o.c., p.144.

We will not insist on the existence of the “venerable Congregation of the Pious Schools of Rome” approved by Clement VIII, as we have already seen,[1777] but we note that both Calasanz and Bernardini and other testimonies speak unanimously of the union of the two institutes.[1778] And there is no reason to believe that they did not understand the term correctly. In fact, the initial idea was not to unify the two institutes, to merge them into one, but simply to unite them while respecting the duality of government, institute or charism, of autonomous groups, of rules and constitutions. And indeed, the care, regime and government of the house and schools of San Pantaleo remained in the hands of Bernardini and his people, but the prefecture for life of the schools, in those of Calasanz. The Lucchesi retained their own founding charism, to which they now added the care of the schools, while Calasanz and his group would remain in their house and take care of the teaching activities as before, without taking on the pastoral obligations of the Lucchesi; the Calasanz group - let us remember that there were at least eleven of them - would continue to live according to their own community order and the Lucchesi according to theirs.[1779] And under these conditions, the union would have had to continue until the death of Calasanz and his collaborators, since the new members had to accept the Lucca Constitutions, as the letter states. However, when they wanted to transform the simple union into a unification or fusion, with detriment of the identity of the Congregation of Lucca, the rejection and separation came forcibly.

1777 Against all evidence, C. Vilá writes: “It is erroneously affirmed in the Brief of Gregory XV In supremo Apostolatus solio that the Congregation of the Pious Schools... olim Romae fel. rec. Clementis Papae auctoritate erectam... (C. VILÁ, o.c., p.198, n.1).

1778 In the joint memorandum of Calasanz and Bernardini, asking for the union, it is said: “…it was agreed ... to unite the Pious Schools”; ... “to the present agreement and union”; ... “confirming with an Apostolic Brief the union”. (cf. PosCas, p.157-158). Calasanz writes in two memorandums: “…there was no more opportune means than to unite with the institute of the Pious Schools” (EGC II, p.50); “Then in the month of January 1614 a union was made ... between the Fathers of S. Maria in Portico and the Fathers of the Pious Schools...” (ibid., p.171). Bernardini writes in his Chronicles: “we had the Brief of the union of the Pious Schools...”” (PosCas, p.263); the Lucchesi accept the Brief: “Accipimus Brevem Apost... super unione Scholarum Piarum” (ib., p.165).

1779 Going further in his opinion of wanting to deny to the Pious Schools their character of Congregation, Vilá writes: “It is evidently proven in the memorandum written by Calasanz and Bernardini... where they speak of approval of the Constitutions of the Congregation of Lucca and nothing similar referring to the work of Calasanz” (C. VIlÁ, o.c., p.198, n.1). Certainly, the “Constitutions” of the Congregation of the Pious Schools, were simple Rules or Norms of common life not approved by any Pope. But what is curious is that both in the joint memorandum in which the Brief is requested and in the Brief itself, the “Rules” and “Constitutions” of both congregations are spoken of with perfect parallelism. Thus, in the memorandum, it is said that the Prefect and his confreres must “vivere conforme le Regole’ ch’oggi hanno”(according to the Rules they have today), while the Lucchesi “sotto le ‘regole e costitutioni’ confermate da Clemente VIII” (under the rules and Constitutions approved by Clement VIII) (cf. PosCas, F.157-158 ); and in the Brief it is said that the Prefect and his companions “possunt et debeant secundum suas proprias ‘constitutiones ibi permanere”, and the Lucchesi “sub ‘regulis et constitutionibus’ eiusdem congregationis a dicto Clemente praedecessore confirmatis” (ibid., p.164).

As for the testimony of poverty, the interpretation of Vilá also seems inaccurate, who writes: “The non-requirement of the testimony of poverty in the future foundations was a blow to the Calasanz´ idea”, and this because “it is also clear that the Calasanzian charism of exclusive teaching for the poor with a testimony of poverty is not recognized by the Lucchesi and they maintain it only in the schools of Rome....”[1780]; “for the Roman schools the testimony of poverty would be necessary, but not for the others, since they would be in reality a creation of the Fathers of the Congregation of the Mother of God and no longer of Calasanz.”[1781] Let us remember our opinion that the certificate of poverty must have been imposed on Calasanz as a solution to the conflict with the municipal teachers, and it seems unlikely that he demanded it spontaneously, because as a visitor to the Confraternity of the Apostles he knew very well what a disgrace it was for the poor to be recognized as such. And he was waiting for an opportunity to weaken or completely abolish this requirement. In Rome, he had been asked to produce the certificate. But now, he said euphorically in the letter-petition, “having seen the great benefits and fruits of these schools and wishing to continue and multiply them not only in Rome but throughout the world”, he asked precisely that the certificate not be required outside Rome, where he had no obligation. The Congregation of Lucca was quite indifferent to the issue of the certificate, otherwise they would have refused it in Rome as a condition for accepting the union with the Pious Schools. It was a favorable opportunity and they did not take advantage of it. On the other hand, the first foundation outside Rome was still the work of Calasanz and not of the Lucchesi, who protested against it. Moreover, it is very likely that Calasanz did not demand the humiliating certificate in Rome either, and there is evidence that among his students in those years there were also those who were not really poor.[1782] But he will continue to wait for the opportunity to suppress the certificate in Rome once and for all. And the fact that he succeeded in doing so just as he emancipated himself from the Lucchesi and founded the Pauline Congregation seems to show that the initiative to get rid of the troublesome certificate outside Rome already came from him and not from the Lucchesi.

1780 Ibid., p.146-157.

1781 C. VILÁ, En torno a la unión..., p.204.

1782 Cf. BAU, BC, p.351.

We also suspect that it was his idea to change the official name of the Congregation of Lucca, which until then had been called the Congregation of the Blessed Virgin Mary or the Blessed Virgin, without further ado.[1783] The memorandum expressly requested this and the Brief of union agreed that “this Congregation shall henceforth be called the Congregation of the Mother of God”.[1784] It does not seem plausible that the Lucchesi were interested in changing the name that their Founder had given them. Calasanz, on the other hand, changed his own surname to “of the Mother of God” and from the beginning called his Order “of the Mother of God of the Pious Schools”. It should also be remembered that in his mother tongue the correct and usual way to call Mary is “la Mare de Deu” (the Mother of God), while in Spanish she is called “la Virgen” or “Nuestra Señora”, in Italian “la Madonna”, in French “Notre-Dame”, in English “Our Lady”, etc. Therefore, the title ‘Mother of God’ was the one that spontaneously resounded in him when he thought of or invoked Mary. It should be added that his later determined attitude of wanting to fundamentally change the charism or institute that was proper to the Congregation of Lucca, and also to impose the highest poverty on it, are plausible indications that the transformation had already begun with the name. Moreover, this was not the only change that was achieved. The memorandum already explicitly requested the abolition of one point of the constitutions of the Congregation, namely the one that forbade the teaching of grammar and the humanities, and the Brief granted this request.[1785]

1783 Cf. PosCas, p.1-139 passim.

1784 Ibid., p.158-164.

1785 In the Brief it is said that «expresse derogamus» what goes «in contrarium praemissorum... illis praesertim, quibus cavetur expresse, quod clerici dictae congregationis novas domos, cum obligationibus docendi adolescentiam rudimenta grammaticae, aut litteras humaniores... recipere non possint» (ibid., p.165). Cf. n.1773 above. Fr. Erra notes that although the title was new, it was already contained in the seal of Fr. General, on which “by order of the Father Founder” was printed the abbreviation of the Greek words “Mother of God” (cf. C. ERRA, Memorie de’Religiosi..., p.31). And that the title was directly related to the Pious Schools is confirmed by the supplication that Bernardini raised to Paul V when the separation was declared with respect to them, asking that, nevertheless, he confirm the grace “già fatta alla Congregazione loro, del titolo della Madre di Dio” (already made to their Congregation of the title of Mother of God). And the Pope confirmed it “vivae vocis oraculo”, according to a declaration signed by Cardinal Giustiniani on May 22, 1617 (cf. ibid., p.49).

Satisfaction and optimism

The union´s Brief was dated January 14, 1614. Three days later, the extraordinary Diet, which had been suspended since mid-December, reconvened in Santa Maria in Portico, and after the secretary, Father Peter Casani, had read the Brief, it was unanimously approved by the three capitulars who were members, that is, Father General Bernardini, the rector of Rome, Father Matraia, and the vice-rector of Lucca, Father Cioni; “in them rests - says the decree of the Chapter - the full and independent authority of our entire Congregation.”[1786]

1786 Cf. the Latin text of the Decree in C. VILÁ, o.c., p.235-236, and its Spanish translation in ibid, p.204-205.

Father Bernardini did not have the patience to wait for the publication of the apostolic Brief. As soon as he learned that the Pope had accepted the union proposed in the memorandum and had ordered the publication of the corresponding Brief, he took up his pen and began to write a very long letter to the Fathers of Lucca, in which he communicated the happy event and expressed his feelings of joy, satisfaction, gratitude to the Lord, hope for a glorious future and exaltation and praise for the Pious Schools and their Father Prefect. He signed the letter “on the last day of the year 1613”.[1787] The Latin motto that precedes the letter sets the tone of the entire letter: ‘Benedictus Deus in Israel, qui fecit mirabilia magna solus’. And it begins like this:

1787 There are two copies of the lost original. Vilá twice published the entire text in Italian, without doubting the date: “Di Roma a di ultimo d’anno 1614” (cf. C. VIlÁ, o.c., p.240-244; PosCas, p.192-198). But by internal criteria it is concluded that it must be 1613 and not 1614. And the criteria would be among others: the whole tone and content make no sense whatsoever almost a year after the publication of the Brief, since the letter is to communicate the happy news of the union, occurred “in questi giorni”; it does not name or even allude to the Brief that grants the union, which would be absurd if the date were 1614, while it is obvious if it is December 31, 1613, two weeks before its dating. On December 9, 1613 the Pope gave his approval and in the memorandum it was written on that date: “Sanctissimo placet” (cf. n.1774 above). Bernardini speaks in his Chronicles of the proceedings and reports of Giustiniani, “as we have known by a secret way”, and that “when the Pope received the report he was waiting for, he immediately gave us the care of the Pious Schools and commanded that an apostolic Brief be done” (cf. PosCas, p.263). And precisely after knowing this and before the issuance of the Brief, Bernardini wrote his letter. What sense would it make to say in it, in December 1614, “for the future the Congregation will be called of the Mother of God. “ (ibid., p.198), when for almost a year it had already been called so in the documents?

“Truly we have every reason to praise and glorify the Lord, who with his strong arm has in these days raised up our Congregation, which for many years was degraded to the dust of the earth, to our great advantage; and all the more should we praise and thank him, for without our intervention, when it seemed good to him, he has done great things for our benefit... I have already written to Father Rector to inform you of the grace obtained from His Holiness in these days with much honor for us and the Pious Schools... and although others have been behind in obtaining it, having reached the Pope’s ears very honorable reports of the Congregation, given by Card. Millini and others, His Holiness was pleased to place it entirely in our care and of making us patrons and administrators of this matter [of the Pious Schools], which is so dear to him and to the whole city because of the great benefits which are seen and which are expected to become still greater. It is true that at first sight the work might seem small and contemptible to someone, but I can tell Your Reverences that those who judge and practice the things of the world say that they are like the mustard seed which, even if it is the smallest of seeds, produces a leafy tree. I want you to know that today there seems to be no more room for us, since so many religions and beliefs have multiplied to open a way to all countries, especially in this city... But the most holy and pious God, when it seemed that all ways were closed to pave the way for our Congregation, has opened a wide and spacious path by which we have set out, and if we will not give ourselves up, we shall see by experience that He will lead us to great things... (God) has truly begun this matter... and has brought it to completion by using us in a work so dear and pleasing to Him... I can only tell you that the important Cardinals praise and esteem it in the highest terms. Card. Millini has told me that this will be the second work of Rome... I will not say anything about Cardinal Giustiniani, because he highly appreciates the Congregation and the work itself [the Pious Schools], which costs him many escudos a year... We are dealing here with a very important matter of his [God’s] which, if well conducted, is expected to bring about a very great reform of the Christian Republic. Perhaps it may appear that I have said too much, but I assure you I never would have spoken thus, had not ecclesiastics of great virtue and holiness of life said and foretold it... Now, if God favors us so much and shows himself willing to use us in a cause so dear to him and so necessary in the Holy Church today, how could we ever allow God’s honor to be treated with negligence, for ‘Maledictus homo qui facit opus Dei negligenter?’”[1788]

1788 Cf. PosCas, p.193-194.

The quote is long, but great. One cannot doubt the spontaneous sincerity with which Father Bernardini expresses himself, both in the personal esteem he feels for the Pious Schools, and that which was felt in Rome by clergymen of virtue and holiness of life, many cardinals, the Pope and God himself, and in the well-founded hopes he had for the future of his Congregation because he was united with the Pious Schools. In all these hymns of praise, the spirit of Calasanz and his immense power of persuasion can be recognized, as it has happened before and as it will happen later. And Bernardini could not help but acknowledge and publicly confess in his letter that the prefect was “a great servant of God” and that “the thought of this holy man inspires us so much to undertake this work with such zeal and to respond to the good hope he has placed in us that I do not know how to explain it in words.” Indeed, he had explained it very well!

The secretary of the Diet, Father Peter Casani, before becoming another privileged protagonist in the history of Calasanz and his Order, wrote an intimate letter to his own father, who was a lay brother of the same Congregation and lived in the house of Lucca. He dates it to January 25, 1614, and it sounds with the same contentment and hope as that of Father General, with many details about what happened when he received the letter. And among other things he says:

“Did I not tell you in days past that before you died you would see things that would please you? You have already heard from Father Rector of the grace which Our Lord has shown to our Congregation by persuading the two most important Cardinals of the Court, namely Giustiniani and Mellini, the Pope’s Vicar, to obtain that Our Lord Paul V entrusted to the care of our Congregation the great work of Pious Schools in Rome, of which Millini said to our Father General and to Father John B. [Cioni] that if this was not the first good work of Rome, it was certainly the second..., Giustiniani said that from this work would proceed the reform of the Church... [All] these are very happy omens for our small Congregation, which in such a short time and so suddenly has raised its head so much. Blessed be God, who certainly has these ways of working. The joy on both sides, i.e. with us and with the Pious Schools and their protectors, is astounding. As soon as the Pope’s letter arrived… all the students of the schools sang the ‘Te Deum’, and a great servant of God, the prior of the Carmelite Fathers [Fr. Ruzola], when he learned of it from our Fr. John B., without saying a word, knelt down in their presence and raised his eyes and hands to heaven to lovingly bless God, and when he rose, he congratulated the Fathers immensely... They should all sincerely place themselves in the hands of God and trust unceasingly in his Majesty, for such men are necessary for this most important and above all useful work, not only for Rome but for the whole world.”[1789]

1789 Ibid., p.160-162.

There is no document that tells us what Calasanz felt and what he did when he received the apostolic letter. Father Casani says that the students sang a ‘Te Deum’ and that there were about 800 of them at the time. There is no doubt that it was Fr. Prefect who ordered them to sing it at the top of their voices. And in this sea of white voices, you could barely make out the Prefect’s deep voice. But surely, he was singing too.

News about a period of three years

“On the first day of February of the year in question (1614) - Bernardini notes in his ‘Chronicle’ - I took possession of the Pious Schools and everything that belonged to them...”[1790] And he goes on to say that he received them from the hands of “the above-mentioned Fathers and from Cardinal Giustiniani, their protector”, by which he certainly refers to Calasanz, Dragonetti and Landriani, the only ones whose names he had previously mentioned, as he considered them to be the authorized representatives of the entire venerable Congregation of the Pious Schools. Before taking possession, he announced that “the Diet has appointed Father Peter Casani as Rector of the House of Pious Schools and has given him a suitable family so that he may have a good government and so that our people may begin to practice and learn how to serve the schools whose care, as I said, is in the hands of Father Prefect.”[1791]

1790 Ibid., p.265.

1791 Ibid., p.264.

Casani and Calasanz, Rector and Prefect, began to live together in San Pantaleo and, from that early February of 1614, shared the joys and sorrows, the happiness and the shadows of this great work of God that was the Pious Schools. Perhaps when Casani wrote to his father eight days earlier, he already knew that he had been appointed Rector and was very well informed about things at San Pantaleo. It is worth having him tell us about them in a short summary, which brings us up to date:

“There are now about 800 students and it is doing so well that it is favored and supported by everyone. The Pope gives 200 escudos a year as alms; Card. Montalto, 300; Card. Giustiniani, 120; Mellini, 60; an abbé [Landriani], who comes from the same Pious Schools, 300, and hints that he wants to reach 500 escudos a year, and the alms come from everywhere. The house in which the schools are housed belongs to the Congregation,[1792] and they bought it for 10,000 escudos. It is situated in the noblest place in Rome, namely Piazza Massimi,[1793] and a church has been given by Our Lord through Card. Farnese, attached to the said house and called San Pantaleo; it only remains to take possession of it, provided the priest who currently owns it, and it will do so shortly...[1794] We hope that next week, with the help of Card. Giustiniani, the protector of the said Pious Schools, who today informed our Father General and John Baptist [Cioni] that he wishes to personally hand over possession [of the house] to us. On this occasion all the schools will be prepared and in the oratory of the said schools the Forty Hours will be held and it will be convenient to preach a sermon, and I will take part in this whole affair.”[1795]

1792 It is interesting to note that not only Casani on this occasion, but also others speak of “Congregation”, referring to the Pious Schools, even after being united to the other “Congregation”, the Lucca one. In the Liber baptizatorum, confirmatorum, sponsalium ac mortuorum Parochialis Ecclesiae S. Pantaleonis de Urbe (1570-1623), the then parochial vicar wrote the following: “Ms. Domenico Dominichi from Lucca, Priest in the Pious Schools, died on December 2, 1614. He was taken to be buried in S. Maria in Portico and the Abbot Landriano of the Congregation of said Fathers of the Pious Schools paid twelve giulii to me Alessandro Lutio, parish priest in S. Pantaleo for the usual burial place, stole and mace, as usual” (cf. G. SÁNTHA, 350 anni a condíta domo S. Pantaleonis..., p.296, n.98).

1793 Casani is undoubtedly exaggerating; however, the Massimi not only occupied the Palace that is still theirs today, but also the one in front of the façade of the Pious Schools, now transformed, which reached the current Corso Rinascimento. Attached to it there was another of Duke Orsini, that by the Massimi Square had in front, street in the middle, another of the Torreses and the Lancellottis. Of those families, two cardinals appreciated and protected Calasanz and his work (cf. L. PICAÑOL, Inventarium Magni Tabularii Ord. Sch. P., Romae 1937, lam. XII).

1794 Bernardini writes: “Father Prefect, as soon as we had the schools, had tried to have it (the church), but because of the many difficulties that were encountered, it was not even succeded...” Bernardini himself, on March 16, 1614, asked the Pope, who required the consent of Cardinal Farnese as Protector of the church of St. Eustace, to whose Chapter the parochial vicarate of St. Pantaleo was subject. Once the formalities were completed, perpetual use was granted by apostolifec Brief of June 13, 1614, and the parochial vicarate remained. In the following month, permission was obtained to open a door that communicated the house with the church for the free access of the students and Fathers. Finally, Gregory XV, with a Brief dated February 23, 1623, suppressed the care of souls and ceded in perpetuum the church and the rooms of the parochial vicar to the Order of the Pious Schools (cf. A. BERNARDINI, l.c., p.267-268; G. SÁNTHA, o.c., p.276-277).

1795 Cf. C. VILÁ, En torno a la union..., p.236, translation on p.207.

On February 12, 1614, Calasanz noted in a notebook, “a small house was bought between the house of the Pious Schools and the church of San Pantaleon... for the convenience of the said schools.”[1796] And the following year, two more were bought, which were also added on to[1797], so that the entire block adjacent to the church became the property of the Pious Schools, with the exception - to this day - of the ‘Cucagna’ inn, located on the corner between the ‘via’ and the ‘vicolo’ of the same name. When Torres bought the palace, there were already two stores on the ground floor, rented by Father Prefect, to which were added two more, also located on the ground floor of the small houses purchased later, whose modest rents helped to increase the always insufficient alms income.[1798]

1796 Cf. G. SÁNTHA, o.c., p.287, n.31.

1797 Ibid.

1798 Ib., p.268-269; PosCas, p.177; EGC II, p.171. It is fair to add to the alms of the Pope, cardinals and others, this note of Fr. Erra: “our house of Lucca for a three-year period, that is for the whole time that the union lasted, contributed 250 scudos every year” (C. ERRA, Memorie de’ Religiosi... p.32 It is strange that Bernardini says nothing about this when he lists the fixed annual alms.

Another innovation should not be underestimated. On August 2, 1616, at the request of the Prefect and the Rector of the house, Paul V granted the Pious Schools free of charge and forever “an ounce of water” from the so-called Acqua Vergine, which began to flow in the small courtyard, brought by the ancient Roman aqueduct that feeds, among other things, the famous Trevi Fountain. The free concession was maintained until March 1979.[1799]

1799 PosCas, p.248-250.

The new community of Lucchesi settled in San Pantaleo, with its Rector Casani and Vice-rector, Father Balthasar Guinigi, who were the only two priests among them for the time being. The others were lay brothers and juniors. Bernardini says that there were many of them. The overburdened companions of Calasanz must have been relieved that so many young people came who were willing to work. It was like a breath of fresh air. Once they had taken possession of the house,” Bernardini continues, “they tried to put the house and the schools in order. Different groups of pupils were formed according to age, in which they practiced various devotions on feast days with great profit... Our main concern, and that of those who have established these schools, is to educate the children to a Christian life in the fear of God, and for this reason confessors and other persons are placed at their side to give them suitable talks in due course. Holy Communion is served and everything is done to give them the opportunity to abandon vice and follow virtue.”[1800]

1800 Ibid., p.265. Erra, however, names Casani as Rector, Guinigi and two clerics, and continues: “the others... did not come to my notice. I know well that they were few “ (C. ERRA. o.c., p.32).

It is easy to assume that among these congregations of students there were one or more, for young and older, under the invocation of Our Lady of the Snows, as introduced in Lucca by Fathers Casani and Guinigi with great results.[1801] This assumption is supported by the annual custom, introduced in the summer of 1614, of a procession of all the students of the Pious Schools to the Basilica of Santa Maria Maggiore on one of the days of the Octave of their titular feast of Our Lady of the Snows, under whose protection the schools were, as Bernardini adds when transmitting this news: “They went in procession -he concludes- all the schools, together with the Fathers, singing songs and hymns in honor of the Mother of God; there were about 800 children who set a good example to the whole town in orderly procession, and the event was highly praised.”[1802]

1801 Ibid., p.76-82. The establishment of several groups in San Pantaleón is affirmed by Vilá, although there is no express testimony (cf. C. VILÁ, o.c., p.214 and 212).

1802 Cf. PosCas, p.268-269. Bernardini confesses that the procession was suggested by don Cipriano, a Benedictine monk, perhaps the same don Cipriano Martínez, a Spaniard, who was grammar master at San Pantaleo, and by order of Calasanz was to compose a grammar with the collaboration of Andrew Bayano (cf. CS I, p.35, n.2 and c.36, 42, 573, etc.) The following year the procession was repeated, which became customary “with a much greater number of children than last year and with better order”, says Bernardini (cf. l.c., p.277).

The new guardian angels

Speaking of processions, we must also mention another practice characteristic of the Pious Schools, which was introduced precisely in the summer of 1615. Bernardini is also the first to give us the news and the serious reasons for its introduction. He describes it as follows:

“In June of the same year, a practice was introduced in the Pious Schools which, although very arduous, was nevertheless of great charity and very useful for the pupils to continue. It was usual, when they left school in the morning and afternoon, for them to do many things in the streets, not only as children, but others of a bad nature, and, moreover, wicked people, of whom the world is full, had the audacity to seduce them and tempt them to do ugly and nefarious things. To remedy these inconveniences, the Fathers, having received many complaints from various quarters, decided, after careful consideration, that they should be escorted home by us in the morning and evening... All the pupils in the school were divided into six groups, each led by two of us, who accompanied them and made sure that the children behaved modestly. The squads went through the neighborhoods where the children lived... and so they were spread all over the city. Each squadron was very numerous, and some exceeded 200 children, and they were so well trained that they walked with great modesty and decorum, with the rosary in their hands, so that it was an extraordinary joy to see these processions in Rome, morning and evening, and the people, the nobility, the prelates and cardinals praised the work and considered it one of the most important in Rome.”[1803]

1803 Ibid., p.276.

Bernardini does not say who came up with the idea. The Piarist tradition, which emanates from Caputi, attributes the initiative to Landriani, who certainly spoke explicitly of the moral dangers of the street even before this practice was introduced.[1804] And it was these dangers that prompted him to speak to Calasanz and present him with his plan of accompaniment.[1805] And Caputi continues:

1804 On September 29, 1612, Glycerio writes to his uncle Cardinal Federico Borromeo and does not mention this practice; and he should have, if it already existed, for he says: “I hope may the Lord wish to make use of me for this work of his, which is so important that it causes me astonishment, for these children of the poor, who usually go about the squares without any restraint from the Fear of God, indulging in all kinds of dishonesty in word and ugly acts, here they turn away from idleness and evil and with the help of God are occupied in exercises, with the spirit and knowledge of Christian Doctrine.” (EC III, p.1636).

1805 Caputi, who did not know Bernardini’s Chronicles, wrote half a century later: “He was told (to Landriani) ... that some pupils, after the school, were called by some inside the buildings and did evil; others began to play in the streets and others gave bad example; the Abbé conferred all this with the Founder and told him that... he wanted to accompany them with another to their homes...” (quoted in SÁNTHA, SJC, p.363, n.5).

“The Founder liked this idea of the Abbé very much, who saw him as enlightened by God and wanted to please him and encourage him in his holy intentions... for this reason, the Founder held a conference with all the Fathers and Brothers so that they would be ready to practice charity by accompanying these poor children and performing the ministry of guardian angels... and he was the first to put it into practice, wanting no one to abstain, neither the superiors nor the confessors, and to perform this act of piety and humility at least once a week.”[1806]

1806 Ibid., and see then n.1809 (text of the CC).

Caputi speaks of five groups, whose radial routes assure us that the children came from all districts of Rome: one went through the ‘Rotonda’ or Pantheon and reached ‘Trinità dei Monti’ or Spanish Square and was led by the elder Calasanz; the second was led by Glicerio Landriani and went through ‘Campo dei Fiori’ and reached ‘Trastevere’; another through the ‘Gesù’ to Santa Maria Maggiore; another through ‘Via dei Banchi’ went to the Borgo or St. Peter’s Basilica and the last one through ‘Via della Scrofa’ to Piazza del Popolo’.[1807] As is so often the case, he is probably exaggerating when he says that “Father General always accompanied the children until 1642”, i.e. until he was eighty-five years old. However, one cannot deny the anecdotal possibility that he actually accompanied the children for the last time in his life in that year.

1807 Ib. Caputi says there were five squadrons, while Bernardini said six, but he listed only five, four of which coincide with Caputi’s; he omits that of ‘Trinità dei monti’ which Calasanz carried, and adds that of ‘S. Marco’, that for its proximity with the Gesù seems to be the one that went to ‘Santa Maria Maggiore’.

The Holy Founder must have been very, very fond of this practice, as Caputi told us, because he wanted the Pope to prescribe it in the founding document of the Pauline Congregation, but the detail was omitted.[1808] Nevertheless, he included it again in the Constitutions of the Order.[1809] It is interesting, however, that without denying it, he did not like to emphasize the danger to the purity of the children, which he does not allude to on the two occasions mentioned above, while in other texts he refers to the dangers of road traffic[1810] or simply says that “they accompanied them home from the schools in the morning and evening so that they would not get lost and cause displeasure to anyone on the streets.”[1811]

1808 In the preliminary draft of the Brief, he expressly stated, as an educational means: “eosque ad domos proprias, quando a Gymnasio recedunt, comitando” (cf. PosCas, p.300, n.3). It was omitted in the Brief (cf. ib. p.305, n.3).

1809 “…eos, ut moris est, ad proprias domos comitabuntur, quem humilitatis actum omnes exequentur, etiam Confessorii et superior saltem semel in hebdomada” (CC, n. 116).

1810 “Let our people be diligently warned to protect them against the dangers of carts, horses, and others, which are frequent in the city, in which it seems that the children run away to play, and let the teachers try to keep them away” (Riti comuni in G SÁNTHA, o.c., p.365, n.11).

1811 EGC II, p.56. The accompaniment kept away “those moral dangers”, by itself, without needing to say so expressly.

Although in our case the initiative seems to have come from Landriani, for reasons of moral prudence, as Bernardini, Caputi and Glicerio themselves say, there were those who claimed that this practice was common among Protestants in Germany or elsewhere.[1812] It has not been proven that this was the case. But perhaps it was simply the continuation of an ancient custom from Greco-Roman antiquity, in which the “pedagogues” of the family accompanied their pupils from home to school and vice versa in order to protect them. There is ample evidence that in Zaragoza, Valencia and Barcelona in the second half of the 16th century there were poor university students who took on this task in order to earn a living.[1813]

1812 “This accompaniment really does not belong to the institute, as can be seen in the Brief of the erection, but was added to the Constitutions and introduced at the time of the secular teachers, it is said, because of having understood the customs of heretical teachers in Germany or elsewhere, which is not the case, and in any case, there is no occasion to imitate their hypocrisies” (CASTELLI, Discorso sulle Scuole Pie, cit. in G. SÁNTHA, o.c., p.363, n.3).

1813 “In Saragossa there have been and there are ordinarily more than 800 students and some of them a thousand and most of them poor, who entertain themselves some serving, others taking boys to school as is done in Valencia and Barcelona, and others singing at night in the streets and giving them alms...” (Alegato de la ciudad de Zaragoza al Rey, in 1583: M. JIMÉNEZ CATALÁN - J, SINUÉS Y URBIOLA, Historia de la Real y Pontificia Universidad de Zaragoza, III, p.86). In Saragossa, poor university students “will find much comfort to be able to support themselves in the houses of gentlemen and citizens to teach their children or to accompany them to the Study” (from another Alegato de Zaragoza, 1583, in ibid., p.84).

The novelty of the Pious Schools, and especially that time, was at least that this practice was institutionalized as a pedagogical means of traffic safety education and prevention of moral abuses and was made available to the poor, something that at that time and in other times was reserved for the nobles and the rich.

The Lucchesi at school

In recent times it has been repeatedly claimed that the Lucchesi, who moved into the house of San Pantaleo in February 1614, did not give any lessons in the remaining months, i.e. from February to mid-October.[1814] Their entire activity was focused on pastoral work in the pious comgregations and the Sunday oratories, on catechesis, confessions, masses and communions and their corresponding preparation. But no schools.

1814 “Since the school year was already underway (in February 1614), the Lucchesi did not attend school” (PosCas, p.147). “After much digging in the archives, we believe that the Lucca Fathers, although they sent several of their members to live in St. Pantaleon, in the strictly scholastic work (we do not say pastoral) they only helped with the Rector, Fr. Casani and his close friend Fr Balthasar Giugini. We only know the name of one cleric, Nicolas Carincioni, who apparently worked at San Pantaleon and fell ill due to fatigue and later died in Lucca. Other clerics and novices lived there, but did not teach, as can be deduced from the official document, which we will present later” (C. VILÁ, En torno a la unión..., p.218). And speaking of this document of October 17, 1614, he adds: “In the report it is clear that at that time no religious from Lucca was teaching...” (ibid., p.224). (ibid., p.224). Another comment to the same document: in it would state “the total absence of Lucchesi in the school work in that course, which was about to end” (PosCas, p.152). Cf. also EC VI, p.2867, n.2. Of that mentioned document we will speak later.

Even a priori, this common, almost programmatic attitude of abstaining from school work would be inexplicable, since the intention of Calasanz above all, of Giustiniani, of Ruzola and even of Paul V, when he proposed and established the union with the Lucchesi, and that of the Lucchesi themselves when they accepted it, was to ensure the future of the schools of the poor, more than their catechization.[1815] It would be pointless for these new and young forces to remain inactive for so long.

1815 Calasanz wrote in his Report of 1623: “Then in the month of January, 1614 was made the union ... so that the said Institute of schools was attended with greater diligence “ (EGC II, p.171). And in another memorandum of 1616, he recalled the promises of the Lucchesi, in this sense: “they accepted the agreement... promising to attend to this institute with the greatest diligence” (ibid., p.50).

Bernardini’s chronicle testifies beyond doubt that in those months of 1614 the Lucchesi were indeed working in the school to the complete satisfaction of the Prefect, who praised their work more than that of the other teachers. Here are his words:

“To assist this care [for the Pious Schools] and to bring them into good condition, the Diet appointed Father Peter Casani as rector of the house of Pious Schools and gave him the proper family, so that he might have good government and ours might begin to practice and learn the manner convenient for the service of the schools, the care of which, as I have said, remained in the hands of Father Casani. Some of our people devoted themselves to the practice of teaching and it was soon seen how much better they fulfilled this task than the outsiders, as the Prefect himself admitted.”[1816]

1816 PosCas, p.264.

Bernardini had also written to the Fathers of Lucca about this, because in mid-June of the same year Father Cioni wrote to him: “I am also pleased that our young people are giving satisfaction to the Prefect of the schools, and there is no doubt that these young people are being led and taught in a different way, but we must proceed step by step so as not to shorten everything and spoil the attempt.”[1817] A month earlier, he had written to him that everyone in his parish in Lucca was ready to support the new institute of Pious Schools.[1818] One of the young men who had pleased Father Prefect so much in the first months of the association was the cleric Nicolò Carincioni, who was very knowledgeable in the humanities, which he taught at San Pantaleo, and who had to retire in the summer due to illness and later died in Lucca.[1819]

1817 Ibid., p.169. Dated June 14, 1614. The last words we suppose are wrongly transcribed, and should be guastare il saggio (to spoil the attempt) and not gustare el saggio (to taste or to be pleased with the attempt) (cf. also BC VI, p.2866).

1818 “…with so much promptness I found everyone of this house to help the new institute” (ibid., p.167, dated May 17, 1614).

1819 Of him Bernardini wrote: “In this month (January 1615) Nicolao Carincio passed to better life in the house of Lucca; a young man of 24 years old approximately, which having been in the world of lively nature, touched by God had made in the Congregation very good success, and having talent to the things of humanity, after having practiced in the Pious Schools, overcome by great indisposition he passed to better life” (PosCas, p. 927). But in letter of August 30, 1614 Cioni already said: “I am also sorry for the sick, in particular for Nicolao Carincioni who has given himself in such a bad way, as Father Pietro (Casani) writes, of convulsions “ (ibid., p.170-171). Then before that date he had exercised the task of teaching. On the other hand, the same Cioni who was admired of his quick indisposition, had said, in letter of March 22, 1614, that already before he was suffering from ulcer (cf. EC p.2868, n.3).

The increase in the number of teachers naturally brought with it an increase in the number of pupils. And not without a certain amount of self-satisfaction, Bernardini wrote: “When we took over the schools, there were about 800 students, but after the fame of the good order had spread throughout Rome, the number rose to 1,200 in a short time, so that the classrooms could not contain them and the teachers could not carry so much weight.”[1820] And it was probably not the fame “of “the good order” that already existed, but rather the news that more children could be admitted that caused this spectacular increase in such a short time. And this was only possible due to the sudden increase in the number of teachers and the acquisition of new premises, as we have already seen. Logically, these new teachers were the Lucchesi.

1820 PosCas, p.265. The numbers of Bernardini are confirmed exactly, since Casani, in letter to his Father of January 25, 1614, said: “They are now about 800 in number the schoolchildren” (ibid., p.161). and Calasanz, in letter of May 23, 1614, wrote: “all these children, who already pass the number of one thousand and two hundred” (EGC VIII, p.451).

Hopes for universal expansion

One of the incentives for the agreed merger between the Pious Schools and the Pious Schools was undoubtedly the well-founded hope of rapid expansion, based on the esteem and protection that these schools enjoyed in the highest hierarchies of Rome. Even the preliminary note requesting the association from the Pope stated that the old Prefect was “anxious to perpetuate and multiply them not only in the city of Rome, but throughout the world.”[1821] Casani took up this wish, which he had probably heard from Calasanz, Giustiniani, Bernardini, Ruzola, etc., and told his father that the Pious Schools were a “most admirable and above all most useful work not only for Rome, but for the whole world”[1822]

1821 Cf. PosCas, p.157.

1822 Ibid., p.162.

This future universality made the people of Lucca better understand the need to open the doors of the Congregation to “foreigners”, that is, to those who were not born in the Republic of Lucca. This opening had begun in November 1613, during the preliminary talks for the unification. They were also aware that the schools would need a lot of staff and it was therefore necessary to deliberately open a novitiate, something they had not done since the beginning of their congregation. To this end, they provided a small house and a church, which they had bought near the ‘Fontana de Trevi’ in 1612. On January 21, 1614, a week after the promulgation of the Letter of Union, it was officially decided that this house would become the novitiate, and Father Dominic Tucci was appointed from Lucca as Rector of the house and master of the novices.[1823]

1823 Ib., p.264; C. ERRA, Memorie de’ Religiosi, p.27-28. In 1624 it was sold and in its place was later built the palace of Cardinal Carpeña, (ibid., p.28) now occupied since 1932 by the Academy and Gallery of Saint Luke (cf. TCI, Guida d’Italia. Roma e dintorni, p.263).

The establishment of the novitiate filled with joy not only the Lucchesi but also Calasanz and its people,[1824] and in a special way, because although the future novices were to be trained according to the spirit and Constitutions of the Congregation of Lucca,[1825] the house would nevertheless be called the “Novitiate of the Pious Schools”[1826], as its task was to prepare personnel for them. This is how Father Prefect expressed himself in a very interesting letter dated May 23, 1614, in which he replied to the Marquis of Ariza, Don James Palafox, his friend and former secret steward of the Pope.[1827] As far as we know, the first request for the foundation of religious schools outside Rome came from this Aragonese nobleman. And it came into Calasanz’s hands just as the novitiate was being opened, to which some Spaniards were admitted, giving everyone well-founded hopes of future expansion. Here is a paragraph:

1824 “This constitution (of the novitiate) gave very joy to all of the Congregation, since until that time there had not been a novitiate formed in accordance with the Constitutions” (A. BERNARDINI, o.c., p.264). Dated March 29, 1614, Cioni wrote to Bernardini: “I have felt pleasure in the new house of the novitiate in conformity with the Constitutions, and I never thought I would see such a thing in my life; praise be to God always! all the more so since it is to the taste of the Prefect and of the others” (PosCas, p.167).

1825 Thus they had agreed: “those who are to be received from here on, should be received to live in accordance with the Rules and Constitutions of that Congregation” (PosCas, p.158).

1826 “In February of this year (1614) the Novitiate for the Pious Schools was opened in company of the Fathers of St. Mary in Portico and was called Novitiate of the Pious Schools” (BERRO, Report B, p.387). “They took together a house at the Trevi Fountain in Rome and bought it to make a Novitiate, where many young Romans were dressed.... The expense of such a Novitiate was made entirely in regard to the Pious Schools and the purchase was also paid for the most part by our D. Joseph” (BERRO I, p. 86).

1827 Cf. ch. 10, n.12.

“In answer to such a pious wish as your Excellency expressed in your letter of 13th last March, that the Pious Schools of Rome be established in your country, I wish to answer with as much affection and brevity as I can; these good Fathers have begun a novitiate to raise subjects fit for this holy exercise, and among them are received some Spaniards who are doing very well in mortification and spirit, and I hope that with the favor of Our Lord it will soon be possible to extend in other parts.”[1828]

1828 EGC VIII, p.451. We do not know the names of the Spaniards mentioned. In the last list of companions of Calasanz (act of purchase of the house of San Pantaleo: September 25, 1612), there were the following Spaniards: John García, Thomas Victoria, Diego López and John Martínez (cf. G. SÁNTHA, Quattuor novi elenchi..., p.376). Of these, García and Victoria would later become Piarists. The traces of the other two have disappeared. Garcia does not seem to have entered the novitiate now, since in 1627 he was still dressed as a “prete secolare”, even though he was living in the Order of the Pious Schools (cf. ibid., p.389, n.24). Perhaps he could have been one of the other three. Another Spaniard is mentioned as a novice of the Lucchesi in March 1617, and his name was Thomas Duart Perera (cf. C. ERRA, o.c., p.35). But it would turn out to be an extrange novitiate of three years.

In mid-June, Father Cioni received a rumor in Lucca that there was a desire to found Pious Schools in Milan and Pescia. In Milan, Thomas Landriani, Glicerio’s younger brother, was interested in them. But there were still too few of them. If the Lord wants to send us men - said Cioni - there will be no lack of opportunities and places to employ them.”[1829] Bernardini, who was also thrilled by the news that reached him, came to the same conclusion:

1829 PosCas, p.169. Glicerio speaks of Thomas Landriani in EC III, p.1634.

“After we have put the schools in order - he wrote to Lucca- our Congregation has had the opportunity to show itself. We feel the spirit of Pious Schools awakening in various parts of Italy and abroad, in the most famous cities, because of the great fruits expected from them, and to reach other places; we only lack suitable men to carry this burden. But as soon as the congregation is converted into a Religion, I am sure God will send an abundance of valuable and suitable subjects to serve him, and teach these children letters and Christian piety, and make them little angels, whom the Lord so loved, as is shown by these affectionate words, “Let the children to come unto me.”[1830]

1830 PosCas, p.148.

There are no words to describe the enthusiasm, the optimism, the hopes and the perfect harmony of feelings with which Calasanz, Bernardini, Casani and Cioni expressed themselves, reflecting the common atmosphere of the two communities in these first months of union. Nor can one doubt the sincerity of these feelings. But they were too short-lived.

First signs of fatigue

When the Lucchesi took possession of the Pious Schools in February 1614, there were 800 pupils; by May there were already 1,200, but the number of teachers had not increased proportionally. Therefore, the tasks and fatigue on the same shoulders increased dangerously. Bernardini had already given us this succinct judgment: “The seats could not hold them [the children], and the teachers could not carry so much weight.” However, the practice of walking the children home twice a day had not yet been introduced. It would not be introduced until June of the following year, which added to the burden of the daily workload.

The professional fatigue of the schools was compounded from the outset by the serious inconvenience of limited space and the austerity of life, which bordered on misery. Bernardini gives us some feats: “As the best rooms were destined for the schools, few were left for the residents. It was therefore necessary to occupy the upper rooms of the house and, with the help of wooden walls, create some small cells in which people lived very uncomfortably for various reasons, especially in summer when many people lived in a very small space.”[1831] It should not be forgotten that the Calasanz group had moved in earlier and the new arrivals therefore suffered more from the constraints and inconveniences of the more or less improvised premises.[1832] But that’s not all: “In terms of food and clothing,” Bernardini continues, “it was also very tight, because the house had no fixed income.” It was necessary to pay the interest on the debt of the purchase and “other expenses incurred for the schools, for paper, pens, ink and the salary of the scribe [Ventura Sarafellini], which exceeded 700 escudi per year... Moreover, this house bore the cost of the novitiate house, where there were many mouths...” With the fixed alms of the Pope and Cardinals Giustiniani and Montalto, “they were not enough to pay the debts of the house. There were also comfortable alms from Abbé Landriani, but the rest had to be begged for in various places with much labor and fatigue. Even bread was sought for the two houses, and although the Lord provided what was necessary, in reality they lived very frugally, but with much joy and contentment of spirit, knowing that it pleased God to establish his works in this way.”[1833]

1831 No matter how much imagination one has, it is not easy to understand how they could fit in that house not only 1,200 or even 1,500 students (we will speak of this later), but so many religious and teachers. If in 1612-1614 there were about 15, in the three-year period of the union with the Luchesi they reached 27-28. But, almost unbelievably, in 1629 they would reach 60 and in 1638 up to 70 community members, then dropping to 40 in 1647 - (cf. G. SANTHA, 350 anni a condita domo S. Pantaleonis, p.273-274). The church and the courtyard were smaller, but the house had only two floors and not four as now, nor were there any rooms above the church (cf. L. PICANYOL: Rass, XVI [1950] 70).

1832 Calasanz’s room, which he occupied for thirty-six years, has been preserved intact. It is still impressive today for its austerity and its narrowness, if one thinks that he had no other office to work in and to receive people during his almost thirty years as General of his Institute.

1833 PosCas, p.265-266.

Ah, the heroic times! you will say. But such times are usually very short and only suitable for heroes. And heroes are usually few and far between. In our case, we could think of Calasanz, Casani, Landriani and a few others. Calasanz was the Prefect of the schools, while Casani was the Rector of the house, in charge of the day-to-day problems of making a living. His proverbial severity was heroic for himself, but when he imposed it on others, it became unbearable. Twenty-seven-year-old Father Balthasar Guinigi was appointed vice-rector, but when the community was reshuffled in October, his name no longer appeared. In November 1616, however, he reappeared in the same position. Perhaps there was a parenthesis of absence, even if he retained the appointment.[1834] The fact is that he recalled this extravagance in an account of his cohabitation with Casani in the Pious Schools as vice-rector:

1834 Cf. B. BARTLIK, Annales: EphCal 5 (1934) 216; C. ERRA, o.c., p.32; PosCas, p.153, n.14 and p.216; EC VI, p. 2874-2875.

“I was vice-rector; I saw to it that the food for the Fathers was such as was laid down in our Constitutions; but he [Casani] wanted that when the first signal for lunch was given, neither the menestra, nor the food, nor anything else, was at home, but he went out with Br. Simon Castiglioncelli and he would go to Fr. Cipriano in Trastevere, who had prepared a concoction of menestra for him, and he and the said brother took the concoction, put a stick in it and took the menestra home together, which then provided the opportunity to leave the Pious Schools, as our Fathers did not like such a way of life.”[1835]

1835 From the Informatione given by Guinigi in 1664 to Fr. V. Berro for the Process of Beatification of Fr. Casani, in PosCas, p.1592-1593. Caputi says in his Notizie historiche, referring to Casani: “from his example and virtue began... a poverty so great that it was insufferable” (cit. in PosCas, p.1753, n.235).

It is not surprising that under these circumstances - excessive work, excessive inconvenience, excessive poverty expressed in food shortages due to a lack of alms - when summer arrived with its stifling heat, another calamity was added: disease. The panorama darkens. The chronicler Bernardini writes, perhaps to the lively rhythm of events:

“Throughout the summer there were very great setbacks, especially because of the many sick in the House of Pious Schools and in the novitiate; two novices died who were very promising and whom the Lord took to himself with the greatest fervor[1836]... Moreover, alms were very scarce, and since the house of the Pious Schools and the novitiate were maintained by alms, the situation was very precarious. Abbot Landriani had received the grace from God to find alms in a reasonable way when he looked for it, but it seems that God allowed him to run out of credit at that time... and specifically, one morning, when the need was very great, he returned home very tired after a great effort, but very happy because of the trust he placed in God, and brought with him a quarter of ‘giulio’, which was all he had found... We often heard from many outsiders [non-Lucchesi] and sometimes from ourselves voices against the state of poverty and against the work of the schools, and from Lucca someone whom I will not name wrote to me that at the mere memory of Rome one felt horror and disgust, because of the diseases that had occurred and the deaths and other disturbances that had taken place... With all these fears, God was not lacking in providing what was needed.[1837]

1836 Erra writes: “the two clerics Giambattista da Palliano and Orazio Banelli from Lucca, who died among those labors, the first in August and the other in September 1714” (sic, for 1614) (C. ERRA, Memorie de’Religiosi..., p.32). To these two he adds Cl. Carincioni (cf. note above 1819) and “Fr. Nicolao Lonardi della Diocesi di Fano che essendo tuttavia Novizio, benché di 50 anni, tra quegli esercizi passò al Signore nell’aprile del 1616. Sicchè... quattro de’ nostri Religioii finirono la vita, sagrificata al Signore in servizio delle Scuole Pie” (ibid.).

1837 PosCas, p.269-270. To explain the decrease of alms of this period, Erra, a chronicler from Lucca, says: “the alms were so scarce maybe because the people knew that our people had the patrimony” (C. ERRA, Cronache dei chierici regolari della Congregatione della Madre di Dio: PosCas, p.1867).

The logical consequence of this situation was that the number of students began to drop, and if in May there were still 1,200, in October, at the end of the school year, there were only about a thousand. And the explanation seems to be none other than the surplus of students and the enforced absence of teachers due to illness. Perhaps the students themselves also fell ill in large numbers, as happened again in 1625, and for the same reasons, as Calasanz explained: “Last summer, many students fell ill in our schools because of the cramped classrooms; many of our workers also fell ill, which (according to the doctors) was because they slept under the roof because there were not enough rooms for everyone.”[1838]

1838 This is how Calasanz explained in May 1626 when he asked permission to the Congregation of the Apostolic Visitation to carry out works at home (cf. G. SÁNTHA, o.c., p.288, n.34).

The situation became increasingly worrying, as it seemed that the sick teachers were not being adequately replaced by the Lucchesi, who became increasingly discouraged and even worried, as was known to be the case in Lucca. For this reason, Calasanz had to appeal to the Cardinal Protector to intervene. And Giustiniani wrote to the House of Lucca on September 29, 1614:

“Since the Father General of your Congregation has informed me that the General Congregation will be held next month, I have sent an official letter to him and to the other Fathers who are here to attend to the needs of the Pious Schools which, thanks to me, have been placed by His Holiness under the direction of your Congregation. I would like to remind you so that all of you together, taking this work into account, may become more and more inflamed in your progress for the service of God and the honor of your Congregation.”[1839]

1839 PosCas, p.156.

The Rector and the community of Lucca replied to the Cardinal, expressing their sincere and excellent willingness to help the Pious Schools immediately and generously. Here are their words:

“...we offer ourselves, always very willingly and with all diligence, for the services of this place, especially as it has the patronage of Your Reverence, and just as we did not fail at the beginning to assign to it the subjects that we could, so we hope to help from now on with greater diligence, aided by the divine grace and intercession of the most holy Mother of God, Our Lady.”[1840]

1840 Ibid., p.266.

And there is no reason to doubt the full sincerity of these words, as the resolutions of the General Assembly announced in October of that year prove.

The General Diet of Fall 1614

From the beginning, Father Bernardini did not lose sight of the common aspiration to elevate his Congregation to a religious Order and at the same time made it clear that he did not consider this to be the happy and logical conclusion of the Congregation itself, but rather the most effective means of strengthening the work of the Pious Schools. It was necessary to have a large number of collaborators, and the most effective means of obtaining them was to ordain them by the title of poverty, as was done in the Religions, and not by patrimony, as they had hitherto done. So the Congregation had to change and resolutely follow the narrow path of religious poverty. Bernardini discussed all this with Cardinal Giustiniani, who, towards the middle of Lent, at the beginning of March, ordered him to put his ideas or programmatic points in writing and have them signed by all those who wanted to voluntarily join the new institute of poverty.

Bernardini made a real campaign in favor of poverty, speaking to everyone, presenting it not simply as a strategic means of achieving the rank of Order, but deepening its spiritual values and at the same time insisting on the commitment to take care of the schools as something willed by God. Until the end of this short-lived adventure of the union, Bernardini will prove to be a sincere promoter of the Pious Schools. Here are his words:

“To encourage everyone, I have spoke everyone personally, emphasizing the importance of the matter, the obligation we have to manage the matter of the schools well and to collaborate with all diligence with the approval of God, who has shown that he wants to honor the Congregation with the title of Religion. I have made it clear that we are bound to provide for schools if we do not want the world to ridicule us, and that this is the loyal provision. I proved that since it is impossible to found a new religion today, partly because of the widespread fear that the religious will usurp all goods, we are obliged to follow the path of divine providence... I said that poverty is the foundation and principle of religious perfection and that... it was necessary to ‘found a strict institute’...”[1841]

1841 Ibid., p.185.

With all these reasons, Bernardini succeeded in getting all his religious in Rome to accept and sign his formula of poverty, which was to be added to the Constitutions. In its eight articles, they renounced the dominion and possession of immovable goods and declared themselves capable of holding the dominion of movable goods in common. They also declared themselves incapable of litigating before a civil or ecclesiastical court. He also sent the same formula to Lucca, accompanied by a long letter asking them to sign for the reasons he had proposed to those in Rome, and all but one accepted and signed the formula. When Father Cioni returned the letter on May 17, 1614, he informed him that he had had no great difficulty in persuading them to sign.[1842]

1842 Ibid., p.167-168.

In the belief that he was pleasing Giustiniani, Bernardini also presented the formula to the Carmelite Fathers John and Dominic de la Scala, who were so dear to the Cardinal, and both judged it to be too laborious and demanding. Father John in particular advised him to tone down some points, which made Giustiniani disagree and he reproached Bernardini - as he himself wrote - “for having asked for this advice, saying that could not advise us those who themselves did not know how to take good advice because, wanting them to make a profession of poverty, they introduced the fact that their houses of study could dispose of fixed goods.”[1843]

1843 Ibid., p.167. The Lucca chronicler Erra gives us this interesting fact: “this poverty, of which Cardinal Giustiniani spoke before any other...” (C. ERRA, Cronache... p.1868). From Bernardini’s text it seems to be deduced that it was also Giustiniani who gave the Carmelites “the good advice”, but they did not accept it.

This incident gives us reason to believe that the Cardinal’s extremism must have played a very important role in the whole matter of disunity, demanding too much in the matter of poverty and also in the founding of the Pauline Congregation of Pious Schools. We cannot know to what extent the cardinal’s criteria were imposed on Calasanz, or whether it was rather Calasanz who imposed his own on Giustiniani, Glicerio and Casani. It seems indisputable that the strict Carmelites were more moderate than their own spiritual sons.

The General Council began on October 12 in Santa Maria in Portico. In addition to General Bernardini, the rectors of the houses and their respective delegates took part. Rector Casani and Vice-Rector Guinigi represented the house of San Pantaleo. Among the topics discussed, two stood out: poverty and the state of the Pious Schools.

As for the first point, the formula already approved by the two houses was presented, but toned down according to the Carmelites’ specifications. Still at the Diet, further clarifications or “conditions” were added, further weakening the practice or new “statute” of poverty to which the future simple or solemn vow was to adhere. Among these conditions, it is worth mentioning that foundations that were not offered will not be admitted, and that the founders were to entrust some pious and prudent men to take care, according to the time, of obtaining the few things necessary for the subsistence of the religious, without even alluding to begging.[1844] Furthermore, as an exception, the House of Lucca and the House of Santa Maria in Portico were allowed to continue to dispose of stable goods until the General saw fit.[1845]

1844 It is not alluded to either in the two proposed formulas of poverty, and although Fr. John of Jesus Mary had advised that “goods should be kept in the same way as other mendicants do”, he had also said that “(he did not like) daily begging, because (from) the number of alms-collectors not well adjusted and mortified, great inconveniences would follow.” (PosCas, p.267). Here again, therefore, the Carmelite did not influence the practice adopted in the Pious Schools.

1845 Cf. PosCas, p.186-187. Of the four houses they had, the other two at San Pantaleon and Trevi were at the service of the Pious Schools. They therefore excluded only those that were strictly theirs. The definitive formula on poverty was approved with full unanimity and enthusiasm: ‘penitus, penitus, penitus, penitus’, say the Acts (cf. C. VILÁ, o.c., p.228). Calasanz also praised these dispositions, although we do not know to which formula he refers specifically, perhaps to the first one, signed by all. He says: “and they showed some instructions about poverty of singular perfection” (EGC II, p.50).

In view of the current state of the Pious Schools, the Diet instructed Fathers Cioni, Tucci and Guinigi to go to San Pantaleo to find out about the situation and the actual needs of the schools in order to make appropriate decisions. So on October 16, they went there and, accompanied and informed by the Prefect, they went through the classrooms one by one and produced a detailed report with very interesting data. However, they were not as precise as expected, because of the eleven classes into which the schools were divided, although they indicate the exact number of students and the activity to which they are dedicated in each of them, of the first four they say that they have teachers, but not how many they need; of the three groups into which the fifth is divided, they state the number of teachers needed in each, but not how many they would actually have; the same happens with the fourth and third; finally, in the second and first, they say that there is a teacher in each and that they need an assistant in each. They add that they need a confessor, a janitor and another Prefect, in addition to the one who was in charge of the schools, Calasanz. In another document, a little later, he is referred to as the Prefect of the playground, who should be a priest.[1846]

1846 In a memorandum of October 1615 it is said that the Pious Schools “hanno inoltre bisogno di molti altri ministri, come rettore, vicerettore, prefetto delle scuole, prefetto del Cortile, et altri, che non possono essere se non sacerdoti” (PosCas, p.240).

In all this division of teachers, explicit reference is made to a general rule that says: “One teacher can look after a maximum of 50 students”, the golden rule applied and demanded by Calasanz and so often recalled in his writings.[1847] Here, however, more teachers are requested, almost with a certain extravagance, perhaps in the hope that if you request more than necessary, you will get the right teachers.[1848] On the other hand, it is not stated how many and who were from the Calasanz group and how many and who were from the Lucchesi.[1849]

1847 “…cum unus praeceptor ad summum quinquaginta discipulis satisfacere possit” (PosCas, p.172-173). Other texts in SÁNTHA, ‘SJC’, p.271-272).

1848 In the three sections of the ‘fifth school’ they ask for 4 teachers for 150 pupils, 3 for 80 and another 3 for 106; in the second they ask for 2 for 70, and 2 more for 60 in the first ‘propter aetatem praeceptoris’, which was Dragonetti. Although sometimes it seems that those who calculate the necessary number of teachers are the visitors from Lucca (“nobis visum est”), it is logical to think that the one who calculated and asked for was Calasanz, as it is clear from what they say at the beginning: “dicimus quod res in dictis scholis piis iacent, ut infra, prout a Praefecto audivimus, et nos ipsi vidimus” (cf. the full Latin report in PosCas, p.172-173; translated and commented in C. VILÁ, En torno a la unión..., p.221-225).

1849 Vilá comments: “In the report it is clear that at that time there was no Lucca religious in the class, as it was logical to indicate. Neither Fr. Guinigi nor Fr. Casani had been able to give the assembly sufficient explanations of the progress of the classes, since they did not know them in detail: they were not teaching.” (C. VILÁ, o.c., p.224). Both conclusions seem unacceptable to us, both because of what we said before, proving the active presence of Lucchesi in class, and because of what has been said now about the imprecision of the report. It would have been more interesting to say concretely how many teachers were teaching and how many more seemed necessary, and they did not say that either. Casani and Guinigi, for their part, could not know from memory the number of pupils in each class or what the Prefect thought concretely about the need for more teachers. The visit was therefore necessary. On the other hand, Erra says expressly and in general terms: “Tutti o quasi tutti i nostri, anche i Fratelli che erano andati a S. Pantaleo, facevano scuola, secondo il talento, che Iddio aveva dato a ciascheduno di loro” (C. ERRA, Memorie..., p.33).

The three visitators wrote their report, which was read out publicly by the secretary, Father Guinigi, before the Diet on October 17. The news that the number of students had fallen from 1,200 in mid-May to 1,015 must have come as quite a shock. They examined the situation carefully and decided on October 29, at the beginning of the new school year, to reorganize the Luquese community of St. Pantaleo by assigning it three priests, five clerics and five lay brothers. Father Casani was confirmed as rector, but Father Guinigi did not return to the Pious Schools.[1850] With the thirteen Lucchesi and those who formed the group of Calasanz, there were perhaps twenty-seven or twenty-eight people[1851] needed for this house, as can be inferred from the vague account of the visitors.[1852] It must be acknowledged that the Fathers of Lucca gave a new proof of their interest in the Pious Schools.

1850 Cf. PosCas, p.153, n.14; C. ERRA, o.c., p.32.

1851 This number is proposed by Sántha for these years of union (cf. G. SÁNTHA, 350 anni a condita domo...; p.274). Erra writes: “in the year 1616 there were (in the novitiate) 4 fathers, 13 clerics and 5 brothers, a total of 22 subjects”, and then he adds: “the expenses of that house (San Pantaleo) ... passed 800 escudos, not being calculated in this sum the expense for the food and clothing of 50 people, who in some way served the Pious Schools, among whom were included who were in our Novitiate, located at the Trevi Fountain” (C. ERRA, Croniche... in PosCas, p.1866-1867 ). Therefore, in San Pantaleon there were 28 people: 13 from Lucca and 15 from the Calasanz group.

1852 Cf. C. VILÁ, o.c., p.225.

The first great disappointment

The unanimous adoption of the poverty formula deeply satisfied all those present at the Diet. This paved the way for the long-awaited goal of elevating the Congregation to the status of a religious Order, a decision that the Diet had passed unanimously.[1853] To pave the way further, the Diet granted the General and the Assistants - which included Father Casani - the power to amend the text of the Formula as required, provided that the essence of the Formula was retained.[1854]

1853 On November 4, 1614 they issued a decree that began as follows: “Cum divina disponente clementia, nostra congregatio legitime congregata unanimiter statuerit reducere institutum nostrae congregationis ad perfectissimum statum religionis cum paupertate iuxta formulam suprapositam...” (PosCas, p.187).

1854 “…salva tamen substantia decreti iam statuti” (ibid., p.188).

The above formula was presented to Cardinal Giustiniani, who, after reading it, again disapproved of the privilege granted to the houses of Lucca and Santa Maria in Portico to store their goods with the permission of the General Congregation, saying that “the matter must be made perfect and uniform, and that it was not proper that privileges should be claimed at the beginning of so important a cause.”[1855] The Fathers of the Diet, informed of Giustiniani’s attitude and fearing that the whole matter would be annulled, but also, as a sincere Bernardini adds, “determined “to place their feet above all human respect and to trust freely in God..., they decided that if virtue and good discipline were maintained in the Congregation, Divine Providence would provide the necessary things.”[1856] And on November 6, they granted Bernardini and his assistants full authority so that they too could renounce the disputed privileges.

1855 This is what Bernardini refers to in his Chronicles (cf. PosCas, p.271). It was the same complaint manifested before against the Carmelites.

1856 PosCas, p.271.

A memorandum was therefore drawn up for the Pope, in which they asked him to declare it as Order, but with these very interesting specifics, which Bernardini explicitly states:

“...they asked His Holiness to grant the Congregation the singular grace of conform a Religion by adding to it the institute of Pious Schools and evangelical poverty, after having received from Card. Giustiniani, who had made it clear that without this institute of Pious Schools he would never have presented our matter to the Pope and that we would have tried in vain to move forward without him.”[1857]

1857 Ibid., p.272.

There is therefore no doubt that the cardinal was determined to consolidate the Pious Schools once and for all by any means necessary. And so, he presented the memorandum to Paul V, in which he strongly recommended the request.

The Pope was against granting the grace, citing the vague and controversial Canon 13 of the Fourth Lateran Council, which forbade the foundation of new religious Orders. In the end, however, the Pope agreed to refer the matter to the Congregation of the Holy Office, which surprised Giustiniani and many others, as the issue was more the responsibility of the Congregation of the Regulars or the Council.[1858]

1858 It is Bernardini who points it out: “the Pope had sent our memorandum to the Congregation of the Holy Office, something that seemed strange to Card. Giustiniano and to those who heard it, since this negotiation directly belonged to the Congregation on the Regulars or to that of the Sacred Council of Trent” (ibid., p.272-273). It should be noted that this same anomaly would occur later with regard to the Pious Schools and their Founder, with very serious and unjust consequences for both.

The Secretary of the Holy Office was Cardinal Millini, a benefactor, admirer and friend of Calasanz and his schools, as we have seen so often, but a staunch opponent of the creation of new religious Orders. With excessive haste, he presented the memorandum in the immediate session of the Holy Office, without taking time to study it or obtain further reports. The Congregation followed Millini’s opinion and advised the Pope to refuse the granting, which he did. Bernardini complained to Millini and had to be rejected by him because he felt insulted, but finally allowed further reports.

Dissatisfied and dejected, the General informed his own and Giustiniani of the unpleasant audience with Millini, but everyone was of the opinion that they should continue with the proceedings. And so it was done. John Baptist Spada, a lawyer from Lucca, was asked to make a plea for the possibility of new religious Orders, and this was his argument in relation to the Congregation of Lucca: “He showed - Bernardini said - with very clear reasons that as long as the usefulness and necessity of creating new religions arose, this canon could not be invoked against us. The usefulness and necessity was clear in the institute of Pious Schools.[1859] Father Casani presented another, shorter argument, in which he defended - very correctly - with reference to St. Thomas and Bellarmine, that the meaning of the famous canon was simply to affirm that a new Religion could not be founded without the Pope’s authorization.[1860] The conciliar prohibition, on the other hand, was aimed at avoiding confusion due to the plethora of Religions; such confusion would arise, according to St. Thomas, “if Religions were to devote themselves to the same thing and by the same means, without this being necessary or useful.”[1861] And on this basis, Casani came to the conclusion that there was nothing to be said against denying the Congregation of Lucca the character of a Religion, “because the institute of Pious Schools is, in the general opinion, the most necessary for the universal Church and the most suitable for the reform of morals.”[1862]

1859 Cf. PosCas, p. 273.

1860 Ibid. p. 208-210. The quotation of St. Thomas says: “salubriter institutum est, ne nova religio nisi auctoritate Summi Pontificis instituatur” (ibid., p.209); and that of Bellarmino: “Novam religionem non licet constituere sine auctoritate Romani Pontificis” (ibid., p.210). This canon has not always been interpreted within its proper limits, giving it more prohibitive value than it has, both in the Roman dicasteries and by historians who are not properly critical. Among the moderns, L. Hertling expresses himself clearly like St. Thomas and Bellarmine: “The decree (canon 13) must be understood according to the language of canon law. In canon law a prohibition means that the thing in question depends for its accomplishment on a special permission. In other words, the council of 1215 placed the whole system of religious orders under the supervision of the Holy See” (L. HERTLING, Historia de la Iglesia [Barcelona 1961] p.216).

1861 “Sic ergo ex multitudine religiosorum induceretur confusio, si ad idem, et eodem modo diversae religiones essent, absque necessitate et utilitate” (PosCas, p.209).

1862 “…institutum Scholarum Piarum universali Ecclesiae Dei suffragiis omnium necessarissimum; et christianorum moribus reformandis aptissimum” (PosCas, p.210).

Once again, the Lucchesi sincerely recognized the importance of the Pious Schools as a new Institute in the Church of God. And at this crucial moment, when their future as a religious Order was at stake, they recognized the Pious Schools as an essential part of their Congregation. That is, when they sought to define themselves in the Church by their particular necessity and usefulness, they were not invoking the charism or purpose of their original institution, but the necessity and usefulness of the Pious Schools, which had belonged to them from the moment the Brief of union was issued. In doing so, they solemnly confirmed their commitment to continue them when they constituted themselves as an Order.

The demands were useless, because when Father General presented them together with the Constitutions, Bulls and privileges of the Congregation for the information of the cardinals of the Congregation of the Council, the secretary Cardinal Horacio Lancellotti -a great benefactor and friend of Calasanz and his schools - advised him to abandon his attempt and rather ask for permission to take a simple vow of poverty and to be able to ordain his clerics under the title of poverty. It would be much easier to obtain this.

Bernardini drew up a memorandum to this effect and at the end justified his request with the following words: “This grace will be sufficient to meet the extreme need for workers that the Pious Schools have that Your Holiness entrusted to their care a few months ago. This will be a great service to God and useful to the poor whom they teach”.[1863] The memorandum was presented in January 1615, and the reply was received in mid-March, granting permission to all religious of the Congregation of the Mother of God to take a simple vow of poverty, in addition to the three vows they had taken in the Constitutions, namely chastity, obedience and perseverance. However, the second petition was restricted as follows: “that four religious of the said congregation residing in Rome may receive holy orders with the title of poverty for the service of Pious Schools.”[1864]

1863 Full memorandum in PosCas, p.188-189.

1864 Full Decree in ibid., p.189, which begins: “Smus. Dominus noster ex sententia Congregationis Concilii Tridentini die 16 martii 1615 concessit oratoribus...” The Pope thus confirms the decision of the Congregation. But, although the concession was immediately communicated to the Lucchesi, it was not until July 30 that the Pope signed the corresponding Brief. See the full text in ibid., p. 190-191.

The reaction of protest and discontent was not long in coming. The attempt to become an Order with solemn vows, so desired by all, had failed; the possibility of ordaining all under the title of poverty had also failed; conferring ordination on only four persons did not solve the problem, as the schools needed more; the restriction “for those resident in Rome” and only “for the service of the Pious Schools” was abhorrent and also caused division within the Congregation, as from now on there would officially be rich and poor depending on whether they were ordained under the title of patrimony or poverty.[1865] And this tense situation, which spread first in Rome and then in Lucca, brought out the true universal feeling, namely that both the union with the Pious Schools and the question of poverty, although unanimously accepted, had been adopted as a means of becoming a religious Order. Therefore, the opposition to the two innovations, the schools and poverty, became increasingly clear. With regard to the schools, Bernardini wrote the following:

1865 Fr. Cioni from Lucca wrote to the General on April 17th with a certain resignation and optimism, in spite of everything: “although it seems to me a little scarce, nevertheless... it seems to me to be enough in having opened the way to be able to ask for more with a little time; because to have some ordered by title of patrimony and others by title of poverty, seems to be a little confusing; nevertheless, in order to set the negotiation in motion, one should take it very cheerfully and thank God for it, as I have done and will do” (PosCas, p. 200-201 ).

“It was known to all that the circumstance of having adopted the Pious Schools had induced the superiors of the Congregation to try to raise them to the state of Religion, in order to perfect these schools and to be able to have many men for their service. And since they did not like the innovation, especially when it came to restricting more and increasing the hardships, they complained against the institute of the schools.”[1866]

1866 Ibid., p.275. On poverty he says: “in Rome it began to stir up many rumors among those of the congregation, who did not like the state of poverty... These rumors passed to the house of Lucca and the majority of the inhabitants of that house approved. Because of those alterations, the Decrees done in favor of that state of poverty remained totally vain” (ibid.).

So, the horizon began to darken.

Calasanz, the bold reformer... unsuccessful

On July 30, 1615, the papal Brief was published, in which the already known proposals of the Congregation of the Council were adopted. It was intended to convene a General Diet to accept the Brief and act accordingly, but the possibility of changing or improving its provisions was hinted at, so the convocation was postponed to a later date. One of the radical solutions was to declare the Brief subreptitius, i.e. null and void, due to internal legal contradictions,[1867] in order to make a fresh start. However, despite the protests mentioned above, this insinuation caused resentment, since at least positive and useful things had been achieved for the firmness and stability of the Congregation, such as the vow of poverty, which is essential for becoming a religious Order.

1867 It was the idea of Mons. Prospero Fagnani (cf. PosCas, p.277), an illustrious jurist of the Roman Curia, very skilled in finding legal solutions based on almost unbelievable subtleties. He later intervened in the affairs of the Pious Schools, particularly in the difficult moments of their restoration, after the so-called Innocentian suppression (cf. EHI, p.910, n.1).

It was better to accept the letter and obtain from the Pope an increase in the number of those who could be ordained under the title of poverty. Cardinal Lancellotti was asked to intervene with Paul V, but he refused, recalling that it had not been easy to obtain permission from the Pope to ordain the four people mentioned in the letter. Giustiniani was approached and offered to discuss the matter with the Pope when he returned from his summer vacation in Frascati at the beginning of October. It was too long to wait. It was decided to send Father Calasanz to Frascati as Prefect to present the problem as an urgent need of the Pious Schools.

Calasanz accepted the assignment and went to Frascati one day in September 1615, perhaps for the first time. He probably did not even remember Cicero or his famous Tuscan letters, but he had the opportunity to contemplate the splendid Roman landscape from the Alban hills covered with vineyards and olive groves, against the monumental backdrop of the thousand domes and bell towers of the Eternal City. Only two years ago (1613), Cardinal Scipione Borghese, a nephew of Paul V, had bought the princely ‘Villa Mondragone’ as the Pope’s summer residence. Calasanz went there.

He was not only an emissary or advocate of the Congregation of Lucca to obtain the extension of the ordinations restricted by the letter. He went also - and above all – as the Prefect of the Pious Schools and ultimately responsible for their definitive consistency. And to this end, he prepared the papal audience with true responsibility and boldness. He wanted to take advantage of what seemed to him to be a unique opportunity. He spoke about the main objective of his message and presented him with a personal memorandum in writing, the text of which reads as follows:

“Most Holy Father.

The Fathers of the Congregation of the Mother of God, located in Santa Maria in Portico, like all other congregations and religions, have preaching and confession as their primary institute, and for a year and a half they have taken under their care the institute of Pious Schools, a work of great edification and usefulness in the Christian Republic. And since the said Fathers will hold a General Congregation next October, it is humbly requested that Your Holiness may recommend to the most illustrious Cardinal Giustiniani, Protector of the said Schools, or Bishop Monaldeschi, Vice-Protector, or whomever it may appear to Your Holiness, that, with the help of one of them, it be examined whether, for the greater perfection of the work of the Pious Schools, it is expedient that the Fathers of the said Congregation have only one institute, that of the schools, or how they can exercise their former institute without running the risk of neglecting the work of the Pious Schools on that account. Likewise, other things are requested concerning the growth of the said Congregation and its perfection. This will be a work of great benefit and of great honor to Her Holiness, etc.”[1868]

1868 PosCas, p.205.

The clarity and audacity of the proposal are obvious: Calasanz asks that the main purpose of the Congregation, which was the care of souls, be transformed into the sole service of schools. And if this was too much to ask - and indeed it was - and it was considered appropriate to maintain two ministries, then ways and means should be sought to subordinate the old, foundational ministry to the new one, the schools.

The first person to wonder about such a proposal was the Pope, who, according to Bernardini, asked him: “And why can not they take care of both, as the Jesuit Fathers do?[1869] We do not know what answer Calasanz gave him. What we do know is the judgment Bernardini gave both on Calasanz’s daring proposal and on the pope’s response: “This answer, so favorable to the Congregation, God surely wanted his vicar on earth to respond to the neither expedient nor reasonable proposal that the prefect submitted to him, which... wanted to remove from the Congregation the other spiritual exercises relating to the health of souls that had been used up to this point... But God did not allow this idea to be put into practice and moved his Vicar to object immediately and to explain what was to be done in this matter.[1870]

1869 Ibid., p. 278.

1870 Ibid.

There can be no doubt that the matter was extremely serious for the fidelity, respect and preservation of the fundamental charism of the Lucchesi, and therefore it is not surprising that Bernardini saw it as a work of God that the proposal was not carried out (although this judgment was not made until after the final resolution of the subsequent separation). Nevertheless, he, who from the beginning called the Prefect a “great servant of God” and a “holy man”, softened his negative judgment and justified Calasanz’s attitude with these sincere words:

“We believe, moreover, that the Prefect’s opinion stemmed from an excessive zeal for the work of the Pious Schools, since he had the most ardent desire to propagate it with all perfection... We must therefore excuse the Prefect, thinking that it is no great matter (in his own cause) that he should deceive himself and take for good and orderly zeal that which departs from the norms of good zeal.”[1871]

1871 Ibid., p.279.

However, things were not as clear and unambiguous as could be inferred from Bernardini’s text, because, firstly, the Pope did not end Calasanz’s proposal with the ingenious allusion to the diversity of Jesuit ministries; and secondly, both Bernardini and the General Council would henceforth begin an arduous task of finding an acceptable formula that went to the very heart of the Prefect’s proposal: unity or plurality of the ministry of the schools in the future Congregation of the Mother of God.

Besides, was Fr. Prefect’s proposal really “inconvenient and irrational”? When Paul V refused the grace to elevate the Congregation to a religious Order, Bernardini turned to a jurist to prove that Canon 13 of the Fourth Lateran Council could not be invoked in this case, and the reason he was given - Bernardini writes - was “that as long as the usefulness and necessity of creating new Religions existed, this canon could not be invoked against us. The usefulness and necessity were clearly present in the Institute of Pious Schools.[1872] And Casani had invoked the same argument in his plea. Therefore, if they had ignored their own founding office or institute and presented that of the Pious Schools as specific and therefore paramount, it was only logical to recognize it as such with full sincerity and to marginalize the old one forever or to subordinate it to the new one with all its consequences. Calasanz’s attitude was therefore completely ‘rational’ and not simply overzealous.

1872 Cf. PosCas, p.273.

The Commission of the Cardinals

When Calasanz left Villa Mondragone and returned to Rome, he carried in his soul the impression that this audience had been a new starting point. The Pope probably asked, when he commented on the memorandum, which cardinals besides the Giustiniani mentioned there could investigate the matter. And Calasanz mentioned Lancellotti, since both were friends and both had been entrusted by the Lucchesi with the mission that later fell to the prefect. Paul V appointed a special commission consisting of the following three cardinals: Benedict Giustiniani, Horace Lancellotti and Metellus Bichi, Bishop of Soana.

Calasanz immediately drafted another memorandum for this commission, in which he clarified and expanded the content of the memorandum he had submitted to the Pope in seven points. It was practically a real substantial reform of the Congregation of the Mother of God and at the same time -still unconsciously - the core of the fundamental ideas of what would be the future Pauline Congregation of Pious Schools. Hence its historical importance, for what he could not achieve as a reformer, he accomplished as a founder. Here is the memorandum in direct translation:

“Most Reverend Sir:

The Prefect of the Pious Schools submitted to the Pope a few days ago a memorandum on the Institute of the said Schools and on the enlargement and perfection of the Congregation of the Mother of God. His Holiness sent it to the Reverend Cardinals Giustiniani, Lancellotti and Soana and on behalf of the said Prefect it is desired:

1. That the principal institute of the Congregation of the Mother of God be the Institute of Pious Schools, so that the Congregation may take its name from this and be distinguished from all others. And since this is the principal ministry (institute), he desires that the best fathers (li principali padri) of the said Congregation devote themselves, if not to literary, at least to spiritual exercise, which consists in preaching to the students, hearing their confessions, attending their assemblies on feast days, and doing all that pertains to the good education of children in the service of God. And since this office requires persons of great charity and patience, since in it lies the reform of the Christian republic, as all councils rightly say, the most suitable and gifted persons should be entrusted with it.

2. That henceforth no house shall be accepted in any place except under the name of Pious Schools, and that only in the church held for the service of these Schools may the fathers of this congregation preach to the people and hear confessions, and in order not to divide the exercises, the same fathers who preach to the people and hear confessions shall also preach to the pupils and hear their confessions, if not to all, at least to the greater part of them.

3. Let those who devote themselves to literary exercise not remain only for two or three years, but, if there are some who have a good talent for teaching, let them devote themselves to it for ten, fifteen, or twenty years, taking a rest from time to time to refresh their strength and spirit, for in this way they will prove themselves excellent men in the exercise.

4. In order that the practice of Pious Schools may always be considered a priority, he wishes that, from now on, no one may be elected Rector or Vice-rector of a school who has not previously devoted himself for some years to the practice of schools, whether literary or spiritual.

5. Concerning perfection, in order that this institute of Pious Schools may be easily admitted not only among Catholics but also among unbelievers, it is expedient that all the fathers of the said Congregation should profess extreme poverty and be content only with the bare necessities, without possessing fixed or superfluous goods, but only the house in which they live, the schools and the church, and the latter very simply, because in this way they will be of greater edification to the people and of less worry and fatigue to the fathers.

6. That only young people of good talent and good spirit, chosen by the General Congregation, should learn the major sciences, and that these sciences should be taught at home and only to the members of the house.

7. Concerning the enlargement of the Congregation, he desires that His Holiness may grant permission to the Fathers of the said Congregation to ordain their clerics to the title of poverty, since His Holiness has already granted permission for them all to take the vow of poverty and for four of them to be ordained to this title, so that the Congregation may satisfy the many cities that are asking for this institute with great insistence.[1873]

1873 Cf. A. GARCÍA-DURÁN, o.c., p.139-140, n.657; item, in G. SÁNTHA, Nova quaedam documenta..., p.201-202, n.29, incomplete n.2. Item, in PosCas, p.206-207, incomplete n.2 and 7.

The introduction to this second memorandum alludes to the content of the first memorandum presented to the Pope and states that it deals with three questions: a) the institute of Pious Schools; b) the matter of the Congregation of Lucca; c) the perfection of the same.[1874] The seven points of the second memorandum refer explicitly to these three questions: the first four to the Institute of Pious Schools; the fifth and sixth to the perfection of the Congregation and the seventh to its enlargement.[1875] Of the three questions, the one that motivated Calasanz’s journey to Frascati was the one that referred to the enlargement (accrescimento) of the Congregation, as specified in the 7th point of the second memorandum, namely that all the clerics of Lucca could be ordained to the poor. It is therefore beyond doubt that Calasanz strictly fulfilled the task entrusted to him, not only verbally but also by including the petition in the two memoranda.[1876]

1874 A careful reading of the first memorandum shows, in fact, that almost all of it deals with the first point: the Institute of the Pious Schools, and it seems to be a literal text. But in the penultimate sentence it says in the original Italian: “and similarly about other things related to the growth of that Congregation, and perfection of it” (PosCas, p.205), which does not make sense in a memorandum, because it is imprecise and indeterminate. We suspect that Fr. Bernardini, from whom Fr. Erra copied it and from whom Frs. Sántha, Carcía-Durán and Vilá took it, copied literally the first part of the memorandum and summarized the rest with the quoted phrase.

1875 In the Italian text even the three key words (istituto, accrescimento, perfezione) are repeated in the first memorandum, in the introduction of the second and in the body of the same (in points 1, 5 and 7, respectively).

1876 We believe, therefore, that the judgment made by C. VIlÁ is inaccurate: “This is the famous memorandum that the prefect Calasanz passed into the hands of Paul V directly in the palace of Mondragone in September 1615, in which he evidently does not concern himself with the assignment that had been given to him and with which he perhaps fulfilled only by word of mouth” (PosCas, p.205). The underlined is ours.

Calasanz kept Bernardini fully informed of everything that happened at the papal audience and even gave him the text of the memorandum presented to the Pope, which the General included in his Chronicle: “When I and other members of the Congregation learned that the Prefect had delivered this memorandum on the Congregation without having said a word to any of us, it was very disturbing and there was much gossip in the Congregation.”[1877] Bernardini did what he could to calm the protests and excused Calasanz, who logically had only “his own interest at heart and made sure that the Schools’ affairs were well taken care of.” Besides, they all liked the cardinals’ commission and were confident that many favors could be expected from the three of them.

1877 Cf. posCas, p.279.

Calasanz did not conceal from Bernardini the second memorandum sent to the cardinals, which clarified or supplemented the first, and whose provisions seemed “very serious and harmful” to Father General.[1878] The main point was undoubtedly the desire to impose the exercise of the schools as the sole or principal ministry, leaving aside the proper and fundamental ministry of the Congregation. But there were also two other very serious points, namely: the demand for extreme poverty with the renunciation of all solid goods (point 5) and the restriction of the study of ecclesiastical sciences to a few, which in turn could only be taught at home (point 6). The issue of poverty had already been clarified at the Diet, much to Giustiniani’s displeasure. The renewed renunciation of the stable estates was unnecessary blackmail, which in this case was demanded by Calasanz, perhaps at the behest of the cardinal. On the question of restricting higher ecclesiastical studies, Bernardini saw the direct influence of Father John of Jesus Mary, who had outlined certain guidelines in his Proiectum to clarify the new context of the Congregation of the Mother of God, which had to accept as its sole or main ministry that of the Schools.[1879]

1878 Bernardini speaks first of the memorandum delivered to the Pope and then says: “and having moreover seen a writing of Fr. Prefect from the orders that had to be made by the Congregation in order to give perfection to the business of the Pious Schools, those were very serious and prejudicial for us” (PosCas, p.280).

1879 The analist Barlik was the first one to show this writing in full, saying that Fr. John of Jesus Mary “procul dubio de ordine suae Sanctitatis”, composed it as early as 1614, and presented it to the Lucchesi, thus giving them the guidelines that they would have to follow in order to take care of the Pious Schools (cf. EphCal 6 [934] 255-257). Father Valentín Caballero attributed this writing to the Jesuit Father Alagón (sic), without foundation (cf. V. CABALLERO, Orientaciones pedagógicas de S. José de Calasanz [Madrid 19452]. p.322-324). Bau said the same (BAU, BC, p.343). Sántha maintained what Bartlik said (cf. G. SÁNTHA, S. José de Calasanz y su amistad con los PP. Carmelitas: RevCal 2 [1955] 188) and also Fr. Vilá (cf. C. VILÁ, Fuentes inmediatas..., p.114), who, in the face of Bernardini’s testimony, later changed 1614 to 1615 (PosCas, p.2 10, 11). In fact, it is unlikely that Fr. John composed it in 1614, nor at the request of the Pope, since the first time there is talk of imposing the ministry of the Pious Schools as the only or principal ministry to the Lucchesi was in the memorandum presented to Paul V in September 1615. And if it was composed for the Pope, it cannot be explained that he asked Calasanz for explanations in that audience, since the Proiectum responds precisely to the Pope’s question. García-Durán supposes that it was composed at the request of Calasanz for the General Diet that met in January 1616 (cf. A. GARCÍA-DURÁN, o.c., p.141). But Bernardini supposes that in certain ideas, expressed by Calasanz in his memorandums to the Pope and to the cardinals, he is inspired by the writing of Fr. John: “We believe - he writes - that this opinion was taken from Fr. John of Jesus Mary, Discalced Carmelite, who for an information that he made for the Scuole Pie...” (PosCas, p.279). It is most likely that Calasanz communicated to the Carmelite the new idea that the Lucchesi should accept the Pious Schools as the only or principal ministry, and in the face of the foreseeable opposition, he asked Father John for a justification of that idea.

Calasanz’s intention, according to Bernardini, was that “it would suffice to have very little knowledge of theology and matters of conscience in order to attend only to the needs of the children.[1880] But,” he continued, “he had to consider that such an approach meant destroying and ruining it [the work of the Pious Schools], since it could only educate ignorant and therefore vicious people.”[1881] And about Father John, the inspirer of these ideas of Calasanz, he wrote: “This Father, although very pious and of holy life, we nevertheless believe that he did not have the Spirit of God on this point, because to act in this way meant nothing other than admitting lazy and negligent people into the Congregation.”[1882]

1880 PosCas, p.278. This was, in fact, one of the central ideas of Fr. John’s Proiectum, whose 10 points can be summarized as follows: Each Religion must have its own ministry in order to distinguish itself from the others. That of the Pious Schools is sufficient to determine a Religion (1). But since it is so laborious, it requires that all the religious of the Congregation dedicate themselves to it, “abjectis aliis curis” (2). There should be no thought of publicly teaching philosophy or theology, since it would be to the detriment of teaching children, and there are already other Religions dedicated to it (3). The same should be said of the ministry of preaching and confession; besides, clerics should be studying philosophy and theology for 6 or 7 years (4). If the two previous points are not admitted, the clerics will want to dedicate themselves to such tasks and not to the humble mission of teaching children (5). If the school is limited to the elementary level and for the poor, there will be no conflict with the Congregations that already have higher schools (6). To attend to the children and religious, it would be enough to have one or another of the Congregation properly prepared to hear confessions and preach to the children, with the simplicity with which the Fathers of the Oratory do it (7). If all this seems excessive, the Congregation can maintain the ministry of preaching and hearing confessions “ut partem minus principalem”, but only in its own churches, excluding Lent. And for this purpose, it can send a few to study in suitable public schools, if they have no Lector at home (8). If the Congregation maintains the ministry of the Pious Schools as its sole or principal ministry, vocations among the students will increase (9). The fruit borne so far by the Pious Schools in Rome would be good that “ad alias urbes derivetur”, but everything would collapse “nisi Congregatio quae curam eius suscepit, vires omnes ad ipsum sustinendum et promovendum conferat” (A. GARCÍA-DURÁN, o.c., p.141-144).

1881 PosCas, p.279.

1882 Ibid.

The tensions that had arisen within the Congregation as a result of these events prompted Father General to meet with Giustiniani, who advised him to submit appropriate reports to the members of the Commission. And so he did.[1883] Bernardini himself wanted to inform the Cardinal verbally at La Scala convent in the presence of Father Ruzola. He urged him once again that if the Pope did not give them the authority to consecrate many under the title of poverty, “they could in any case bear the great burden of Pious Schools.” And the cardinal promised to favor them, but he again put the nail in the coffin by saying that they would have to accept the condition of extreme poverty and have no fixed goods or secure income. Bernardini made it clear that, under the circumstances, they could not renounce the goods they owned, at least until all their debts, which amounted to 25,000 escudos, were paid. The cardinal decreed: “The houses that have had goods up to now shall keep them, but those that will be received from now on shall have no fixed goods or fixed income.”[1884]

1883 And they must have been exhaustive, as Bernardini says: “To this end, some information was provided which covers all the affairs of the Pious Schools and the Congregation” (ibid.). See one in PosCas, p.242-245, in which it is only about being able to make the vow of poverty for those already ordained and to be ordained ad titulum paupertatis thereafter.

1884 Ibid. p. 280.

The General duly informed his Assistants of everything that had been discussed with the Cardinal, but the whole matter was so serious that they thought it advisable to call a General Diet for the beginning of January 1616.

In search of a formula for concord

The two capitular fathers of Lucca arrived in Rome in mid-December. Giustiniani wanted to speak to the General one last time before the Diet began, and so Bernardini and Cioni set out to fulfill this wish. The Cardinal expressed to them very clearly the fundamental ideas on which they were to express themselves at the next Diet. Bernardini summarizes them very aptly thus:

“After the greeting, he told us: ‘Fathers, it is necessary that you decide first of all whether the Pious Schools suit you or not; if they do not suit you, leave them and we will give them to others; but if you want to keep them, you must accept them as your main institute and all the houses you will found from now on will be with Pious Schools and in a state of poverty, without stable goods or secure income.’” He added that many arrangements should be made for the institute so that the matter of the schools would be consolidated. And after he had told us some of them, they seemed to us to be very harmful to our Congregation and our old Institute, from which it was clear that he had spoken through the mouth of the Prefect.[1885] And finally he dismissed us with the words: “Last year you were authorized to consecrate 4 subjects under the title of poverty, and now the Pope has added another 12, making a total of 16, and you will receive as many as you need, especially if you accept other places outside Rome. Gather together and draw up constitutions and orders, which I will confirm if they are as they should be, and I will have a new Brief issued with these graces.”[1886]

1885 With these words Bernardini shows that the new ideas on the structure of the Congregation came from Calasanz, who continues to be the true responsible and father of the Pious Schools. At the same time, it is noted that Giustiniani adheres to the programmatic points of the two memorandums of Calasanz.

1886 PosCas, p.281.

In this tense conversation, the cardinal was demanding, but at the same time open to further concessions and, above all, a determined protector of the Pious Schools. He was probably speaking not only as a private individual, but also as the spokesman for the cardinal’s commission that had investigated the issue and of which we have no conclusive document. Calasanz said in a memorandum to the Pope at the end of 1616: “Your Holiness has entrusted this matter to the Most Reverend Cardinal. Giustiniani, Soana and Lancellotti, to whom, after some consultation, it appeared that the principal institute of the said Congregation would be the exercise of the schools, but retaining the institute of preaching and confession in their churches, and with some other directives, all of which were accepted by the said priests in the General Congregation.”[1887] However, it was not so easy to achieve this acceptance. There were too many things that needed to be changed and they were too serious. And the attitude of Calasanz and Giustiniani was also excessively intransigent. They pulled the rope to the limit and it would eventually break.

1887 EGC II, p.50.

The year 1616 dawned and the Diet began on January 2. In attendance were General Bernardini, Cioni, rector of Lucca, Matraia of St. Maria in Portico, Tucci of the novitiate house in Trevi, Casani of the Pious Schools and three delegates-members associated to Cioni, Matraia and Casani. They had already spent two weeks in convivial company discussing the burning issues before opening the official Diet. Parallel to the sessions of the Diet, there were - it seems - further meetings between Calasanz, Bernardini and perhaps someone else in order to reach joint and concordant conclusions, which also had to receive Giustiniani’s judgment. Here is the course of the first concordance formula as it appears in Bernardini’s chronicle:

“It was necessary to meet many times with the Prefect to try to draw up a document that would satisfy him and the cardinal and that would not destroy our first institute and would not be subordinate to the other. Finally, with great fatigue and several days of work, it was formulated in this way: ‘it was expressed that the Congregation, which hitherto had the purpose of helping souls through the administration of the sacraments and the preaching of the Word of God, now accepted the means of Pious Schools as the most important, useful and necessary in the Church of God in order to achieve the ultimate goal, to help souls, since the main aim of the work of the Pious Schools was not only the erudition of children, but the pious education so valued by the Councils and Holy Fathers, which consists in practicing the same things by which other souls are helped. Moreover, learning is an excellent means of leading children to this perfection, otherwise it would not be possible to gather them together and give them this help.

In this way, the first institute seemed to be saved and to satisfy the Cardinal and the Prefect, who accepted it with great difficulty. And having thus rewritten the deed, the Prefect took it upon himself to negotiate with the cardinal and have it approved. But it was not so, for he feared that our fathers would not appreciate and consider the Pious Schools as much as he wished, and moreover, as he had the impression that they were moved by a certain kind of ambition, he did not consider himself satisfied.”[1888]

1888 PosCas, p.281-282.

And he took the first opportunity to show this in an even harsher way. For a short time later, when he met Bernardini and Cioni in the convent of La Scala, the Cardinal said to them, “not without indignation: ‘Fathers, I do not like this writing; I will think of leaving the Pious Schools to others,[1889] and you will remain with your old institute’. I replied - writes Bernardini - that he could do with the Pious Schools as he saw fit, but that the writing had been done, not out of ambition, but out of correctness.”[1890] And the indignation was palpable among the fathers of the Diet when the General told them about the incident.

1889 Dated May 7, 1615, Fr. Cioni wrote to Fr. Bernardini: “I am very anxious that you keep the link with the French; we do not know what God wants to do, the same as with the others who asked for; in due time, if things will be done, you will be able to satisfy everyone” (PosCas, p.199). (PosCas, p.199). The French were the Congregation of Doctrinarians, of César de Bus, that already in 1614, they try of union with Bernardini, Calasanz and Casani (cf. EC VI, p.2869, n.2). Bernardini also speaks of other requests for union in these years. Of all this surely the Cardinal Protector of the Pious Schools would logically be aware, and is already the second time that he threatens Bernardini with taking them away from him and giving them to others.

1890 Cf. the version of Fr. Erra, which summarizes that of Bernardini, in A. GARCÍA-DURÁN, o.c., p.144, n.665 and 666.

Nevertheless, a different formula was reformulated with the Prefect according to Giustiniani’s wishes, but after many meetings, the opinions of the members of the Diet could not be agreed upon. They even thought of ending the dispute immediately, “either by giving the cardinal an appropriate satisfaction or by breaking with him and abandoning the enterprise of the Pious Schools and thus the hope of making progress through them.”[1891] The feast of Saints Fabian and Sebastian, January 20th, was already approaching, and a day of fasting on bread and water was decreed for all houses to invoke their special assistance. And on this day, when the Diet was convened, it was “very easy” - as Bernardini notes - to approve the strongly reformed Formula of Concord.[1892] According to the official records, this formula was to be presented to the Pope so that, if he approved it, he would confirm it with a Brief, but if he did not approve it, it was considered null and void.[1893]

1891 PosCas, p.282-283.

1892 Ibid., p.283.

1893 Ibid., p.239. As far as we know, four versions of the controversial formula have been published: 1) C. A. ERRA, Ragguaglio della Unione e Disunione delle Scuole Pie con la Congr. della Madre di Dio, Roma 1753, p.7I-74, republished by A. GARCÍA-DURÁN, o.c., p.145-147, n.667, and considered by both as the last and final version of the formula. 2) B. BARTLIK, in his Annales, presents the document as a memorandum of Fr. Casani, written at the request of Fr. John of Jesus Mary to inform the Pope, and differs in some points substantially from the previous one (cf. EphCal 2 [1935] 57-58; 3 [1935] 99-101); 3) in EC lI, p.493-496, Bartlik’s opinion is accepted and the text presents some small variations with respect to the previous one. The original is, in fact, among Casani’s manuscripts (cf. AGEP, Reg.Serv. Dei, 54, c-1); 4) in PosCas, p.239-242, it appears as an integral part of the Minutes of the General Diet of January 20, 1616, of which it is said: “Approval of the definitive formula.” This version is identical to the previous one and certainly the authentic definitive formula, supported by the fact that it is also preserved in the Archives of San Pantaleo and written by the hand of Fr. Casani. Such a variety of published versions has its explanation, as we have seen, confirmed by Fr. Erra, who writes: “Proposta la Formula per la quarta volta... alli 20 Gennaro fu accettata la Formula, come base del nuovo Istituto” (C. ERRA, Memorie..., p.41-42).

On March 2, a small change was made to the text, and on April 6, the Diet entrusted a special commission appointed on April 8 to make possible adjustments. On April 20, this very long and exhausting Diet ended and handed the formula over to Giustiniani “so that he can discuss it with the Pope and have it approved”, according to Bernardini.[1894] And until Pontifical approval was obtained, the entire content of the formula was to remain secret.

1894 PosCas, p.283.

On the way to a new congregation

This very long concordance formula, which was approved by the General Diet, is a key piece in this whole story. As a concordance document, it is the result of a laborious and painful synthesis of the ideas or demands of Calasanz, Giustiniani, the Carmelites John and Dominic de la Scala, Bernardini and the Fathers of the Diet. There is something from all of them, and they all give something. It should be the basis and principle of the Reformed Congregation of Lucca, if it were approved by the Pope. Otherwise, it would be considered null and void. And so it was: completely null and void for the Lucchesi. But it was not thrown at a corner. Calasanz, Giustiniani and Ruzola took it up and used it as the basis for the founding Brief of the new Congregation of Pious Schools. It is therefore the end of a utopia and the beginning of a new reality. Hence its undeniable transcendence. Its excessive length[1895] makes it advisable to summarize it in points:

1895 See the full Latin text in PosCas, p.239-242.

1. The Congregation of the Mother of God was founded to care for her own salvation and that of her neighbors. To this day it has accomplished this through preaching, the administration of the sacraments, catechetical instruction of children and the ignorant, and other spiritual exercises and works of charity.

2. By order of the pope and in agreement with the cardinals Giustiniani, Soana and Lancellotii, while retaining the old office with the restrictions indicated below, it accepts with great joy the exercise of the Pious Schools as its main task, which is so different from all other congregations.[1896]
1896 “…manentibus sibi prioribus exercitiis, modo inferius declarando, exercitium Scholarum Piarum, quod in sana eruditione, piaque puerorum educatione consistit animarum conciliorum, sanctorumque patrum suffragiis Ecclesiae Dei pernecessarium, animarumque saluti iuvandae aptissimum, libentissime accipit et alacriter suscipit futurum sibi praecipuum, et adeo proprium, ut ab omnibus aliis congregationibus, religionibus seu societatibus hoc uno sufficienter secernatur; suumque peculiare in Ecclesia Dei locum obtineat” (PosCas, p. 240 ). In an earlier formula, which Erra believed to be the definitive one this paragraph ended thus: futurum sibi praecipuum, suppressing the rest (cf. A. GARCÍA-DURÁN, o.c., p.145, n.667. This author also thinks like Erra, but he knew the minutes of the Diet). This point 2, of capital importance, is expressly requested by Calasanz in his memorandum to the Pope, in Frascati, and in the other one dedicated to the cardinal’s commission (cf. ibid., p.138-139 and n.657). Also Fr. John of Jesus Mary in his Proiectum, n.1 (cf. ibid., p.142).

3. From now on, no one may found Pious Schools and teach children in them by profession without the consent of this Congregation.

4. So that they can devote themselves entirely to this task, no one may preach publicly outside their own church.[1897]
1897 The point 3 does not appear in Erra’s formula, and 4 said that for twenty years none of them could preach in other people’s churches as “ordinary preacher of Lent, Advent and feasts of the year” (cf. ibid.). As it is, in its absolute limitation, it appears already in the petitions of Calasanz to the cardinals, no. 2 (cf. A. GARCÍA-DURÁN, p.140, n.657). And in the Proiectum, n.4,5,8 (ibid., p.142-143).

5. They are to devote themselves above all - free of charge and without any remuneration for their work[1898] - to the task of teaching children reading, writing and arithmetic, to instruct them in all that is understood by philology, and to educate them piously by teaching them above all to pray, as is customary in these schools.
1898 The gratuity of teaching, as an essential element of the Pious Schools, is already demanded both in the joint memorandum of Calasanz and Bernardini, asking the Pope for the union (cf. PosCas, p.158), and in the Brief of the union (ibid., p.164).

6. They may not publicly teach sciences superior to philology, except by order of Father General and with the consent of princes or lords in places where there are no higher schools. But they may teach such sciences privately in our houses.[1899]
1899 Substantially the idea appears in the memorandum of Calasanz to the cardinals. nº. 6 (cf. A. GARCÍA-DURÁN, o.c., p.140, n.657) and in the Proiectum, nº. 3 (ibid., p.142).

7. Houses in which no schools are open for the instruction of children are not accepted,[1900] except for the novitiate or spiritual exercises for our own.
1900 Cf. the memorandum of Calasanz, no. 2 (ibid., p.140).

8. In Catholic countries, houses are only accepted when cities, parishes or princes offer them to us.[1901] But in the lands of unbelievers or heretics, we must take the opportunity to found them.
1901 Cf. condition 1 of the formula of poverty of 1614 (PosCas, p.186).

9. The houses that are founded in the future, with their adjoining orchards, churches, sacristies, oratories and schools, are considered their own and endowed with the right of lordship, but they have no civil rights to real estate or similar property, such as censuses, rents, inheritances and legacies.[1902]
1902 Cf. nº. 5 of the cited document of Calasanz (l.c.) and nn.1-3 of the cited formula of poverty (PosCas, p.186).

10. The houses already established may retain their estates until they pay the debts incurred, but then they cannot hold real estate, as was said above for the future houses.[1903]
1903 Cf. the said formula, condition 5, regarding two houses (ibid., p.187).

11. None of us can represent a cause in a secular or ecclesiastical court.[1904]
1904 Cf. no. 4 of the said formula (ibid., p.186). But neither this point nor the previous one appears in Erra’s formula (cf. A. GARCÍA-DURÁN, o.c., p.146).

12. Begging is not allowed. Those who ask for an foundation will appoint some lay people to take care of the maintenance and needs of the religious and their houses.[1905]
1905 Cf. condition 3 of this formula (PosCas, p.187).

13. In addition to the three vows of chastity, obedience and perseverance, there is also the vow of poverty.[1906]
1906 Already requested and granted by Brief (ibid., p.188-191).

14. It is requested that 12 clerics be ordained under the title of poverty.[1907]
1907 In Erra’s formula we read instead of twelve: “ex nostris clericis tot sacris initientur, quot in dies concedere dignabitur Summus Pontifex” (A. GARCÍA-DURÁN, o.c., p.146). Both the detail of indicating specifically twelve, as well as the exception contained in n.10 were additions due to Giustiniani, as we saw in the Chronicles of Bernardini, and therefore the formula brought by Erra is logically earlier and not the definitive one.

15. In this last point, which is of great importance, it says literally: “According to this foregoing formula, the General Congregation has the power to form new Constitutions, maintaining the old ones in all those things that are not contrary to the above; it has the power to establish orders, rules and statutes for the good of the Pious Schools and the governance of the whole Congregation, and to declare and moderate all these things, receiving the authority of the Holy See.”[1908]
1908 The same faculties were already invoked by the General Congregation in the 7th condition of the formula of poverty in this matter (cf. PosCas, p.187).

Despite the concessions, good will and efforts of both parties, but above all of the Lucchesi, the formula did not completely satisfy anyone. At the end of April, after returning to Lucca, Father Cioni wrote to Bernardini, wondering about Calasanz’s dissatisfaction: “I have seen what you tell me about the Prefect, that he is somewhat dissatisfied, and I do not know for what reasons, because we have tried with all diligence to act in such a way that he could not regret it.”[1909] But the Prefect’s regret remained mute for the moment, shrouded in the secrecy that veiled the provisions of the Diet’s formula. Its final paragraph spoke of forming “new constitutions” in accordance with the innovative principles of the formula, but retaining “the old ones” in everything that did not contradict the requirements of the new configuration of the Institute. It was an arduous task that had to be accomplished. But before tackling it, it was wise to wait for the papal Brief that would serve as a firm foundation for the new, reformed Congregation of the Mother of God by approving the Formula of Concord. But the Brief never came out.

1909 Ibid., p. 216, n. 10.

The Pious Schools in Frascati

On April 20, 1616, the Diet was over and in June Father Bernardini traveled to Lucca.[1910] He would not return to Rome until the beginning of November. During his long absence, an important event took place, the first foundation of the Pious Schools outside Rome, in Frascati. This happened as follows. The only school in the town had been closed after the teacher was arrested in August 1615. One of the most important members of the town council, the famous lawyer and curial auditor Don Laercio Cherubini[1911], was very interested in solving the school problem and turned to Paul V. Since this pope spent his summer vacations in Frascati, the small town became another Rome during the summer months, because the cardinals and monsignors of the Curia also traveled there and consequently Pope Borghese felt in some way responsible for and sympathetic to the local problems.

1910 On June 18th, already in Lucca, he wrote to Calasanz: “Essendo arrivato qua a buon salvamento, era debbito mio di darne avviso a V. R. et insieme salutarla” (EGC II, p.58). Then he had arrived a few days before. Erra says that he arrived at the end of May (ERRA, Ragguaglio... p.23).

1911 He was born in Nursia, but was a citizen of Frascati. In 1586 he had edited the Bullarium Magnum Cherubinorum, and in 1617 the second edition, corrected and enlarged. He died in 1626, and his son, the Benedictine Fr. Angel Mary, prepared the third edition (1634-1644). In 1623 Flavio, brother of the monk of Montecasino, published the Compendium Bullarii. A third son of Laertius was the Piarist Fr. Stephen, of unhappy memory in the Order, as we will have occasion to see. Don Laercio was until his death protector and benefactor of the Pious Schools of Frascati and faithful friend of Calasanz (cf. EHI, p.627, n1).

In this case, Don Laercio recounts, the Pope ordered him to negotiate with the Jesuits to take over the management of the school, and if they refused, to turn to the fathers of the Pious Schools. The Jesuits said that they could not, as they only had schools for children who were already initiated into Latin grammar, whereas this school was intended more for reading, writing, arithmetic and the basics of grammar. And so, Cherubini went to the Pious Schools of San Pantaleo and it was the Prefect himself, not the Rector, who dealt with the matter.

It was not easy to accept the proposal, as the teaching staff was not exactly plentiful. Calasanz took the precaution of consulting with the Cardinal Protector and even wanted to find out the Pope’s will by speaking to him personally. Both expressed their express wish that he should take over the management of the school. Submissively and obediently, Father Prefect traveled to Frascati at the beginning of June and negotiated the terms of the foundation with the municipal authorities. They would give him what they had given the dismissed teacher, in addition to the house. Calasanz accepted.[1912]

1912 Cf. notarial document in BAU, BC, p.367. Ten years later there was talk of opening again the municipal school, which would have forced to close the Pious Schools, because the smallness of the town was not enough for two schools, as Calasanz says: “As for the pleading to open the school of the town, it is the same as to say that we have to leave from Frascati, that at the end we will have to do it. But they cannot do without the license of His Lordship Cardinal Detti, Bishop (of Frascati), and I don’t think he would give it” (C.440). The Pious Schools of Frascati have remained open until today.

He did not tell General Bernardini, perhaps because he was absent and hoped to tell him when everything was ready. Rector Casani, who absolutely had to know about the events and the trip, informed the general about everything. And on June 18th, Bernardini wrote to Calasanz from Lucca, not without surprise and a certain obvious protest:

“Through the same [Father Rector] I have learned of your journey to Frascati, of the business you have done with these gentlemen councilors, and of the promise you have given them to place yourself personally at the service of this city. If I knew that our Congregation could assume this burden, I would never allow Your Reverence to take it upon himself, apart from the fact that I would very gladly accept this endowment. But since it is not possible, not for lack of will, but for lack of personnel, I do not want us to be forced in this way to replace you in your work, knowing full well that you cannot stay there for long. Since God, our Lord, does not force us to do the impossible, I would certainly not be able to comply with your wishes in this case, so we would inevitably have to be patient, albeit to my displeasure. I know that Your Reverence is wise and adheres to truth and reason, and that you will excuse us in what cannot be done otherwise.”[1913]

1913 Cf., EGC II, p.58.

Calasanz replied to him by return of post, explaining his action in detail, relieving the Congregation of future obligations and concluding with a magnificent paragraph in which he urged him to have more faith in Providence, as he was aware of the historic moment in which “the new institute of Pious Schools in the Church”, of which he declared him to be the Founder, would be definitively born:

“As for my trip to Frascati,” he writes, “you should know that it was by express order of our Cardinal Protector, who, knowing the will of His Holiness in this matter, desires this place to be served as much as possible. And this seems very reasonable to me, because the Pope, who is the interpreter of God’s will, told me when I discussed this matter with him that he very much wants us to help the youth of Frascati, since it is a little Rome because of the frequent presence of his Court and so many cardinals. Nevertheless, I do not want you to make the effort, because I have no intention that the Congregation should be obliged in any way to replace me in my labors, should I have to spend any in Frascati. But I wish to give satisfaction not only to the Cardinal Protector and the said city, but also to the Pope, who has taken so much pains with me by supporting me with secular (non-religious) companions, as I have done for so many years in Rome, while I continue to help the schools in Rome as much as I can, even though they can easily do without me.

But since the blessed God has called you to the head of the Congregation of the Mother of God, which is to found in his Church the new institute of Pious Schools, which is extremely necessary in her, I wish you to have a large heart, in imitation of the other ancient founding fathers of new institutes, who at first accomplished great things in their ministry with few men, trusting more in the help of heaven than in human advice. May His Divine Majesty give you, Most Reverend Father, such spirit and strength that in a few years this Sacred Congregation will be the first in the Lord’s vineyard and in spiritual profit. This is what I ask of him every day, even though I am a shameful sinner... From Rome, June 24, 1616.”[1914]

1914 Ibid., p.57.

Apart from the primary purpose of self-defense that this letter had, one cannot help but notice a clear nuance of farewell, of humble retreat to the rear, even in material terms, of leaving and moving to Frascati. When Calasanz wrote this, he had already settled things: The Congregation of Lucca had adopted the Institute of the Pious Schools, not as one more profession or service among others, but “as the most important and so appropriate as to be sufficiently distinct from all other congregations, religions and societies.” This was written down and approved in the formula of the Diet, and the formula was already in the hands of the Pope. Bernardini, as General of the Congregation, could be considered the Founder of the new Institute of Pious Schools, because officially it would have become a separate and specific ministry of a religious Congregation. So there was no flattery. Moreover, as far as we can see, with the new definitive Brief for the stable future of the Pious Schools, the provisions in the Brief of the union would be abolished, and Calasanz would relinquish, or at least was willing to relinquish, his post as Prefect for Life of the Pious Schools of Rome. This is clear from his words: “I will not stop helping the schools of Rome as much as I can, even if they can easily do without me.”

This last statement assures us that at the time of his letter, i.e. at the end of June 1616, the schools in San Pantaleo were functioning normally. There was nothing to regret. There was even someone - perhaps the Rector - who could take the place of Prefect without being missed. And everything seems to indicate that from the Diet of October 1614, at which the situation of the schools was examined and resolved, until the beginning of the summer of 1616, the Lucchesi duly fulfilled their responsibilities as teachers and educators. There is clear evidence that not only the people in Rome but also those in Lucca followed with interest what was happening in San Pantaleo and were concerned about sending new teachers and finding textbooks. For example, Father Cioni wrote to Father General from Lucca in February 1615: “I am glad that the young men sent from here are helping them in the schools. We have been lucky enough to find an author who deals with the method that Seggia (?) tried to explain with exaggerated verbiage and little logic. I have already told the Rector of the schools (Casani) that I have found an author who deals with things in a thousand ways with the distinctions and characteristics he said... if you could find this Spaniard, I think it would be very good for all the young people.”[1915] The Lucchesi also showed great appreciation for the Prefect and kept inviting him to come to Lucca to take baths to relieve him of his ailments, ready to treat him as one of their own and grateful for how much they owed him.[1916]

1915 EC VI, p.2868-2869. The Spaniard mentioned must be the famous ‘Brocense’ (Sánchez de Brozas). On March 14, 1615 Cioni wrote to Bernardini: “I have gladly listened to the solemnity with which they have done the 40 hours at the Pious Schools... it will be difficult to remove him (a teacher), but if we gave them Marco as coadjutor and depended on him, to Marco’s class we could put one who comes there from Fibbialla, a priest, sent by me to the Rector of the schools....” (ibid., p.2870). In October 1615 in a memorandum Casani wrote: “it is said that at the present time in the Congregation there are not more than 18 professed priests and one novice and other young men addressed to take holy orders, part of whom are employed in the service of the schools” (ibid., p.2725).

1916 Cioni to Bernardini (March 14, 1615): “If it is decided to send the Prefect here to cure himself, we will be very dear to him and we will do all the kindness and charity that we can, as to one of our own, because we are truly obliged to”; (April 17, 1615): “If the Prefect resolves to come to the baths, we will take care of him and he will be able to bring so much benefit that he will not regret having made this resolution.” (ibid., p.2870-2871).

When Calasanz then observes the normality and serenity with which the schools in Rome proceed and is convinced that they can now manage without him, he decides to travel to Frascati with five companions from his group. The importance he attached to this event is reflected in this page, which he wrote himself shortly afterwards:

“For the honor and glory of the Holy Trinity, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, the Blessed Virgin and Mother of God and all the saints, and for the benefit of the city of Frascati, being the Pope the Holiness of our Lord Paul V, the Pious Schools were introduced in that city on August 26, 1616. For this purpose, Father Joseph, Prefect, Father Antonino de Natali, Father Glicerio Landriani, Abbot of St. Anthony of Piacenza (Milan), Father Caspar Dragonetti, Matteo Regale and Fabio de Lamberti came from the Pious Schools of Rome.”[1917]

1917 Cf. BAU, BC, p.370 (RegCal, II, 17).

For the first time, the Pious Schools left Rome without breaking the bond that bound them to those who had remained there.[1918] And indeed, his sense of fairness made Calasanz realize a few days after the schools started that six teachers were too many given the needs of the house in Rome, and since he was staying with Dragonetti and another, he sent Glycerio there with the other two in mid-September.[1919] However, the Prefect was only able to stay in Frascati for a few months, as things in Rome became unexpectedly complicated.

1918 The tense attitude of Bernardini and Calasanz, manifested in the above-mentioned letters and the fact that there was no Lucchese among the six founders of Frascati, could lead one to think that the new school was born outside the existing one in Rome and independent of the Congregation. However, it seems that the Lucchesi considered it as their own, the fruit of the normal expansion of the Congregation. This is how it is expressed by Cioni, writing to Bernardini on October 24, 1616: “I have also willingly heard from the Rector of the schools [Casani] that they have taken a house in Frascati, so that in this way the young people and others can be encouraged to exert themselves....” (PosCas, p.218). The author writes “October 24, 1615”, but it is impossible, because it was founded on August 26, 1616, and in 1617 it could no longer belong to the Lucchesi.

1919 Bartlik says: “pro incolatu fuit assignata Schola publica penes Cathedralem, cum eleemosyna 110 scutorum romanae monetae... Qui locus cum tot personis decore sustinendis insufficiens ac minus accommodus visus esset, nec ad principium tot subiecta requirerentur, P. Abbate cum duobus aliis Romam remissis... post aliquot dies...”(B. Bartlik, Annales... EphCal 3 [1935] 104). On 31 December 1617 they raised their annual pension to 200 escudos (cf. ibid., 5 [1936] 163). In a memorandum letter to Fr. Garcia, undated, but probably dated Sept.-Oct. 1616, Calasanz from Frascati asks Fr. Antonino de Natali, who is in Rome, some things, while Dragonetti is still in Frascati; he asks Don Bartolo to go and to send some book of sacred music for Don Giov. Angelo. Perhaps both gentlemen were teachers in the schools of Frascati (cf. EGC II, p.59-60).

The foundation of Frascati was undoubtedly an important innovation, because at last the humiliating testimony of poverty that was required in the Pious Schools of Rome was no longer necessary. The adoption of the free municipal school, the only one in the town, obliged it to accept all pupils who attended it, regardless of their class or position, and not just the poor. The difference was that if before the majority paid and others did not, as was the case in the municipal schools of Rome, from now on they would be free schools for all, where no poor person would be turned away because they could not pay. And it was Calasanz, not the Lucchesi, who accepted the foundation and discussed the conditions with the city authorities. Thus, his wishes were fulfilled, expressed in the petition of the Union’s Brief that if the poverty certificate requirement was maintained in Rome, it should not be applied for outside Rome.

In a famous public proclamation promulgated by the governor of Frascati in 1620 in favor of the Pious Schools, these initial characteristics are reflected - even four years after their founding - when it states that their teachers “teach in them devoutly and without recompense, salary or other reward,” and of the students it says: “We expressly command that everyone who attends the said schools, of whatever grade, rank or condition he may be...”[1920] This acceptance of all kinds of children does not detract from the clear preference for the poor, as we shall say later.

1920 Cf. SÁNTHA, SJC, 1st. ed., p.759-760. The proclamation is important, moreover, for other pedagogical reasons which we dispense with here.

Decisive reaction of the Lucchesi

During Father General’s stay in Lucca in the summer of 1616, the secret of the Formula of Concord of the last Diet was discovered in that community. The reaction was immediate. There were protests and unrests. It was no longer just a question of the poverty they had initially conceded, they said. Now they demanded a change in their own ministry, recognizing the ministry of the Pious Schools as the most important and restricting and limiting the pastoral work for which they had been founded. This was like a betrayal of the Founder himself. Even in the matter of poverty, despite the temporary mitigating circumstances, they ended up facing the panorama of complete renunciation of solid goods, of extreme poverty.

As is usual in such cases, the spark of protest soon spread from Lucca to Rome, in whose three houses tensions also arose, which Bernardini himself describes as disturbances and uprisings.[1921] He writes specifically about the unrest in the house of San Pantaleo:

1921 “From these things one can understand the turbulent state, in which the congregation found itself, since from all sides one could feel relief and troubles” (PosCas, p.283). Bernardini wrote in detail about what happened in Luca in his Chronicles (o.c., f.78-81), as well as Fr. Erra (o.c., p.23-24).

“In the house of Pious Schools there were also uprisings and it was known that two young men had written a memorandum in which they said, with very little respect, that they did not want schools or a vow of poverty or anything like that and they tried to persuade one or the other to join. When the Rector of the house (Casani) learned of this, he tried to convince them of their error, and he succeeded in getting them to tear up the memorandum, although they would not be pacified.”[1922]

1922 PosCas, p.283.

The fact that Father Prefect is not mentioned in all this seems to indicate that he was already in Frascati with his companions.

In these circumstances, both in Lucca and in Rome, they demonstrated their stance against the schools and against the restrictions imposed on their own ministry in favor of the schools. For despite the lack of personnel, which Bernardini expressed with his protest against the foundation of Frascati, they took over the management of the diocesan seminary in Lucca and the office of confessors of the oblates of the ‘Tor di Specchi’ monastery in Rome, a stone’s throw from the church of Santa Maria in Portico. Perhaps there was a certain logical reaction to the foundation of Frascati, which was accepted by the Prefect, who for this reason left vacancies in the schools and forced the Lucchesi to fill them. But in reality, these vacancies were joined by others, as the rebels refused to teach and there was no choice but to resort once again to laymen to solve the problem. The situation worsened from day to day.[1923]

1923 Thus Calasanz summarizes in a memorial: “Knowing then the Fathers of the House of Lucca that the principal institute of the Congregation had to be the essercise of the Pious Schools, they have revolted in such way that they are alienated at all to attend more to the said schools, et the same those of Sta. Maria in Portico in occasion perhaps these took the commintment to confess the sisters of Tor di Specchi and they got the charge of the seminary of Lucca et l’amministratione de sacramenti in their Church; that for not wanting and not being able to attend of present some of these two houses it is necessary to use many seculars and to have placed to the essercitio of the continuous prayer a lay brother novice that hardly knows how to read” (EGC II, p.50 ). The commitment of confessions in ‘Tor di Specchi’ was taken on October, 1616 (cf. ERRA, o.c., p.61). This confirms the supposition that the revolts, at least in Rome, were after the foundation of Frascati, being Calasanz absent from Rome.

At the beginning of November, Father Bernardini returned to Rome and realized the seriousness of the situation, especially in the Pious Schools, because this kind of strike was progressing. And he went there to establish his residence. In the first half of November, he had an audience with the Pope, about which Fr. Cioni was very pleased and wrote: “I was very pleased that you spoke to the Pope and also about the answer he gave you. With this information, it will no longer be as easy for others to advance their ideas as they have done here so far. In the meantime, I trust in prayer and that God will let us know His will.”[1924] These are sibylline words, because we are not told who these “others” are who have pushed their ideas so far. Some interpret that Pope “warned Bernardini against the opposing party (Calasanz, Casani, Giustiniani, Ruzola).”[1925] This would imply that both the general and Cioni - who was pleased with the Pope’s response - were convinced of the rebels’ reasons, also supported by Paul V as early as the first half of November 1616, when the audience took place. But as we shall see later, both Cioni and Bernardini were the last to give in to the pressure of the malcontents, in the hope that the formula of the Diet would be accepted by the Pope. And it was not until late January or early February 1617 that they gave up and accepted the almost unanimous opinion of the opposition. So, the “others”, whose ideas the Pope rejected in the audience, were simply the rebels.

1924 PosCas, p.250. The letter is dated November 17, 1616, so the audience would occur about a week earlier. In a letter of 26th of the same month he still told him “I will be happy to know that you have arrived safely” (ibid., p.251).

1925 Cf. ibid., p.250.

Not long afterwards, news of what was happening in the Pious Schools in Rome reached Frascati. It is likely that Glicerio passed it on in time to the Prefect who, very concerned about the situation, wrote a letter to him on November 23rd deploring the Lucchesi’s attitude and asking him to duly inform the vice-protector of the Pious Schools, Msgr. Monaldeschi, and the cardinal-protector about all this. He explained:

“I remind you to speak to Msgr. Monaldeschi and inform him of the way the Fathers are running the schools today, because with their minds in their former institute, it is impossible for them to survive or make any profit. And I hope that Our Lord the Cardinal, as commissioner in this matter of the Institute to be preserved, could find a solution, for it is much better that these Fathers should not take over the work than to take it as an appendage to their congregation... May Our Lord [the Pope?] put his hand to see that the schools are run with the perfection and usefulness necessary for the reformation of youth.”[1926]

1926 EGC II, p.60-61. In the memorandum presented to the Pope in Sept. 1615, Monaldeschi is said to be Vice-Protector of the Pious Schools (cf. PosCas, p.205, n.8).

There is no doubt that he is referring directly to the famous formula that had to be signed with an apostolic Brief. In it, the Institute of Pious Schools was recognized as “principal and peculiar” for the Congregation and not as secondary or simply an appendage. The Prefect, who seemed to have already placed his work in the hands of the Lucchesi, returned to his idea vigorously. This was to put himself in contrast to the general attitude of the entire Congregation.

He had turned to the Cardinal Protector and Giustiniani began to threaten, at the same time pushing Abbé Glicerio onto the offensive. Father Bernardini writes, almost shocked:

“To the internal struggle was added the external one, for Cardinal Giustiniani, deeply annoyed, said clearly that he did not want to continue to protect either the schools or the Congregation, but rather to withdraw the subsidy of 120 scudos that he was granting per year. The Prefect and the Abbé were also very upset and it seemed certain, as the Prefect and the Cardinal confirmed, that the Abbé wanted to leave the Congregation and no longer contribute the alms he used to give to the schools, nor seek help from the various great personalities, as he had always done to the great benefit of the house because of the enormous credit he enjoyed. Between what he gave of himself and what he collected in charity, he collected more than 600 scudos a year... it was impossible to see how the houses of the Pious Schools and the novitiate could be maintained.”[1927]

1927 PosCas, p.283. Giustiniani’s displeasure also came from feeling that he had failed in his attempt and offended in his pride, according to this last paragraph of Bernardini’s chronicles: “The disgust of Card. Giustiniani proceeded from several things... he had a great desire to confirm with such a Brief the negotiation of the schools and to form as he said a most illustrious Religion with respect to the state of poverty, which he gave it, and he was so pleased to have brought the business to a good end, that he was so happy to talk with different people and with cardinals and other great ones, boasting in a certain way to have brought the Congregation to so much perfection and preaching great things about it. Seeing now that the Congregation was pulling back and claiming that the decrees made were not valid, it seemed to him to be mocked and knowing the little account that the Congregation had of him in having made him deal with the Pope in vain... he bordered on such disgust that one could not estimate...” (PosCas, p.283-284).

To all this was added the particular situation of the house of San Pantaleo, where Rector Casani maintained his firm stance in defense of the formula, with the priority of the schools over all other ministries and with the demands of poverty, which he wanted to put first. He did not hesitate to say that, in the event of a separation, he would be prepared to leave the Congregation out of loyalty to these new ideals. And of course, he was bound to clash with those in his community who thought otherwise, including the vice-rector Guinigi, whose tensions with Casani were apparently well known. From Lucca, Cioni wrote to the General and showed understanding for these contradictions:

“...I pity you, because from what I have been told, you will have noticed a certain disagreement between the Rector and the Vice-Rector in the House of the Schools. But I hope that your prudence has smoothed things over. Father Balthasar [Guinigi] has already gone there with the strong apprehension that Fr. Peter [Casani] was to a great extent the cause of things past, and it seems that he continues to be so for certain purposes which he is pursuing... If Fr. Peter, who is making his point, with his usual feistiness, finds it strange that not everyone else agrees with him, he will have to moderate himself, because that is what people have to do. And if they disagree, it can be said that it is because God does not want it, and it is also a sign that he is not giving our ministry to everyone. It is therefore practical that he accepts the opinion of others or that he prays so much that God will impose his opinion on the others.”[1928]

1928 Letter dated November 26, 1616 (PosCas, p.251-252).

Later, Father Guinigi recalled this clear decision of Father Casani to change the Institute and that his excessive severity in matters of poverty contributed to many leaving the Pious Schools.[1929] However, in this tense atmosphere before the rebellion, there was still hope that Father Casani would obtain concessions from the Prefect to calm tempers and save the situation while maintaining the schools.[1930]

1929 “…just as he had thoughts of changing institute, so he certainly did not take into account our way of life.” And after referring to the extreme case, that we have quoted before (Cf. n.1835 of this chapter), he concluded: “which then gave occasion to leave the Pious Schools, since our fathers did not like this way of life” (PosCas, p.1592-1593).

1930 Dated November 24, 1616 Cioni wrote to Bernardini: “I sympathize with your travails, but it does not seem to me that it has been small to this that Fr. Peter has resisted a little, and if he wants to speak truly, he will be able to do so with the Prefect; I hope that God will not fail to help us in carrying out his service.” (ibid., p.221).

An agreement was not possible

At the end of November[1931] or in December, Calasanz considered it necessary to return to Rome. Casani, as Rector of the house and general assistant of the Congregation, would inform him in detail about the situation. And what must have reassured the Prefect was the certainty that he was determined to stay with him and in his schools in the event of the dreaded separation.[1932] Nevertheless, the months of December and January must have been distressing, especially for the two men who were responsible for their communities: Calasanz and Bernardini.

1931 On November 23 he is still in Frascati (cf. EGC II, p.60-61).

1932 In addition to the “certain resolutions” to which Cioni alludes already on November 26, and to what Guinigi said, Erra also writes that upon Calasanz’ arrival at San Pantaleo “he found him [Casani] ready with some others to leave our Congregation in case it separated from the Pious Schools” (ERRA, o.c., p.25); he says the same in Memorie, p.44.

The latter, who was deeply convinced and determined to save the union with the Pious Schools, must have gone through an ordeal, because there was hardly anyone left among his own who was willing to continue supporting him. And among these few were at least two of his general assistants: Fathers Cioni and Casani. He was so desperate that he thought of resigning the office of General, but they advised him against it, especially Father Cioni.[1933] At the end of January 1617, he sent Father Pizzini from the community of San Pantaleo[1934] to Lucca to find out the true will of the religious and discovered that they were in complete agreement with those in Rome regarding the task of the Pious Schools. Even Cioni, one of their pillars, had given in when he realized that peace and the good of the Congregation required his submission. On February 8, 1617, he wrote to Bernardini to persuade him to give in, albeit with harsh words: “We have decided to exclude the schools completely. Perhaps this is a cause of confusion. But in this case, I think it’s better to blush than to turn pale. You can see how everyone feels… And since it was hardly in the spirit of God to stand firm, I have decided to go along with everyone else’s opinion. That seems to me the best thing to do after I have commended myself to God with perseverance.”[1935]

1933 Cf. PosCas, p.224, n.30.

1934 He appears as a member of the house in the Diet of January-April 1616 (cf. PosCas, p.239).

1935 PosCas, p.224.

We can imagine that in those February days, Bernardini had not yet given in and was unwavering in his decision, and that consequently Calasanz had not yet decided to separate either. Both had to have the last word at the same time, with the advice and decision of Cardinal Giustiniani.

It is therefore not easy to pinpoint the exact date on which Calasanz, for his part, decided to submit a memorandum to the pope in which he summarized the entire history of the union with the Lucchesi in broad strokes, proposing a quick and drastic solution at the end:[1936]

1936 It is dated November-December 1616 (cf. EGC II, p.40 and 51; PosCas, p.254). But given the context, there is nothing to prevent it from being dated January 1617.

“...things are such, - he wrote - that in a short time it is to be expected that this holy work of the Pious Schools of Rome in the hands of these Fathers, with such inconsistencies, will be entirely lost or abandoned. Therefore, I beg Your Holiness to graciously order that at least those who are to make a new profession and be consecrated to poverty may observe the form prescribed by the Cardinals, or that the said Fathers may accept this Institute in the form it deserves, or that they may leave it, since there will be no lack of suitable subjects to direct these schools with all diligence and perfection.”[1937]

1937 EGC II, p.50.

The “form “given by the cardinals” was none other than that which had been agreed upon at the Diet and which Giustiniani had presented to the pope on behalf of the commission of cardinals; and the other allusion, “the form that is due,” also referred to it. Calasanz therefore demanded that this formula should either be promulgated for the whole Congregation, so as to oblige all to devote themselves to the schools as their principal ministry, or that it should at least oblige those who were to be ordained by the title of poverty, who were at the moment sixteen, as the Cardinal Protector had announced. The third possibility was secession, but he had not yet decided on that. Like Bernardini, he hoped that the Pope would approve the concordance formula with an apostolic Brief. This hope disappeared completely when Father Pizzini returned from Lucca and gave the unanimous answer to abandon the schools. At about the same time, on February 8th, the letter from Cioni arrived, confirming Father Paulino Pizzini’s message.[1938]

1938 Cf. also ERRA, o.c., p.28-29.

The decision was taken prudently and calmly by the two main parties involved, Bernardini and Calasanz, probably in a joint meeting with Cardinal Giustiniani and Father Dominic of La Scala. And without wasting time, a memorandum was drafted in the name of Calasanz, Giustiniani and Ruzola asking the Pope for the foundation of the Pauline Congregation of the Poor of the Mother of God of the Pious Schools. Father Casani wrote it in his clear and elegant calligraphy and the Cardinal took it upon himself to present it to Paul V... But that is already the subject of the next chapter.

Third part

Consolidation and expansion

Chapter 16

The foundation

He had been at the head of his Pious Schools for some twenty years. At almost sixty, he perhaps thought that his retirement to Frascati was like a retirement. His work was in good hands, with the prospect of permanence. And as he waited for the last apostolic letter, everything came crashing down... Or rather, the scaffolding finally collapsed and the work became visible.

In a way, it was already finished, with its unmistakable personality and characteristics, its solidity and vitality. And it could not have been less, for it was in the prime of its life, soon to be twenty years old. During this time, Father Prefect had had time to shape it to his taste. He had thought of everything: the concrete purpose of the work, the conditions of the students, the characteristics and methods of teaching and education, the qualities of the educators. Although he had written very little, it was perhaps enough to outline the main features of his pedagogy, his educational pastoral and the religious life he wanted for his staff. And above all, he had already experienced everything. The last three years in particular, in which he had lived with the Lucchesi, had been transcendental, not only because of what he had received from them, but also because of what he had asked of them. Too much, even.

For all these reasons, it was not a matter of starting from scratch or starting over, but simply continuing on the same path without interruption or shocks. And without relying on external forces. All that was missing was a voice that said with authority: “Get up and go.”

The big decision

Cardinal Giustiniani had threatened the Lucchesi at least twice to take the Pious Schools away from them and leave them to others if they did not take a greater interest in them.[1939] And it is very likely that these “others” were religious, because according to the testimony of Bernardini and Cioni, other congregations had tried to unite with the Pious Schools from the beginning, and there were some who were still asking for the union.[1940] Moreover, the extreme poverty demands of the Cardinal and the Prefect to the Congregation of Lucca, together with the requirement that the Institute of the Pious Schools should be considered the most important, if not the only one, made it very difficult to find any of the existing Congregations desiring union willing to accept such conditions. In the state things were in, Calasanz does not seem to have resigned himself to his schools being taken over “as appendages” of any congregation, as he put it in the letter to Glicerio.[1941] It also seems unlikely that both Giustiniani and Calasanz were thinking of returning to the pre-unification situation, to the “Secular Congregation of Pious Schools” with the sporadic help of lay people.

1939 Bernardini recalls it in his Chronicles: “if they are not for you (the Pious Schools), leave them we will give them to others” (PosCas, p.281); “I will think of giving the Pious Schools to others” (ibid., p.282).

1940 Cf. n.1889 of the previous chapter and the text of Bernardini, corresponding to n.1752 of the same chapter.

1941 Cf. text of n.1924 of the previous chapter.

Who was Calasanz thinking of when he wrote in his letter of complaint to the Pope that “there would be no lack of suitable subjects to manage the said schools with all diligence and perfection” if the Lucchesi were to leave them? He cannot be referring to “laymen” because one of his accusations in this memorandum is that the Lucchesi had neglected the schools so much that it was necessary to resort to laymen.[1942] And given the ideological harmony displayed by Calasanz and Giustiniani in this conflict, it is logical to assume that they were both thinking the same thing, namely to fall back on “other religious” if the Lucchesi failed.[1943] But which ones?

1942 “…not wanting or not being able presently to look after at least of these two houses, it is necessary to use many seculars” (EGC II, p.50). Therefore, the opinion of C. Vilá, who transforms this complaint into an affirmation of principle, seems to us inadmissible. (cf. C. VILÁ, Las Escuelas Pías seglares: Archivum 14 [1983] 261). Moreover, both in the aforementioned article and in the following one (ID., Galeria de escolapios “seculares”: ibid., p.263-340), he uses with excessive ambiguity the spanish terms seglar and secular, which do not always mean lay. Likewise, the repeated allusions to the case of Frascati do not confirm the thesis that Calasanz wants to return “to the system of secular teachers” (cf. C. VILÁ, Las Escuelas Pias seglares, p.260), but he considers it as a forced solution, given that Bernardini is not willing to help him with religious.

1943 That Giustiniani thought so is affirmed by Vilá, and it is not understood why he denies it with regard to Calasanz (cf. PosCas, p.231, n.4 and 5).

In the aforementioned memorandum, Calasanz still clings to the faint hope that the Lucchesi will accept the “formula of the Diet”. But as the situation came to a head, while Bernardini was conducting a final vote among his own, the Cardinal Protector, the Prefect and the Prior of La Scala must have met regularly in the Carmelite convent of Trastevere. It was necessary to anticipate events. The most likely outcome was that the Lucchesi would give a negative response. Moreover, it was unthinkable to find an existing congregation that would accept the proposed conditions, much less return to the pre-unification situation. So, there was no alternative: a new congregation had to be founded. And, of course, it had to be placed in the hands of Father Prefect as Superior General. Under these circumstances, it had not been difficult for the Cardinal and Father Ruzola to convince Father Joseph to accept the will of God. Today we also know from Bernardini’s chronicles that he had wanted to found a new Religion long before this.[1944] For too many years he had modestly managed to avoid the decisive step of becoming a Founder by seeking and finding temporary solutions, but he thought for sure that one day he might have to bow to his own fate.[1945] And that day had come.

1944 “It was a marvelous thing that Father Prefect, having had a long time before the desire to form a Religion with such perfection, it happened that he had gone thinking about the same things that we had been thinking about. He had the same purposes and motivations as we had” (BERNARDINI, Delle cronache, f.34v). Paragraph omitted in partial publication by C. Vilá (cf. PosCas, p.263).

1945 The hagiographers excluded even the thought of becoming one: “never allowing his humility in the thought of making himself the founder of an Order” (J. JERICÓ, Compendio histor. de la vida de S. José Calasanz, Valencia, 1768, p.113). Among the moderns: “such was his humility that he never thought of becoming the founder of a religious congregation” (Q. SANTOLOCI, Giuseppe Calasanzío educatore e santo, Rome 1948, p.64).

Everything gives the impression that things were done very quickly, in just a few days. On February 7, 1617, Cioni wrote to Bernardini and informed him of his decision to join the “rebels”, trusting that the General would make a final decision.[1946] And on the 15th of the same month, Paul V gave his approval to the minuta (draft copy) of the Brief for the foundation of the Pauline Congregation of Pious Schools.[1947] The drafting of said minuta was of course preceded by the drafting of the memorandum requesting the Brief and the formalities associated with it. And all this in one week?

1946 Cf. PosCas, p.224.

1947 Cf. G. SÁNTHA, Nova quaedam documenta..., p.204, n.4I.

Let us add that the drafting of this memorandum must have been preceded by the decision to dissolve the union between the Lucchesi and the Pious Schools and to establish a new Congregation, whose Superior General would be Calasanz, also establishing certain constitutive guidelines of said Congregation. And these are too many things - and too serious - to be done in a week. It therefore seems more likely that, while Bernardini was conducting his last vote in Lucca at the end of January, the decisive discussions between Giustiniani, Ruzola and Calasanz began, to which Cardinal Scipione Cobelluzzi, the Secretary of Briefs, was also added, for in his hand was, or had been, the expected Brief sanctioning the “formula of the Diet”, as well as the one relating to the separation of the Congregations and the foundation of a new one. But his intervention in these last proceedings went beyond what was required by his function as Secretary of Briefs, which he exercised until 1623, although he had been Cardinal since September 19, 1616.

Undoubtedly, haste was required and perhaps the bureaucratic channels were shortened thanks to the interest, goodwill and undeniable influence of Cardinals Giustiniani and Cobelluzzi and Father Dominic Ruzola de la Scala, without forgetting the obvious esteem Pope Borghese had for the Pious Schools. This is also explained by a significant sentence by Father Francis Castelli, a contemporary of the events, who says of these preparatory steps to obtain the founding Brief that “Father Joseph General negotiating in secret, founded a new Congregation (and) received from Paul V the Brief for the new erection of the Congregation.”[1948]

1948 Procedural declaration, in PosCas, p.1617.

The speed with which he has proceeded in the last two weeks is not a sign of haste, thoughtlessness or improvisation, but rather of maturity. There was no urgency to reach a specific date, nor to meet pre-established deadlines. Simply put, when it came to deciding to establish a new Congregation, everything was sufficiently clear. There was no room for last-minute surprises, either in terms of what the Congregation of Pious Schools should be or to whom its leadership should be entrusted. Let us leave the first question aside for the moment and consider the second.

Who was more prepared than Calasanz to take his work into his own hands? Indeed, he was a man with a solid university education, with a degree in law and a doctorate in theology. He had plenty of experience in dealing with the ecclesiastical hierarchy, to whom he had dedicated his first years as a priest in Spain, and since his arrival in Rome, even as a foreigner, he had not ceased to associate with the highest offices and dignities of the Curia, from the two Cardinals Colonna to all the Purpurates and people of the Curia who moved in the confraternities to which he had given his name. Since he had begun his work with the Pious Schools, his fame and esteem had captivated many other cardinals and even the Popes Clement VIII and Paul V. And his personal experiences with religious environments and people were no less important. From childhood, he had contact with religious orders such as the Trinitarians in Estadilla, the Jesuits in Lérida, Valencia and Alcalá; he lived with the Dominicans in the bishop’s palace of Barbastro and with the Carthusians in Urgel. He campaigned for the reform of the Augustinians in Monzón and the Benedictines in Montserrat. He maintained an intimate relationship with the Franciscan conventuals of the Basilica of the Twelve Apostles, whose spirit he also deeply internalised in the Confraternity of the Wounds of Saint Francis. The Discalced Carmelites of La Scala, his friends, protectors, advisors and confessors, exerted a decisive influence on his soul. He was in contact with two founders, Saints John Leonardi and Camillus de Lellis, and most probably also had dealings with St. Philip Neri and St. John Baptist of the Conception, the reformer of the Trinitarians. He lived for three years with the Lucchesi and for about fifteen years with his companions of the Venerable Congregation of the Pious Schools, with a life regime similar to that of the religious life. He is already described as a “great servant of God” and a “holy man” and it is known that he had visions and mystical experiences that were mainly related to Madonna Poverty and St. Francis, who would have betrothed him to three virgins, symbol of the three vows of religious life. And as if all this were not enough, a single title was enough: he was the father of the creature, his Pious Schools. He had only one fault, and a very serious one at that: He was already in his sixties, too old for this new journey...! But God would correct him and give him another thirty years.

Immediate background of the founding Brief

If there was no doubt about who - as Father and Founder - was to guide the destiny of the new Congregation, there was also no doubt about its institutional orientation. The three years of union with the Lucchesi were not a simple parenthesis, but a necessary link, a privileged time in which Calasanz - supported and advised by Giustiniani and the two Carmelites of La Scala, John and Dominic - had drawn or definitively outlined the image of “his” future Congregation of the Pious Schools. This image was almost perfectly recognizable in the famous “Formula of Concord”, which was approved by the Diet and referred to as the Magna Carta of the Reformed Congregation of Lucca. And since it was a formula agreed upon by the Diet and Calasanz-Giustiniani, it contained nuances that satisfied neither party. The Lucchesi had finally decided to reject the entire formula; Calasanz-Giustiniani could simply correct the few details they did not like and use the “formula” as the basis for the Brief they wanted to request for the new Congregation. And so they did.

A sort of memorandum, information or report was then written, the first part of which, the introductory or narrative part, summarized very briefly the history of the Pious Schools from their beginnings to the present. The second part contained, in six numbered points, the general outline of the new institution that was requested, all of which, together with some others from the introductory part, were taken from the often-mentioned “Formula of Concordance” with the appropriate nuances. But let us take a closer look at the text.

The historical introduction recalls that Father Joseph Calasanz and some companions founded the Pious Schools in Rome and led them as Prefect for many years. However, fearing that with his death his institution would also die, he joined the Fathers of Lucca after consulting with Cardinal Giustiniani and Father Dominic de la Scala and received an apostolic Brief to this effect from Paul V.[1949] However, these Fathers now refuse to consider the Pious Schools as their main institute and to renounce the possession of fixed goods.[1950] Moreover, they have taken on commitments in Rome and Lucca and consider the ministry of preaching and confession to be their main ministry, all to the detriment of the “sacred ministry of the Pious Schools”.[1951] Therefore, Cardinal Giustiniani, the Prefect and Father Domenico Ruzola, fearing the disappearance of “such a pious work”, found a solution to the matter.

1949 Many details of this document evoke what has been said in earlier documents. For example, the phrase ‘timensque in eventu suae mortis tam pii instituti defectionem’ recalls that used in the memorandum requesting union with the Lucchesi: ‘vedendosi hormai vecchio’ the Fr. Prefect (seeing himself already old…) (cf. PosCas, p.299 and 157).

1950 “…cumque tandem PP. praedicti omnino recusent ad huiusmodi munus (Scholarum Piarum) incumbere loco instituti eorum principali et stabilium bonorum possessione se abdicare...” (PosCas, p.299). In the Report of 1623, Calasanz summarized the cause of the separation thus: “But seeing afterwards that the fathers of S. Maria in Portico did not want to embrace the institution of the schools with the poverty that was required...” (EGC II, p.171). In the “formula of concord” the institute of the schools was accepted as principal (“suscipit futurum sibi praecipuum et adeo propium ut...”), but the dominion of immovable or stable goods was maintained (cf. PosCas, p.240-241). See the summary we gave of the “formula” (ch.15, No.16) paragraphs 2 and 9-10.

1951 It expressly recalls the commitments assumed in the Roman monastery of ‘Tor di Specchi’ and in the seminary of Lucca, as Calasanz had already lamented in his memorandum of complaints of 1616 (cf. EGC II, p.50). The “formula” forbade preaching outside the own church (cf. ch. 15, n.16, paragraph 4).

Cardinal Giustiniani and Cardinal Cobelluzzi discussed the matter with the Pope, who issued the following motu proprio[1952]: he withdrew custody of the Pious Schools from the Fathers of Lucca and returned them “freely and openly” to Father Joseph and his companions, since the said Congregation has spent nothing on them, but the Prefect himself has always supplied them with everything necessary”.[1953] “Establishes and founds anew with this Institute (or ministry) of Pious Schools a Congregation, which he calls the Pauline Congregation of the Poor of the Mother of God of Pious Schools, with the wish that no one but the men of this Congregation may ever teach the children under this title of Pious Schools.”[1954] And this concession was added: “All members of the Congregation of Lucca who, moved by the zeal of charity, wish to join this institute, may do so within twenty days.”[1955]

1952 So much for the narration of the facts. Then follow the decisions taken by the Pope - expressed in present tenses: ‘aufert, restituit, erigit et fundat, mandat, concedit - which will have to form a substantial part of the future foundational Brief.

1953 Cf. PosCas, p.299). Besides the expenses of the house of San Pantaleo, those of the novitiate house in Trevi were also paid by the Prefect: “Apart of this house (San Pantaleo) made the expenses to the house of the novitiate, where also they were many mouths “, says Bernardini in his Chronicles (cf. PosCas, p.265). Erra: “The house of San Pantaleo, where ours held the Pious Schools, as long as they remained united to our congregation, maintained the novitiate, where in the year 1616 there were 4 fathers, 13 clerics and 5 brothers, in all 22 subjects…” And he recalls the donors: the Pope, cardinals, Glicerio, and adds: “Blessed Calasanzio also contributed greatly” (PosCas, p.1866-1867).

1954 Cf. PosCas, p.299-300. In the “formula of concord” we read: “ne quis in posterum ubique Scholas Pias erigere seu fundare audeat et in illis ex officio pueros docere, nisi ex consensu congregationis huius” (PosCas, p.240). See chapter 15, n. 16, paragraph 3.

1955 Cf. PosCas, p.300.

The document gives the impression of being narrative up to this point, as it recalls not only the history of the institution of the Pious Schools, but also the decisions made by Paul V in his audience with Cardinals Giustiniani and Cobelluzzi. The second part of this report contains the general guidelines of the new Congregation, summarized in six points taken from the famous “formula” which reads:

1. There will be a two-year novitiate and three simple and perpetual vows of poverty, chastity and obedience, which can only be revoked by the Pope.[1956] Twelve clerics of the new Congregation may be ordained under the title of poverty[1957], suspended ‘a divinis’ if they leave the Congregation, until they receive another title of subsistence.[1958] The vow is of ‘supreme poverty’ with all its consequences, which, as we have seen, was one of the main points of disagreement between the Lucchesi and Calasanz-Giustiniani. Both parties had to give up something when the “formula” was enforced, but now there was no longer any reason to maintain what had been agreed, and the “supreme poverty”, both individual and corporate, was again proposed.[1959]
1956 The vow of perseverance, proper to the Lucchesi, is omitted. In the “formula” they added the vow of poverty, dispensable only by the Pope (cf. PosCas, p.241). See ch. 15, No.16, paragraph 13.

1957 The concession also appears in the “formula” (cf. PosCas, p.241; ch. 15, n.16, paragraph 14), but it is now destined for the Pious Schools, since the Pope - it is said in this memorandum - “quaecumque Congregationi praedictae (Lucchesi) intuitu scholarum piarum concesserat, ab illis aufert” (PosCas, p.299).

1958 The same penalty is stated in the “formula” (cf. PosCas, p.241).

1959 It radically forbids the ownership or dominion of stable or immovable goods and their similar, such as censuses, pensions, inheritances, legacies of any kind and origin. Even with respect to the houses, adjoining orchards, churches, schools that are of his use, the dominion is held by the Pope (cf. PosCas, p.300). In the “formula” a distinction was made between existing and future houses with respect to the capacity to have or maintain stable goods. And even in all the houses a distinction was made between the stability of the buildings and the capacity to have other stable or similar possessions (cf. PosCas, p.241; c.1 5, n. 16, par. 9 and 10). As early as September 1615 Calasanz demanded “supreme poverty” from the Lucchesi in his memorial to the Commission of cardinals (cf. PosCas, p.207).

2. All are declared incapable of appearing in court, which is exactly what was said in the “formula”.[1960]
1960 Cf. PosCas, p.300 and 241, c.15, n.16, para. 11.

3. They must devote themselves entirely gratuitously to the task of teaching children reading, writing, arithmetic, and all that is understood by philology, and to instruct them in grammar, as well as to educate them piously, teaching them to pray especially by the devout practice of constant prayer, and accompanying them home at the end of their lessons.[1961]
1961 The text coincides, even literally, with that of the “formula,” except in two details that do not appear in it: the express allusion to the teaching of grammar and the accompanying of the children home (cf. PosCas, p.300 and 240; c.15, n.16, para. 5).

4. They should not have houses without schools, except in novitiates and retreat houses.[1962]
1962 Identical to the “formula” (cf. PosCas, p.300 and 240; c.15, n.16, para. 7).

5. Princes or localities that ask for foundations should appoint some lay people to provide for the maintenance and needs of the religious and their houses.[1963]
1963 Almost literal identity with the “formula”, except for an interesting detail: in the “formula” this disposition is justified by saying that, being busy with the children, there is no time for “begging” (tempus ad necessaria vitae mendicanda nancisci nequibit) (cf. PosCas, p.241). In the memorandum-report there is no mention of begging, because Calasanz had already accepted it since the beginning of the century and he will keep it in his Constitutions. He simply says: “ne ab exercitío scholarum piarum nec ad horam avocentur...” (cf. ibid., p.300; c.15, n.16, para. 12) and in the Constitutions: “...paratusque semper sit ad mendicandum ostiatim” (CC, n.138).

6. After all that has been said, the Rector General, with those whom it concerns, may, with the permission of the Holy See, issue new constitutions, orders, rules and statutes for the good of Pious Schools.[1964]
1964 Literal identity with the “formula”, maintaining even the term “novas constitutiones”, which in the “formula” is correlative of the “antiquas”, which are maintained (manentibus tamen semper in suo robore antiquas). This allusion, naturally, is omitted in the memorandum. The Superior General is called Rector Generalis, as he was called by the Lucchesi and the “formula” itself (cf. PosCas, p.301 and 241-242; c.15, n.16, para. 15).

To all these coincidences and discrepancies is added the logical omission of the first paragraph of the “Formula” in which the history of the Congregation of Lucca was summarized - as the Memorandum does at the same time with regard to the Pious Schools - and the definition of its charism or ministry, which is no longer of interest to recall or qualify, as the “Formula” does.[1965]

1965 Cf. PosCas, p.239; c.15, n.16, par.1. Reference is also omitted to two other points of the “formula”, regarding the prohibition to teach higher sciences and the different attitude towards foundations in lands of Catholics or of infidel-Heretics (cf. PosCas, p.240-241; c.15, n.16, paras. 6 and 8).

No one is aware of the importance of this document as the basis for the founding Brief and the intermediate step in which the unrealized “new Congregation of Lucca” was transformed into the Pauline Congregation of Pious Schools. However, it is neither easy nor of great importance to determine who wrote the document. From the text of the document, it seems sufficient to deduce that it was the product of the conversations of Cardinals Giustiniani and Cobelluzzi with Calasanz and Ruzola, on the basis of the famous “formula”. The text submitted to the Pope was written by Casani in neat handwriting, as would later be the case in so many official documents of the Pious Schools, since his handwriting was so elegant and clear.[1966]

1966 Sántha admits a direct relationship between the document and the “formula” of the Diet, although he considers the latter rather the work of Calasanz, Casani and approval of Giustiniani, and not of the Diet itself, as the fruit of the compromise between Diet - Bernardini and Calasanz - Giustiniani. Sántha did not know the definitive Latin Minute of the Diet, but the copy of Erra (cf. G. SÁNTHA, Nova quaedam documenta..., p.192-193). We find inadmissible the thesis of C. Vilá, according to which Casani is not only the amanuensis of this document, which he calls “preliminary draft”, but the authentic author of the same, and this because of the similarity between certain ideas of the document and Casani’s work Pussilli gregis idea, of which we will speak later, omitting the slightest comparison between this “preliminary draft” and the “formula” of the Diet (cf. PosCas, p.287-289 and 298-299). For a detailed comparison of both Latin texts see Juicio histórico-crítico sobre la “Positio super virtutibus” del P. Pedro Casani, Sch. P. (Salamanca 1983), p.40-43.

This report was duly checked and corrected in some details.[1967] Then the minuta of the Brief was drawn up and approved by the Pope on February 15, 1617, adding to the papal placet that the Pious Schools could not extend more than twenty miles from Rome and that the Constitutions - only the Constitutions - were to be approved by the Holy See.[1968] And in the following twenty days, the founding Brief was drawn up.

1967 The following ideas were crossed out: in n. 1 the renunciation of inheritances and legacies; the whole of n. 2; the reference to Philology in n. 3; the reference to retreat houses in n. 4; and in n. 6 the clause “a Sede Apostolica approbanda”, referring to Constitutions, rules, statutes, etc., was added. (cf. G. SÁNTHA, 1.c., p.204).

1968 On the back of the “minuta” it was written: “Smo. placet, ita tamen, ut non se extendant ultra viginti milliaria et Constitutiones approbari debeant a Sede Apostolica. In reliquis ut intus” (ibid.).

The founding Brief

On March 6, Paul V signed the Brief in St. Mary Major and it began with the words Ad ea, per quae. Thus, the new Pauline Congregation of the Poor of the Mother of God of the Pious Schools in the Church was born.

In general, it can be said that the letter takes up the ideas from the memorandum-report that we have studied, with the nuances, additions and omissions that we have noted. And to all this, it adds some specifics. So let us look at its content in synthesis by first comparing it with the above-mentioned memorandum on which it is based.

This document also begins with a historical allusion to the union of the two Corporations and to the apostolic Brief that sanctioned it, and gives two reasons for the request for separation: The Lucchesi do not wish to renounce their durable goods and prefer to devote themselves to their own ministries in accordance with their statutes rather than those of the Pious Schools.[1969] So that “such a pious work” does not suffer any damage, the Pope summarily cancels his own earlier Brief and “establishes anew and institutes”[1970] what is to be called the Pauline Congregation of the Poor of the Mother of God of the Pious Schools.

1969 Cf. PosCas, p.305 and n.12 above with the corresponding text.

1970 “…de novo erigimus et instituimus”, says the text (PosCas, p.305). The dependence of the memorandum is evident: “denuo erigit et fundat cum hoc instituto scholarum piarum” (ibid., p.299). That is to say, it is not a question of transforming the Lucca congregation into a new one, with a new main institute, as the “formula” says: “exercitium Scholarum Piarum... libentissime accipit et alacriter suscipit futurum sibi praecipuum et adeo proprium...” (ibid., p.240), but rather creates a new congregation, ex novo, and not as something proceeding from or dependent on the Lucchesi, which henceforth will return to its former institutional being. However, it is not excluded that in the Pope’s mind the phrase “de novo erigimus et instituimus” also had another meaning, as we will see later.

There is no allusion to the petition in the memorandum and the “formula” that no one may teach or open houses under the title of “Pious Schools” except those of this Congregation.[1971] Perhaps it seemed too obvious and was omitted; but in fact there were already Pious Schools in Bologna at that time and they were soon to be opened in Florence, if they were not opened before those of Bologna, both by the former collaborator of Calasanz, Don John Francis Fiammelli.[1972] Still later, other foundations with the same name prompted Calasanz to request and obtain a Brief from Urban VIII in order to preserve the exclusivity of the name “Pious Schools”.[1973]

1971 Cf. n. 1954 above and the corresponding text.

1972 Cf. O. TOSTI, G. F. Fiammelli e l’introduzione degli Scolopi in Firenze; Ricerche 13 (1985) 3-67; F. MOROSI, Le Scuole Pie a Bologna: Ricerche 5 (1982) 78-93; F. MOROSI, Memorie storiche della prima casa di Firenze; Ricerche 12 (1984) 251-271; C. VILÁ, Galeria de escolapios “seculares”: Archivum 14 (1983) 273-299.

1973 Cf. Brief Ad uberes fructus, dated August 7, 1630 (Bullarium Sch. P., p.36-37).

The Brief also omits the concession that, within twenty days of its publication, those Lucchesi who wished to join the new congregation could do so. But even though it was omitted from the letter, the concession was retained because there was indeed a group that made use of it.

As for the six numbered points that make up the second part of the memorandum report, the Brief decided the following:

1. Everything contained in this point will be retained, except that the vows will be simple, but the word “perpetual” will be omitted.[1974] And as for the utmost poverty, the memorandum specified the meaning of durable goods with specific examples, while the Brief dispenses with details, leaving only the reference to durable goods and those considered as such.[1975]
1974 In the memorandum it was said: “tria simplicia sed perpetua vota” (PosCas, p.300).

1975 The detailed cases are included in the incapacity to possess, but Calasanz expressly included them again in his Constitutions (cf. CC, n.145-148).

2. This point was already deleted in the minuta, but Calasanz reintroduced it in the equivalent form in his Constitutions.[1976]
1976 “…nullumque ius ad petendum in judicio illis acquiratur” (CC, n.145).

3. In general, the confusing, disorganized, inelegant, inaccurate and imprecise style, unworthy of a constitutional text, with which this Brief was drafted, is to be deplored. This point 3 in particular, the longest and most important paragraph of all, is a veritable jumble, without intervening points, interspersed with commas and semicolons, with a convoluted, laborious, leaden hyperbaton. In a single long speach - more than paragraph - points 1, 3, 4 and a few other ideas from the first part of the memorandum base are strung together. In particular, the very important point 3 of the Memorandum, which refers to the gratuity and the office of teacher and educator proper to Pious Schools, is reproduced almost verbatim, but with two omissions of details, in addition to the one concerning philology, already contained in the minuta. The two omissions refer to “continous prayer” and “accompanying children home”, both practices that were very dear to Calasanz and that he considered effective means of Christian education.[1977]
1977 In the “formula” of concord appeared the allusion to the continuous prayer, but not to the accompaniment, which was added in the memorandum, undoubtedly, by Calasanz. See the three consecutive texts: 1) “sed gratis, et nullo pro suo labore stipendio accepto, ad erudiendos pueros in legendo, scribendo, rationibus subducendis, inque omni arte quae Philologiae nomine continetur, instituendos, eosdemque pie educandos, praecipue vero religioso more, in easdem scholas iam olim invecto, iugiter ad Deum preces fundendi, orationi assuefaciendo...” (Formula concordada, PosCas, p.240 ); 2) “gratis, et nullo pro labore suo stipendio accepto, ad erudiendos pueros in legendo, scribendo, rationibus subducendis (inque omni arte quae Philologiae nomine venit), in grammatica instituendos, eosdemque pie educandos, praecipue vero pio more in easdem scholas iam olim invecto, iugiter ad Deum preces fundendi, orationi assuefaciendo, eosque ad domos proprias, quando a gymnasio recedunt, comitando...” (Memorandum, PosCas, p. 300 . What was put in brackets was later crossed out when the Brief was minuted); 3) “ac gratis, et nullo stipendio, mercede, salario, aut honorario accipiendo, pueros in primis elementis, Grammatica, Computo, ac praecipue in Fidei Catholicae rudimentis erudiendos bonis et piis moribus imbuendos, ac demum christiano more educandos, operam, laborem, ac studium conferre debeant” (Brief, PosCas, p. 305). Both practices, however, he included in his Constitutions (cf. CC, n.116 and 194).

4. The text of the memorandum is retained, with the deletion of the reference to retreat houses, which was already included in the minuta.

5. This number was completely deleted in order to emphasize the mendicant character of the Congregation and to dispense with any kind of economic security.[1978]
1978 Among other provisions of the Constitutions, see this one: “Omnes vivant ex eleemosynis vel mendicatis vel sponte oblatis, quae tamen congruis temporibus ad annum provideri poterunt, ne quotidiano labore exercitationes literariae impediantur” (CC, n.144). It was, therefore, the religious themselves who would have to provide for themselves and not those entrusted by the founders of the houses.

6. It is granted to Father Joseph and his Congregation, with the approval of Cardinal Giustiniani, to draw up all necessary and pertinent laws, in conformity with ecclesiastical norms, to be approved by the Holy See, as proposed in the communication and later clarified.[1979]
1979 One more detail of the careless wording of this Brief: it is said that Statuta, Capitula, Ordinationes et Decreta necessaria should be composed and the terms Constitutiones and Regulas are omitted, which are proper and adequate. In the memorandum it was said: “novas Constitutiones condire, ordinationes, regulas et statuta sancire.” And with the “Smo. placet”, the minuta mentioned only the Constitutions (cf. n.30).

In our opinion, the most important provisions of this founding Brief are undoubtedly these four: the abrogation of the Brief of union with the Lucchesi, the foundation of the new Congregation, its own title and the appointment of the Prefect Joseph Calasanz as Superior General with the approval of the Pope.[1980]

1980 In the memorandum it was called Rector General, which was the term used by the Lucchesi, even in the “formula.” In this Brief it is said that the new Congregation will be governed by a Praefect (ab uno Praefecto regendam), alluding to the title of Calasanz, but in the appointment it avoids giving him his own title, using an equivalent phrase: “…Congregationis praedictae sic erectae Praefecturam, curam, regimen et administrationem dilecto filio Josepho Calasantio, Scholarum praedictarum nunc Praefecto, ad nostrum beneplacitum, commitimus et demandamus...” (PosCas, p.306).

Moreover, there is a paragraph in this letter that has remained unexplained to this day, and which is apparently inexplicable for lack of documents or simple data that could clarify it. Paul V says: “having learned that the work of the Pious Schools established by Us in our city to instruct and educate the poor was bearing abundant fruit...”[1981] When and in what sense did Paul V establish the Pious Schools in Rome? If such a statement were contained only in this Brief, it could be interpreted in the sense that, by entrusting the work of the Pious Schools to the Lucchesi with the Brief of Union of January 14, 1614, he elevated the work to the rank of a pontifical congregation, as Clement VIII had done with the Congregation of Lucca. For this reason, and in view of the fact that the result of the union was a different creation, he had changed its name and called it “Congregation (in common) of the Mother of God” By separating it now, he could say that he “once again” (for the second time) restored and founded the Congregation of Pious Schools, to which he gave a new name, his own, “Pauline”.[1982]

1981 “…cum accepissemus, quod opus Scholarum Piarum a Nobis in Urbe Nostra ad pauperes erudiendos et instituendos erectarum, uberes fructus ferebat...” (PosCas, p.304).

1982 This would be, then, according to the hypothesis, the meaning of the expressions “denuo erigit et fundat”, of the memorandum, and “de novo erigimus et instituimus” (cf. n.1970 above).

However, this assumption is not conclusive, as the enigmatic expression of the founding Brief of 1617 was taken verbatim from the Union Brief of 1614.[1983] There is no other Brief from Paul V in which he repeats this formulation in similar circumstances, either before or after.[1984] Assuming this, then the alleged “erection” or foundation of Paul V would have taken place before the union with the Lucchesi. On the other hand, we know that the first pope to at least verbally approve the corporation of Pious Schools was his predecessor Clement VIII, so we cannot speak of an “erection or first approval” with regard to Paul V, but in any case, of a verbal or written confirmation. But there is no record of any reference or tradition.[1985]

1983 “…cum, sicut accepimus, opus Scholarum Piarum a Nobis in Urbe Nostra, ad pauperes erudiendos et instituendos erectarum, uberes fructus ferat...” (PosCas, p.163). Compare with the text of n.1981.

1984 For example, in the Brief of January 12, 1613, in which Paul V himself names Giustiniani Cardinal Protector of the Pious Schools, we read: “Cum Scholae Piae nuncupate in alma Urbe nostra ad pueros inopes gratis erudiendos institutae...” (PosCas. p.155); in the same Brief of union it says in another place: ”…ut pium ac maxime laudabille opus pauperes erudiendi et instituendi in alma Urbe nostra pridem divina gratia institutum...” (PosCas, p.163); in another Brief of July 30, 1615 it says: ”…ut pro Scholarum Piarum in Urbe erectarum...” (PosCas, p.190); in another of June 13, 1614: ”…administrationem in Urbe erectarum Scholarum Piarum...” (PosCas, p.191); in another of July 30, 1615: “…qui Scholarum Piarum in alma Urbe nostra erectarum...” (PosCas, p.203).

1985 Gregory XV, who will elevate it to an Order, will put things in point by writing in the Brief: “Praedictam Congregationem nuncupatam Pauperum Matris Dei, olim Romae fel. rec. Clementis Papae VIII Praed. Nostri auctoritate erectam, per S. mem. Paulum Papam V Praed. Nostrum confirmatam...” (PosCas, p.404). But the confirmation of Paul V refers, logically, to the fact of having declared it a Congregation of simple vows, without alluding to other possible previous confirmations.

The mystery becomes even more inexplicable when one considers that Pope Borghese must have known of the origins of the Pious Schools, given the esteem in which he held Father Joseph Calasanz and the conversations he had with him. And as if that were not enough, there is no lack of memoranda from Calasanz, signed personally or by others, in which he reminds the Pope that the Pious Schools were founded by Father Joseph Calasanz.[1986] In any case, “it is absolutely absurd - Santha wrote - to claim that the Pauline Congregation was founded by Paul V alone, almost against Calasanz’s will or by surprise.”[1987]

1986 Suffice it to cite the memorandum-report requesting the separation of the Lucchesi and the foundation of the new Congregation. It begins: “Cum superioribus annis R. adm. P. Joseph Calasanctius cum nonnullis sociis Scholas Pias in Urbe instituisset...” (PosCas, p.299). (PosCas, p.299). See also the beginning of the memorandum of complains, in December-January 1616 (cf. EGC II, p.49).

1987 Cf. G. SÁNTHA, Nova quaedam documenta..., p.194. And C. Vilá abounds in both affirmations: ”…in making the separation, the Pope, at his own risk, and without previous request of Calasanz and his followers, creates ‘motu proprio’ in the house of San Pantaleon to attend to the schools, a new Congregation” (C. VILÁ, Fuentes inmediatas... p.54 ): ”…at the last minute Calasanz decided to become a religious of that unexpectedly created new congregation” (PosCas, p.293); “Calasanz is the creator of the educational work, Paul V is the creator of the religious institution, responsible for perpetuating and spreading it...” (ibid., p.1303). (ibid., p.1307), etc.

So, without understanding the puzzling wording in the two Pauline Briefs, it is historically certain that Pope Borghese’s “founding action” with regard to Pious Schools does not go beyond that of other popes who authorized other religious congregations with their Bulls or Briefs.

The poor above all

And something else had changed for good in the Pious Schools: From now on, no student was required to give a certificate of poverty. In the Brief of union with the Lucchesi, Calasanz had already achieved, with a view to the future expansion of his Pious Schools throughout the world, that the certificate of poverty should be limited to the city of Rome, but not required of any pupil outside the city.[1988] The founding Brief now repealed the previous one and with it the provision on the certificate of poverty, which had also not been mentioned in the memorandum on which it was based. From now on, the controversial certificate was no longer mentioned, and no one would miss it. If Calasanz had considered it an essential element for defining his work, this was the opportunity to demand its complete return, separating himself from the Lucchesi, who, according to Vilá, were the cause of the restriction imposed by the Brief of the Union.[1989]

1988 Cf. c.15, n.1752.

1989 C. Vilá writes: “It was a blow against the thought of Calasanz not to demand a certificate of poverty in the future foundations” (PosCas, p.146); “It is also clear that the charism of Calasanz of exclusive teaching the poor with a certificate of poverty is not admitted by those of Lucca and they keep it only in the schools of Rome: in the new schools that will be opened, all kinds of children will be admitted without a certificate of poverty” (ibid., p.157).

Calasanz was not concerned with the certificate, but with the dedication of his schools to the poor. And this was solemnly confirmed in both Briefs, so clearly that the second Brief did nothing other than repeat verbatim what had been said twice in the first one. Both define the Pious Schools as “pious and very praiseworthy work to teach and educate the poor”[1990]; and also: “the work of the Pious Schools established by Us in our city to teach and educate the poor”.[1991] And in the founding Brief, the idea is repeated a third time: “We, so that a pious and profitable work for the Christian education and learning of children, especially the poor, ... may suffer no harm.”[1992]

1990 «ut pium, ac maxime laudabile opus pauperes erudiendi et instituendi...» (PosCas. p.163. n.1 and p.304. introd. to the Brief).

1991 Cf. n.1981 and 1983 above. In all these sentences we speak of the poor without further ado, but obviously it is understood that we are dealing with children and not adults.

1992 “Nos, ne tam pium, ac praesertim pauperurn liberorum Christianae educationi et eruditioni proficuum opus aliquod propterea detrimentum patiatur...’ (PosCas, p.305, n.2).

However, there is another clause in which the mission of the new Congregation to teach and educate children is repeated for the fourth time, but this time no poor are added, for the simple reason that it repeats verbatim the sentence from the two previous documents that serve as the basis for the papal Brief.[1993] Nevertheless, Vilá considers this omission to be something of an “ex cathedra” definition, by which the Pope would have decided, contrary to the founding ideas of Joseph Calasanz himself, that the charism proper to the new Pauline Congregation would be to teach and educate children free of charge, without reference to or preference for the poor. Logically, this would mean overturning the founding idea and charism of the Founder from the ground up, precisely at the historical moment when his work was officially recognized as a religious congregation in the Church. For this reason, Vilá goes so far as to describe Paul V as the true founder of the Pauline Congregation, which bears his name, because he chose his decision over that of Joseph Calasanz, who had resigned to.[1994]

1993 See the three successive texts of the formula of concord, of the memorandum-preliminary draft, and of the Brief Ad ea per quae in n.1977 above. The text of the Constitutions (cf. CC, n.5) will also follow them.

1994 After quoting the phrase of the Brief, Vilá comments: “Note well: to educate THE CHILDREN, just like that, in general, without any limitation to the POOR children. How different this is from what Calasanz was looking for and wanted! At Santa Dorotea’s he was bothered by paying children and he transformed it into a little school for the poor... Now, in the Pauline Congregation, the papal criterion is imposed and not that of Calasanz. The Pauline Congregation is not, therefore, the direct and spontaneous creation of Joseph, it is that of the Pope” (C. VILÁ, Fuentes inmediatas ... p.56); “Casani wants the education of children, especially the poor (maxime pauperum), Calasanz also wants it this way, but the founding Brief of the Pauline Congr. pointed out categorically: Pueros docere: gratuitously yes, but without preference for the poor and without demanding a certificate of poverty, as Calasanz wanted” (PosCas p.1452); “The personal charism of Calasanz was replaced by what we will call the Piarist charism: free popular teaching of first letters up to and including Latin grammar... Calasanz humbly renounced his personal charism...” (ibid., p.304). (ibid., p.304).

Without requiring further evidence, it would suffice to read the above-mentioned founding Brief - as we have done - to dismiss Father Vila’s thesis as absurd.[1995] But the quantity and variety of texts by the Founder, his collaborators and contemporaries, the official documents of the Order and the Holy See, which are astonishingly consistent in the idea that the Pious Schools, as a Pauline congregation and as an Order, were founded primarily and mainly for poor children, is also overwhelming. It is pointless to prove the obvious. But given the importance of the subject, we cannot avoid citing some texts as examples.

1995 In 1623 Calasanz published a booklet with five papal Briefs concerning the Pious Schools, entitled Institutio et privilegia Congregationis Cler. Reg. Paup. Matris Dei Scholar. Piarum, Romae MDCXXIII (cf. a copy in RegGen 1). The first is the Ad ea per quae in question. But Calasanz prefaces the Brief with a kind of title or definition of the contents and says: Erectio Congregationis Clericorum Pauperum Matris Dei Scholarum Piarum. Ad pauperes Scholares pie et absque ullo praemio docendos et erudiendos.” Nor are Fathers Casani and Castelli less eloquent in referring expressly to this Brief. Castelli says in his Apologia: “…with the most necessary letters praesertim pauperibus iuxta Breve erectionis” (EC VI, p.2836). And Casani in a memorandum to the Visitators of 1625 evokes almost literally the Brief thus: “…institutum illius, quod in eo situm est, ut gratis et sine mercede, stipendio, praemio, retributione, vel etiam honorario, pueros, praesertim pauperes, doctrinam moresque christianos litteras humaniores...” (PosCas, p.516). No comments. For a greater abundance of texts by Vilá on the subject and its corresponding response see Juicio histórico - crítico..., p.173-188.

Let us begin with a valuable Summary of the Institute of the Pauline Congregation; four copies of which have survived, two of which are signed by Calasanz. All four - and probably a few more that have been lost - were written in Spanish with Italianisms to inform what the newly founded Pauline Congregation was, what it did, how it lived, etc.; consequently, they partly interpret the basic ideas of the founding Brief. Although the content is the same, none of them is literally identical to the others, but the variations are minimal, except in one of the two autograph copies, in which the text is slightly longer and more detailed, so that it appears to be the first of the series. And in this copy we read: “They have as their own and special institute the good instruction and pious education of children of all classes, especially the poor.” In the other three copies we read: “They have as their institute the pious education and diligent teaching of children.” This does not correct what was in the first copy, but simply abbreviates it, as can be seen in all the other summaries.[1996] See also, without comment, these texts:

1996 See the comparison of the four Summaries, made by Vilá, and his comments, despite the evidence of the text of the first, which he believes to be unpublished, but which had already been published by A. García - Durán (Itinerario..., p.189-191, n.828) (cf. C. VILA, Cuatro sumarios de la congregación Paulina: Archivum. 17 [1985] 63-70). Similar to these summaries in Spanish, Calasanz himself wrote another one in Italian, which we already know: the historical report that goes up to 1622 (cf. EGC II, 132a). Br. Morandi copied it again and continued it until 1634, being corrected by Calasanz with marginal notes. And at the end of his own report, before Morandi began its continuation, Calasanz put this marginal note: “and going down in particular to the exercises of the above-mentioned Pious Schools, they must, for a particular and proper institute, attend to the pious erudition and education of young people, mainly of the poor, beginning to teach them...” (RegCal, 11, 11). Cf. another later copy, edited in Archivum 15 (1984) 6, n.20.

“The institute of these Fathers is to devote themselves to pious learning and the education of children, especially the poor, beginning with the first elements...”[1997] “The Religion of the Clerics poor of the Mother of God of the Pious Schools has as its special institute the pious education of the young and especially of the poor.”[1998] “The Institute of Pious Schools, which consists in the learning and Christian education of children, especially the poor...”[1999] “The spirit of Father General - Calasanz says of himself - has always been to teach the poorest and most abandoned children. There are other schools for rich students. I mean that our rules are aimed at teaching the poor and not the rich (unless there are no other teachers), because all other religions are for the rich, but we alone are for the poor.”[2000] “The Prefect must receive the poor with great charity, even if they are barefoot, ragged or without a cloak, because it is for them that our Institute was founded.”[2001] “To the banquet of wisdom... the Pious Schools invite everyone, especially the poor.”[2002] “This Religion, established above all for the education of the poor, is not useless, but necessary, so that the poor -who are no less loved by God than the rich - are not excluded from proper moral and literary education.”[2003]

1997 Minutes of the Apostolic Visitation of 1625, made to the church and house of San Pantaleo (PosCas, p.508).

1998 Report of Calasanz to the said Apostolic Visitation (ibid., p.520).

1999 Note the identity of words between this text of a memorandum of 1645, addressed to a cardinal, and that of the foundational Brief. The Italian text of the memorial reads, “The Institute of the Pious Schools, which consists in the erudition and Christian education of children who are mostly poor...” (PosCas, p.1312), and the Brief: “ne tam pium ac praesertim pauperum liberorum Christianae educationi et eruditioni proficuum opus...” (PosCas, p.305).

2000 From a memorandum of Calasanz (cf. SÁNTHA, SJC, p.62. n.32).

2001 Declaraciones a las Constituciones, by Calasanz (cf. ibid., p.295, n.11).

2002 T. CAMPANELLA, Liber apologeticus contra impugnantes Institutum Scholarum Piarum, cit. in ibid., p.396, n.5.

2003 Memoirs of Card. Paolucci (1643) (cf. ib., p.396, n.6).

To return to the founding Brief: It was a twist of fate that when they wrote the Brief, they had in mind that they wanted to remove and insert at least two sentences in which they specifically spoke of the poor, because in the draft memorandum, the only two times referred the instruction and education of children the word poor is omitted.[2004] And this is because both allusions are taken from the “Formula of Concord”[2005], in which the topic is alluded to not twice, but six times, but not once is the word “poor” added to the word “children”.[2006] And perhaps the explanation lies in the fact that it was not the quality of the poverty of the students that was at issue - not even the possibility of obtaining or abolishing the famous certificate was up for debate - but the quality of the poverty of the religious and the exclusivity, or at least the preference, of the Institute of Schools over the traditional one of the Lucchesi.

2004 “…quod nullus alius, praeter homines Congregationis huius, possit sub hoc titulo Scholarum Piarum pueros docere...” (PosCas, p.299-300); “gratis... ad erudiendos pueros in legendo...” (ibid., p.300).

2005 “ne quis in posterum Scholas Pias erigere seu fundare audeat et in illis ex officio pueros docere...” (ibid., p.240); “gratis... ad erudiendos pueros in legendo...” (ibid.).

2006 Cf. ibid., p.240-241. Cf. the most interesting phrase: “exercitium Scholarum Piarum, quod in sana eruditione, piaque puerorum educatione consistit...” (ibid., p.240).

Calasanz had to renounce many things and submit to foreign ideas, but what he could never give up was his privileged devotion to the poor. This was the backbone of his entire life and work. It was precisely during these years of living with the Lucchesi that he had the opportunity to write this memorable sentence to his friend Don Jaime de Palafox, Marquis of Ariza, “on the last day of February 1615”: “Pray to His Divine Majesty to inspire me with all that is for his greater glory and for the help of the poor, in whose service I intend to use the little he gives me in health and life.”[2007] And it pleased God that it was not a little, but a lot.

2007 Cf. EphCal 1 (1965) 7.

The first group and the first dressing

An elementary sense of prudence advised Calasanz and those who planned with him the canonical establishment of the new Pauline Congregation to count their strength before embarking on the adventure. In what I have called a “memorandum of complaints”, Father Prefect told the pope in conclusion, in late 1616 or early 1617, that if the Lucchesi would not comply, they should leave the schools, “since there would be no lack of suitable subjects to run the said schools with all diligence and perfection.”[2008] And it is very likely that this was not a mere assumption or wish, but the result of more or less precise calculations.

2008 EGC II, p.50.

The withdrawal of the Lucchesi after the Brief of separation had been read and accepted was not a disaster. Those who wanted to, returned peacefully to their house of Santa Maria in Portico or to the novitiate of Trevi, and those who preferred to remain in the Pious Schools followed the example of the Rector, Father Casani. But together with this small group of Lucchesi remained the most numerous of the companions of Calasanz, who did not unite with them but formed a separate entity, according to the concessions of the Brief of union. But how many were there in total? If we enumerate individually all the names known to us of those who were active in the religious schools of San Pantaleo and Frascati in that opening month of 1617, we arrive at a list of 30, including the prefect. But there is no lack of evidence that there could have been more. Of these 30, an initial group of 15 was formed, who were either chosen by the Prefect or decided of their own accord to wear the habit of the new congregation. Let Calasanz tell us about it by giving us the first and last name of each one:

“Our Lord Card. Giustiniani, on March 25th of the same year (1617), made at his own expense the habits which are now used for 15 persons, and clothed by his hand in his chapel the said Father Joseph (Calasanz) and then this Father to 14 others on the same day in the Oratory of the Pious Schools.[2009] Their names: Peter Casani, of Lucca, priest; Ottavio Bovarelli, Roman; Viviano Viviani, of Colle; Thomas de Victoria, Spaniard; Francis (Baldi) Perusino, Roman; Joseph Brancatio (Brancacci, Pancrazzi ?), Roman; Ausano Lenzi, Lucchese, (all) clerics; Martin Ciomei, of Lucca; Simon Castiglioncelli, of Lucca; John Bta. Morandi, of Marciasio, diocese of Sarzana; George Mazza, of Rocca Vignale of Alba; John Prospero, of Lucca; Antonio Bernardini, of Lucca; Andrew Marzio, Roman, (all) working brothers.”[2010]

2009 In the copy that Morandi made of this report (which will be discussed in the following note), Calasanz added in this place the following observation: “who worked with great diligence in the schools” (cf., Archivum 15 [1984] 5). With this, he recognized that the Lucchesi who went on to the Pious Schools had perfectly fulfilled their dedication to the school.

2010 EGC II, p. 171-172. Fr. Baldi, named in the list, is here and commonly called ‘Perugino’, although he was born in Rome. He wrote the following: “we took the new rough and poor habit: having been Fr. Joseph of the Mother of God (Calasanz)... dressed by Card. Giustiniani’s protector, in his rooms, and by him there Fr. Peter Casani... and after we returned to the house they gave the habit to the rest of us...” (F. BALDI, La vita del p. abbate Glicerio Landriani..., f.49v). VILÁ contrasts the testimony of Calasanz and that of Baldi, and comments: “Naturally, the testimony of Fr. Baldi, witness and protagonist, is the authentic one...” (PosCas, p.292) n.7). However, note that Baldi writes in 1645 and Calasanz in 1622-23. In addition, Br. Morandi, who also dressed with Baldi, copied again in 1634 the report of Calasanz that only went up to 1622 and extended it up to 1634, and did not correct anything (cf. G. B, MORANDI, Narratione del Principio delle Scuole Pie et suo progresso: Archivum 15 [1984] 5, with introduction by C. Vilá). And he was, naturally, a witness and protagonist, like Baldi and Calasanz. Moreover, Morandi’s text was revised and corrected by Calasanz, leaving his version intact again. To a greater abundance, in the Libro delli Professi (1617-1629), entirely written by Calasanz, Calasanz himself appears in the first place with the n. 1 with these words: “On March 25, 1617 he was dressed alone in the oratory or chapel of our Lord Cardinal Giustiniano our Protector by the hand of the said Lord Cardinal the very Reverend Father Joseph of the Mother of God Minister General....” (RegRel, 11, III). The word alone was added by the same hand, remaining in the margin. In the Catalogue of Religious, written by mandate of Calasanz by Br. Morandi, the Founder also appears in the first place under no. 1 with identical text to the previous one, but adding after the date: “In Roma”, and then beginning with no. 1 (cf. Catal. Ref., p.19). The entire bibliographical tradition narrates the facts as Calasanz and Morandi, starting with Berro: “our D. Gioseppe had from Card. Benedetto Giustiniani Protector the habit that is now used in our Religion.... Which ceremony the said Em. Cardinal made in the chapel of his palace at S. Luigi dei Francesi, only with our Fr. Gioseppe as Founder of the Pious Schools because to Fr. Peter (Casani) et to the others up to n. 14 the said Founder gave it to them in the same way in our Oratory of S. Pantaleo” (BERRO, p.92).

In that year, March 25th fell on Holy Saturday, so that the feast of the Annunciation of Mary, which has since been considered the official birthday of the Congregation of Pious Schools, could not be celebrated.

We do not know if the ceremony in the Cardinal’s palace was attended by the remaining fourteen and some more, but it is very likely that in the domestic oratory of San Pantaleon all or almost all of those who formed the first group of the new congregation were present and who later in the near future would vest or remain as teachers and companions without becoming canonical Piarists. These were the four who, together with Calasanz and Thomas de Victoria, signed the purchase of the house of San Pantaleón on September 25, 1612: Caspar Dragonetti, whom we already know; Glicerio Landriani, who wore the cassock on July 2, 1617; John García, the second general of the Order; Lorenzo Santilli, who wore it on August 10, 1618.[2011] There is also Scipione Taccioni, who appeared in the lists as a member of the Pious Schools before 1612 and wore the habit on August 15, 1618.[2012]

2011 Cf. G. SÁNTHA, Quattuor novi elenchi..., p.376.

2012 Ib., p.374. Both the note of the dressing of Taccioni and of the earlier and later ones that we will quote are found, with other data, in the Liber Congr. Paul., p.5-8.

The six who went to the foundation of Frascati on August 26, 1616 were also still in the group. Three of them have already been mentioned above: Calasanz, Dragonetti and Landriani. The other three were: Matteo Reale or Regale, who wore the habit on May 13, 1618; Francis Fabio de Lamber, who wore it on July 1, 1618; and Antonio or Antonino de Natali, who signed as a witness on March 15, 1617, describing himself as a “teacher of Pious Schools” in renouncing Father Casani’s goods. Alongside Calasanz and Casani himself, three other people signed with him: Lazarus Geneti, “teacher of the Pious Schools”, Dominic Raezio, “teacher of the Pious Schools”, and Paul Annesa, who was probably also a teacher of the Pious Schools.[2013] There is no record that they were later Piarists, nor were they Lucchesi, as there were none left in San Pantaleo at that time. It is likely that they were employed laymen or volunteers, like the great calligrapher Ventura Sarafellini[2014] and the one who in many cases acted as procurator and notary of the Pious Schools and helped as a teacher, Dr. Cosimo Contini, who eventually lived in San Pantaleo until his death in 1621.[2015]

2013 Cf. PosCas, p.309.

2014 Cf. C. VIlÁ, Galeria de escolapios “seculares”, p.309-316.

2015 Cf. ibid., p.324-325; G. SÁNTHA, 350 anni a condita domo S. Pantaleonis..., p.285, n.7.

Another member of the group who entered the religious schools with Landriani, with whom he was very friendly, was Francis Selvaggi, a layman who was a working brother in the domestic services without being a brother.[2016]

2016 Cf. C. VILÁ, o.c., p.3I7-320.

The last of this incomplete list of known names is John Peter Cananea, a cleric who was attracted by the admiration he had for Glicerio Landriani. Bernardini and Calasanz speak of him in the letters they exchanged in June 1616 in connection with the foundation of Frascati.[2017] He wore the Piarist cassock on November 30, 1617.[2018]

2017 Cf. EGC II; p.57-58.

2018 Cf. DENES, II, p.129.

To these 30 names, which are documented as certain and which formed the already unique group of teachers, servants and newly clothed “novices” of the Pious Schools on March 25th, could most likely be added some of the eleven who took the habit before the end of 1617. It would be strange, for example, that the Lucchese cleric Antonio Jacomini was received into the habit on June 29th, three days before Glicerio Landriani, if he did not belong to the Lucchesi. It is also plausible that the two priests Ottonello Ottonelli and Francis Castelli, who received the habit on May 4th and June 29th respectively, and who had already been frequenting Calasanz and Casani’s relationship for some time, had expressed their intention to join the group, or were more or less part of it before the split, so that Calasanz could count on them before he decided to take the big step.

In any case, thirty people were enough to make the new stage safely. But how many and which of them were from the Lucchesi? This is not easy to answer, given the differing opinions of biographers and other testimonies. The chronicler of Lucca, Erra, gives different accounts in two of his works from the middle of the 18th century. In one, he says that in addition to Father Casani, there were six novices and four lay brothers, three of whom were professed and one novice, making a total of eleven. In the other work, however, he speaks of two laymen and about ten clerics, almost all without patrimony to be ordained priests. With Casani, that would make thirteen.[2019] He was not quite sure of the number, the state of the clergy or laity, or their names; in the first list there is a Spaniard named Thomas Duart Perera, who can be none other than the Thomas de Victoria named by Calasanz on March 25th. But he was not one of the Lucchesi, as he appears among the signatories of the purchase of San Pantaleo as early as 1612.

2019 Cf. PosCas, p.225. His works Ragguaglio (edited) and Cronache (ms.) are cited. In a third work (Memorie de’Religiosi, p.48), edited, he says: “Twelve in all passed from us to the new Congregation”, relying on the Life of Calasanz, by the contemporary Piarist I. Cinnacchi (1734).

Almost a century earlier (1672-1681), the chronicler Caputi wrote in his Notizie Historiche that “Father Peter Casani with eleven others among the priests, clerics and brothers did not want to go (to Santa Maria in Portico) and remained under the direction and care of Father Joseph Prefect...”[2020] But he has no clear ideas, because there were no Lucchesi priests other than Fr. Casani. Moreover, in this whole affair he speaks of union and separation about Father John Leonardi - who have died on October 9, 1608 - as the protagonist and not of Father Bernardini.[2021]

2020 Cf. ibid., p.1747.

2021 Cf. ibid., p.1746-1747. In another place, speaking of Br. John Prospero, a Lucchese, he says “he was one of the 12 who remained at the Pious Schools with our Father Peter (Casani) when the disunion took place...” (ibid., p.1751). (ibid., p.1751). Twelve with Casani would be thirteen. Or with Casani included they were twelve?

If Erra and Caputi go too far, there are others who seem to go too short, such as the Lucca biographers G. Fiorentini and L. Marracci, who agree that Casani, when he remained in the Pious Schools, was followed by only two lay brothers of the Lucchesi.[2022]

2022 Both say: ”…followed (Casani) by only two lay brothers” (G. FIORENTINI, Vita del ven. p. Giovanni B. Cioni, Lucca 1657; L. MARRACCI, Vita del ven. p. Giovanni B. Cioni... Lucca 1696. Probably this one copies the other. Cited in PosCas, p.1815 and 1830).

The most reliable could be Father Francis Castelli, who put on the Piarist cassock about three months after the first group, since he was already a priest, and therefore lived with them all. In his procedural declarations of 1652, he said: “Father Peter (Casani), with about half a dozen who remained with him, separated from the Religion of Lucca and remained in St. Pantaleo to continue the work.”[2023] Castelli’s testimony is supported by that of Calasanz - from the report of 1623, which comes closest to the facts - who, when listing the 14 companions to whom he gave the habit on March 25, 1617, notes their place of origin, and of them, including Casani, only six are from Lucca, namely: a priest, Casani; a single cleric, Lenzi, and four laymen, namely Ciomei, Castiglioncelli, Prospero and Bernardini.[2024] In addition, apart from the two or three laymen mentioned by the Lenzi biographers and the priest Casani, all the others appear to be novices (six clerics and one layman, according to Erra). And since the novitiate was unique and “for the service of Pious Schools”,” it cannot in fact be said that they belonged to the Luquese Congregation. So those who came closest to the truth were Fiorentini and Marracci when they said that “of us” only Casani and two lay brothers remained. That was all.

2023 Cf. ibid., p.1617.

2024 Cf. the text corresponding to n.2009. Among those who appear in the cited Liber Congr. Paul., p.7, appears Antonio Giacomini, “’clericum lucensem’”, who received the habit on June 29, 1617. On May 13, 1618, Mateo Regale wears the habit “lucensis diocesis, clericus” (ibid., p.12), who does not seem to belong to the Lucca Congregation, both for the indication that he does not put ‘clericus lucensis’ (cleric of Lucca) and for the fact that Calasanz had taken him to the foundation of Frascati, and for the historical context that we already know he could not be a “cleric of Lucca.” On June 13, 1619, five clerics and four workers, all from Lucca (cf. ibid., pp. 18-19), dressed, but surely, they had nothing to do with the Lucca Congregation, but with Fr. Casani, master of novices, who tried to foster vocations from his homeland, not without criticism for his supposed or real patriotic favoritism.

But even if we believe the opinions of Erra and Caputi, who undoubtedly exaggerate the number of twelve or thirteen Lucchesi, if the whole group comprised at least thirty persons, we must conclude that of them twelve or thirteen were from the Lucchesi group and the others seventeen or eighteen from the Calasanz group. Those who actually wore the cassock and died as Piarists were at least eight, namely: Victoria, Landriani, Garcia, Santilli, Taccioni, Regale, Lamberti and Cananea, to whom was added Dragonetti, who remained only a cleric, and the three laymen Sarafellini, Selvaggi and Contini, who had dedicated themselves body and soul to the Pious Schools. A total of twelve from Calasanz’s group, not counting some more from the thirteen who wore the habit with Calasanz and Casani on that historic day, March 25, 1617.[2025]

2025 And after these documented calculations, we can read the following paragraphs from C. Vilá: “Calasanz did not bring any element to the new congregation at the time of its creation: Caspar Dragonetti never took the habit; Glicerio Landriani could only get it months later” (PosCas, p.230); “If he (Casani) did not offer himself with a handful of followers to take over the Pious Schools on his own, they would not exist today: Calasanz, after 17 years of efforts, had only two fixed associates at his side: Landriani died to him in 1618 and the other, Caspar Dragonetti, could assure nothing with his many years” (ib, P.391). After naming six clerics and four laymen, dressed on March 25, 1617, he says: “All of them were personal conquests of Fr. Casani” (ibid., p.225). And then: “Let us remember once again that the whole group (not only the ten above), with the exception of Calasanz, was the personal conquest of Fr. Casani. Of the group or association of Calasanz none was dressed” (ibid., p.292). The fact that other Lucchesi stayed with Casani does not prove - as Vilá assumes - that they were convinced by Casani himself. On the contrary, Fr. Castelli testifies expressly that it was Calasanz who “fished” them: “(Calasanz) he wanted to form his Religion in the strictest poverty and to the Fathers that he took (che esso pescò) from the Religion of Sta. Maria in Portico that were able to live from within, to live more comfortably persuaded with affectionate words and with certainty of hope in wanting to turn themselves to the divine providence” (quoted in A. GARCÍA - DURÁN, Itinerario..., p.149, n.676). It could be thought that Casani, instead of winning followers among the Lucchesi, was scaring them away, as is clear from the testimony, already quoted, of his vice-rector B. Guinigi: “When (Casani) was rector of the Scuole Pie in San Pantaleo, just as he had thoughts of changing institute, so he certainly did not take into account our way of life. I was vice-rector ... (and after narrating the extravagance of the menestra brought from Trastevere - cf. text corresponding to n. 1835 of ch. 15 -, he concludes) ...which then gave occasion to leave the Pious Schools, not pleasing to our fathers this way of life” (PosCas, p.1592-1593).

Customs and mores in the early days

The beginnings of the Orders - like religious life itself in the inhospitable deserts of Egypt - are generally inhuman and too heroic to last too long. Times to be admired rather than emulated in their customs and traditions. Sooner or later the breezes or storms of history will soften some things and uproot others; perhaps rather late, after they have caused turmoil and setbacks. Therefore, alongside the heroes of the early days, there will be many resigned, rebels and some anti-heroes and antagonists. Undoubtedly, in such beginnings, poverty, prayer and mortification are disproportionately emphasized, especially if it is a Congregation of active life. And in the Pious Schools, life was - perhaps always and not only in their beginnings - excessively active and laborious and overloaded with scholastic tasks.

All this must be said because one cannot but admire these men who lived the rigors of a regular life with a deep spirit, more suited to orders of strict and reformed observance than to Clerics Regular and schoolteachers at the same time. The direct influence of the Carmelites of la Scala, whom he admired, and the Franciscan spirit can be seen in Calasanz’s view of extreme poverty, which is harsher and more severe than that of the same Franciscans and Carmelites.

Thus Fr. Berro describes the clothing: “a black cassock that reached to the feet, with a single opening in the chest, closed with wooden buttons, and a cloak that reached to the knees, of the same black cloth and so coarse that it was frightening, for it was of the kind from which the blankets for horses are made; with bare feet and closed sandals, although after a few days they wore them open, i.e. sandals “apostolic style”; at first shirtless, but then on medical advice (because of the vitriol) they wore a very thick and coarse linen shirt, and finally, after a while, they put on woolen shirts.”[2026]

2026 BERRO I, p.91-92.

On the whole, the habit does not seem to differ from that of the secular clergy, except in its extreme coarseness, as Calasanz says in his Summaries of which we have spoken: “The dress - he says in the first of them - is of black cloth with mantle and cassock like that of the priests, and it is the worst that can be found, they wear the shirt of serge or twill, barefoot with sandals.” And in the other three summaries, he is even more precise: “And this poverty corresponds to the dress, which is made of black fabric, as the priests usually wear, but the most abominable thing you can find, they wear woolen shirts and open shoes with bare feet.”[2027] And this extreme rudeness was perhaps the hallmark not only in comparison to the secular clergy, but also to other religious, as Calasanz explicitly acknowledges in a memorandum from this period of the Pauline Congregation.[2028]

2027 Cf. C. VILÁ, Cuatro sumarios de la Congregación Paulina: Archivum 17 (1985) 68.

2028 The proliferation of religious Orders creates confusion in the Church, he will be told when he asks that the Pauline Congregation be elevated to an Order. And he will reply: “Much less there is danger of any confusion because if it is compared with other religions, it can either arise from the habit, and this is already distinct, or from the Institute, and this is very distinct....” (cf. G. GARCÍA-DURÁN, Itinerario..., p.175).

How far had this man, who arrived in Rome with the appearance of a conqueror of canonries and wearing silk cassocks “in the Spanish style”[2029], progressed on the path of the spirit! The detail was given by a woman in his beatification process, but he himself also resorted to silk to emphasize the contempt for the vanities of Glicerio Landriani when he declared in his corresponding process, perhaps without realizing that what he said about the abbot also applied to himself: “While in Rome in the house of Msgr. Fabrizio, his own brother, with silken garments and worldly honors, he abandoned - touched by the Holy Spirit - all the comforts he previously possessed and gave himself up to a life so mortifying and exemplary, exchanging the silken garments for other very poor ones.”[2030]

2029 In January 1652, Victoria Gracchi, wife of a former student of Calasanz, declared in the Ordinary Process: “although at that time, as far as they told me, said Father Gioseppe was not even religious, but he was dressed in long silk Spanish-style” (ProcIn, p.394; cf. in A. GARCÍA-DURÁN, o.c., p.58, n.377). From his time in Urgel it is also recorded that he wore silk, as can be seen in these notes by Janer: “Sir Calasanz, on the present day, took what is written down: First, 2 dozen and a half of black botons... eight dines of snap fasteners…three spams of black brocade… 4 canes of balck thread... two canes of braid... half fourth of black silk. One sou 4 denarii. I say XVI sous. (And he signs it Calasanz) Ita est Josephus Calasanz” (April 8, 1588); “twenty-seven sous for... Sir Calesans for shoes “ (June 11, 1588); “Sir Juseph Calesans owes three sous, and they are for six spams of dark silk...” (June 13, 1588) (cf. P. PUJOL I TUBAU, Noves dades..., appendix V).

2030 Cit. in A. GARCÍA-DURÁN, 1.c. Dressing in silk was a luxury for the clergy, and Clement VIII wanted to stop it in his court, as Pastor notes: “he exhorted his relatives to be noted for their modesty and exemplary life. In particular, he forbade them to wear silk dresses...” (PASTOR, o.c., vol. 23, p.58).

There was apparently someone among the old biographers who attributed the originality of the habit to Fr. Casani, and Fr. Jericó, who remembers this, denies it and says that “there is no basis... It is true that the Blessed Founder consulted his companions in everything he organized, among whom Ven. Peter (Casani) took the first place... … But above all, the idea of the habit and the seal of the Institute are said to have been revealed to Bl. Joseph by the Mother of God.”[2031] That is too much! It is most likely that some clues were given by Father Dominic de la Scala, from whom - according to Caputi - he received two other clues: the sandals on the bare feet and the change of the family name by the name of a saint, Our Lady, or one of the mysteries or similar.[2032] Both the one and the other did not happen on the same day of the habit, but some time later, as Berro wrote about the sandals. As for the surname, he continued to sign with the family name until April 15th, and five days later his new religious surname appeared for the first time in Latin: “Josepho a Matre Dei”; at the end of May, his first new signature in Italian: “Giuseppe della Madre di Dio”[2033]; on 8 September, 1617, he wrote to his friends, the Motes de Pont de Claverol, and it is the first new signature in Spanish that we know of: “Gioseppe de la M. de Dios que fue pleban de Ortoneda y official de Tremp”[2034] (Joseph of the Mother of God, who was parish priest of Ortoneda and official of Tremp); and on January 20, 1620, when he wrote to the pleban of Claverol, he signed in his mother tongue “Gioseppe de la Mare de Deu primer dit Calasanz.”[2035] (Joseph of the Mother of God, formerly called Calasanz).

2031 Cf. J. JERICÓ, Varones insignes... (Valencia 1751) p.189. Father Vilá affirms: “always it has been believed in the Pious Schools that [the habit] was devised by Casani” (PosCas. p.291). And he quotes BAU, BC, p.357, and JERICÓ, p.189. Bau does not even hint at the idea and attributes the initiative to Calasanz; Jericó begins the question by saying: “It has been the opinion of some...”, and furthermore, he denies it.

2032 “Fr. Dominic was the one who introduced to the Pious Schools the surname of the Saints to the Fathers.... He also introduced the shoes to the Apostolic style as worn by the discalced men of St. Theresa, of whom the V. Fr. Joseph was so much devoted” (cit. A. GARCÍA - DURÁN, o.c., p.159, n.702).

2033 In giving the list of the 15 dressed on March 25, 1617, he does not give them the name of religion, but that of family (cf. EGC II, p.172). In letters 11 and 12, of April 2 and 15, 1617, he signs himself: “Gioseppe Calasanz” (cf. C. 11 and 12), and on April 20 he is already named in Latin “Josepho a Matre Dei” in the first private profession of Fr. Casani, which is called “Petrus Nativitatis Matris Dei” (PosCas, p.320). In letter 13, of May 13, 1617, and from now on he will always sign: “Gioseppe della Madre di Dio” (cf. C.13).

2034 Cf. c.16.

2035 Cf. c.45. It is curious that when signing in Spanish and in Catalan he puts the name in Italian and the rest in the language corresponding to the text of the letter.

In the Summaries mentioned above, in addition to what refers to the educational task and the basic aspects of extreme poverty already seen in the founding Brief, Calasanz presents further details of the austerity of life and acts of prayer at that time in the Pauline Congregation, i.e. before the Constitutions were written. Here are some very important paragraphs from the first and most detailed summary.

“The said Fathers profess the greatest poverty, both in general and in particular... At table they have only a napkin without tablecloths; in bed a straw mattress without sheets with the necessary blankets. The clothes... Daily sustenance, though with some frugality, is sufficient for each person and consists of things that the poor normally eat; they live on alms, which they seek or bring to themselves out of love for God. In the time of harvest, they can provide for the whole year by raising it for charity, so as not to hinder the practice of the schools so much during the year. Every Monday, Wednesday and Friday afternoon they practice discipline together. On Friday morning they have the chapter of faults. On Sunday afternoon they have the conference and the chapter of mortifications for the following week. In the morning after getting up they have an hour of mental prayer together and in the afternoon half an hour before going to bed. In the morning, before eating, they make an examination of conscience and after the recreation they recite the Litany of the Blessed Virgin and the five psalms with their antiphons corresponding to the letters of her Holy Name. In the evening, before going to bed, they pray the Litany of the Saints, make an examination of conscience and, after the blessing of the Superior, go to rest for seven hours. There are also other mortifications which, for the sake of brevity, are not written down, but are all discretionary, according to each person’s abilities, and other spiritual exercises common among observant religious.[2036]

2036 Cf. A. GARCÍA-DURÁN, o.c., p.190-191. Father Vilá, extremely solicitous in attributing initiatives to Father Casani, writes: “A most valuable contribution to the Pauline Congregation on the part of the Servant of God (Casani) was the collection of prayers, which they already had in the Congregation of the Mother of God” (PosCas, p. 301). The three years of living together with the Calasanz group in San Pantaleo made the latter know the uses and customs of the former. Therefore, if some things, such as the prayers in common or part of them, were later accepted in the Pauline Congregation, it would not be Casani’s contribution, but the decision of Calasanz or of the whole group. On the other hand, in general, in the Pauline Congregation “the practices then current among the Regulars who were not obliged to chorus were adopted” (G. AUSENDA, Practicas de piedad y penitencia de la Orden escolapia: Escuelas Pías. Ser e Historia, p.371).

These mortifications were later detailed or codified in the Constitutions and are those imposed in the above-mentioned chapter on Sunday afternoon. And they were these:

“The ordinary mortifications will be: to kiss the feet of all the brethren; to remain kneeling in the middle of the dining hall with the hands behind the back; to eat under the table or at the door of the dining hall, whatever the superior permits; to eat on one’s knees or to discipline oneself in the middle of the dining hall or to flagellate oneself in the church at night; to eat at noon with bread and water; to wear a hair shirt or chain during the day; to wash the dishes in the kitchen; to clear the whole house of cobwebs; and other similar penalties which may be imposed according to the wisdom of the superior and the ability of the subjects.”[2037]

2037 CC, n.94.

As for fasting and abstinence, which were also codified in the Constitutions at the end of this period, this was the practice: in addition to what the Church prescribed for all the faithful, they fasted during Advent and on every Friday of the year “with bread and water only and a single course... and a little wine.” The same was done during the vigils of the 7 great feasts of the Virgin Mary: Purification, Annunciation, Visitation, Assumption, Nativity, Presentation, Immaculate Conception. But the preparatory fast for the Assumption began on the feast of St. Lawrence (5 days). They also fasted every Wednesday of the year and abstained from meat every Monday.[2038]

2038 CC, n.119-122.

All this evokes admiration and even astonishment today, but even then, as Berro writes, emphasizing the subsequent mortifications and austerities of the Founder: “All these who received the habit - March 15 of March 25 - united in the Lord and formed a congregation that lived with such fervor and example that they attracted the hearts of the entire Roman city and court and were esteemed as true servants of God and men of extreme poverty and penance. And among them all our Father Joseph of the Mother of God, Prefect and Founder of such a holy work, who, besides the rigors of his daily life and the fatigue of sweeping all the schools every night and preparing the compositions for the schools of grammar and bookkeeping... did not cease to strive for other achievements, for he used to clean the toilets and chamber pots of the healthy and the sick, and even the common toilets of the boys, with such modesty and care that he left everyone who saw him unexpectedly bewildered, as he took precautions not to be seen.”[2039] Victoria Gracchi also testified to the cleanliness of the boys’ toilets, adding an amusing anecdote that happened to her husband when he was a student of Fr. Joseph, when he visited him once because he was ill, as he used to do with all his pupils.[2040]

2039 BERRO I, p.92. By comparing the original we correct: “fatica di servo per tutte...”, for “fatica di scuopar tutte.” (toil to serve all...” for “toil to sweep all) Although Berro speaks of the first 15, logically he is referring to the whole group of the first years.

2040 “…I have heard from the Fathers of the Pious Schools that Father Joseph of the Mother of God visited the seven churches at night and before he went there he cleaned the common places where the pupils went” (ProcIn. p.393). Felix Piantanidi, husband of Victoria, being a pupil of the Pious Schools and being sick at home, “when Father Joseph came to visit him, he found him fainting on the chair after having given him an enema, and taking him in his arms with great charity he brought him to bed, and I have heard the Fathers say that he used to visit all his pupils when they were sick” (ibid., p.394). A son of Victoria Gracchi will be miraculously cured by a dying Calasanz.

Echoing the common mortifications mentioned above, Br. Francis Noberasco declared that since he was the cook, “Father Joseph, although he was the General, often came to the kitchen and helped me with the dishes and besides, since every week a priest came in turn to help the cook, he was very punctual and even when it was not his turn, he very often came to the kitchen to help me.”[2041] The saint was not afraid to exemplify these and others labors to exhort the lazy to do the same, as in this letter of July 18, 1637: “As for washing dishes, not only have I done it, who work no less than those who teach, but I have also gone begging in Rome with my saddlebags over my shoulder to beg bread and accompany the children, and I am still willing to do it, because the kingdom of God suffers violence and the violent are those who achieve it.”[2042]

2041 Ibid., p.357-358, cit. in A. GARCÍA - DURÁN, o.c., p.189, n.826. This Brother arrived at the house of San Pantaleón in 1632, when Calasanz was already seventy-five years old.

2042 C.2757.

It is curious that among the thousand things that Calasanz asks for in Rome, the house of Frascati has just opened - like a few old choir books, some copper pots, some clay pots, a few big candles, two or three brooms, the grammar of Alvarez-, also “some small saddlebags to bring the bread.”[2043] And I can think of other saddlebags that his friend Antoni Janer had sold him in Urgel for his apostolic journeys through the mountainous archpriesthoods of the Pyrenees. But they were made of chamois leather, and besides, they were not for begging for bread from door to door.

2043 C.9.

What Father Peter Casani was and what he was not

His departure from the Congregation was greatly regretted by the people of Lucca, who even described him as ungrateful, as Fr. Cioni said in a letter to the General: “The departure of Fr. Peter Casani is greatly regretted and it seems that he has greatly disappointed God and the benefits that the Congregation has granted him.”[2044] Indeed, he had been a personality there since the time of the founder, St. John Leonardi. Father Erra wrote these brief summary lines about him: “Father Casani did not leave the Congregation out of dissatisfaction, but out of a desire to live in that extreme poverty and rigor that was introduced from the beginning in the Pious Schools. He had lived among us for 23 years with great exemplary character and our community had honored him with the highest offices, even to the point of appointing him Rector and General Assistant....” And he completes the praise by recalling that in the Pious Schools he was “the first novice master, the first General Assistant, the first lecturer in theology, the first preacher and the first writer... He was also Provincial, General Procurator and General Visitator...”[2045] All this is true. And it is also true that all the appointments he received in the religious schools were given to him by the Founder, which shows the great esteem in which he held his personal gifts.

2044 The original expression is really pondererative: “é ben dispiacciuto assai la ritirata del P. Pietro Casani...”( It has been very disappointing that Fr. Peter Casani has withdrawn) (PosCas, p.253.The letter is dated March 11, 1617).

2045 C. ERRA, Cronache..., cit. in PosCas, p.1870.

In addition, only one thing was missing from this long list of offices and dignities: being General. And Calasanz, who at the age of eighty-four already considered himself too old, tried to entrust Father Casani of the authority and dignity of the Order by appointing him General Vicar. But Casani did not accept. The great admiration that the Founder of the Order felt for the holiness of his life finally prompted him to take the first steps towards the beatification process in 1647, the year of his death. His presence in this story is therefore unavoidable.

More recently, however, when his beatification process was resumed (1982), his personality was so exaggerated that not only were his virtues and spiritual gifts rightly considered, but also attempts were made to attribute to him such a leading role in the conception, foundation, characterization and development of the Pious Schools that the Founder himself was practically distorted and relegated to a second place. There is hardly an important problem in the entire long history, from the union with the Lucchesi to the death of Casani (1613-1647) - which preceded that of Calasanz by only a year and a half - in which the initiative, implementation and success are not attributed to Casani. And all this is all the more serious for historical truth, as the voluminous work brings together a huge and valuable collection of documents, many of which are still unpublished today and in which attempts are made to support the new theses or hypotheses with scientifically unacceptable criteria and methods.

In a critical work such as the present one, we can only refer to the main assertions, opinions and hypotheses regarding the Founder, St. Joseph of Calasanz, and his Institute, written in the work that which we have so often quoted in abbreviated form, Positio Casani,[2046] as we have done with the opinions of other ancient or modern authors, with the brief aim of clarifying the historical truth. Moreover, most of the personal opinions contrary to the traditional and universal historical view of the Piarist Order already appear in numerous writings by the same author, Fr. Claudio Vilá Palá, both before and after the publication of the Positio. Therefore, they cannot be excluded from the imperative of historical criticism. On the other hand, this is not the place to examine in detail each of the numerous dissenting assertions of the said author, nor all the arguments with which he defends them, since this has already been done satisfactorily in another appropriate publication.[2047] Some issues, however, have already been dealt with in the preceding pages, and others will come to the fore as the narrative progresses.

2046 We quote it thus: PosCas. Its full title can be found in the Bibliography.

2047 The commotion aroused by the said Positio, whose fundamental theses were already known before its publication even by previous writings of the author, decided the General of the Order and his Congregation, after consulting the other Major Superiors, to appoint an Official Commission, formed by eleven religious, the most specialized in Calasanctian questions, to examine the Positio carefully and to give a critical response on its method and content. And after a long year of work, a volume was published with this title: Comisión oficial “Pro Positione P. Casani”, nombrada especialmente por el Rmo. P. General. Juicio histórico-crítico sobre la “Positio super virtutibus” del P. Pedro Casani Sch. P. Con la aprobación de la Congregación General de la Orden de las Escuelas Pías (Salamanca 1983), 252 pages.

But among the many unfounded attributions of initiatives, successes and merits intended to glorify the figure of Casani, none surpasses the incredible claim that the true Founder of the Pauline Congregation of the Pious Schools was Casani and not Calasanz.[2048] He would have usurped the title of Founder after an alleged secret pact between the two[2049], with the connivance of all those who were “well informed” about this astonishing secret, including Popes Paul V and Gregory XV.[2050]

2048 “This is exactly our thesis, not a mere hypothesis. Casani believed he was destined to be the founder of the new congregation (Pauline) and in fact he was” (PosCas, p.227). “Founder of a new congregation. In view of the foregoing, we feel obliged to make it clear that “in fact” the founder of the religious congregation destined to take care of the Pious Schools as its principal mission was the Servant of God, Fr. Peter Casani; the genial creator of the work of the Pious Schools was, already in 1599, St. Joseph Calasanz... The thesis is new, since this has never been said among the present Piarists” (ibid., p.229). Neither among the old ones! “Concluding. From what has been said we have to conclude to consider Fr. Peter Casani as the true creator of the Piarist corporation as a religious corporation, to which the great Calasanz entrusted his Pious Schools as the main ministry of its members” (ibid., p.233).

2049 “Undoubtedly, -Vilá clarifies- there was a pact between the two: Calasanz would assume, by the will of Cardinal Giustiniani and the Pope, the responsibilities of the founder as endowed with qualities perhaps better suited to such a function...; Casani, in an example of unparalleled and certainly heroic humility, would disappear as ideator and founder and would remain in the humble sphere of the subjects, without ever claiming any right whatsoever...” (ibid., p.233). Calasanz, Casani, Guistiniani, Cobelluzzi and Paul V would have contributed to this incredible farce. Moreover, let us recall Casani’s long list of offices and dignities that kept him all his life so far from the pretended “humble sphere of the subdites”.

2050 “In the official documents of the Holy See,” Vilá continues, “neither Paul V nor Gregory XV ever gave Calasanz the title of Founder ... Both these Popes and the secretary of Breves, Cobelluzzi, knew well how and from whom the new congregation had arisen. Upon entering years later, that is, in 1623 (sic, for 1632), in the secretariat of Briefs, Maraldo, ignorant of the details of the events and based on the fact that Calasanz was commonly considered the founder, gave him this title without further ado on January 12, 1632. It is very curious: ... after 15 years he was given this title for the first time, since he was commonly considered as such; the well-informed never gave it to him” (ibid., 231). If Paul V and Gregory XV do not give him the title of Founder in their Briefs, perhaps it is simply because in the memorials or supplications with which he requested them, Calasanz had the humility not to mention it; while in this one of Urban VIII, the one who requested the Brief in the name of the whole Order was precisely Casani, so knowledgeable of the matter, and it began as follows: “Peter of the Nativity of the Virgin, first companion of Fr. Joseph of the Mother of God, Founder of the Religion of Clerics...”, and further down he reiterates: “the aforementioned Fr. Joseph, founder ...” (PosCas, p.841 ). But Vilá’s opening paragraph suggests by necessity serious questions. In fact, “if Paul V and Gregory XV, as well as Cobelluccio, knew well that Casani was the Founder and not Calasanz, they committed a historical injustice by not recognizing the merits of Casani. And for what very powerful reasons would two Popes conceal the truth from posterity and contemporaries? Who informed the said Popes and the Secretary of Briefs in such detail of “how and from whom the new congregation had arisen”? How was it possible to leave aside the true founder and put Calasanz in his place? Who, then, were “the well-informed” who never gave Calasanz the title of Founder? How did none of them come out on the right side of the truth, giving Casani what belonged to him? How can such a conspiracy of silence against the truth of the facts be admitted? These are very serious questions that would deserve an answer” (Juicio historico-critico sobre la Positio ..., p.21, and pp.9-35 in which the subject is expressly treated).

This whole nonsensical construct has more of science fiction than critical history. In fact, there is not a single document from the two protagonists Calasanz and Casani, from their closest collaborators and companions, from the dicasteries of the Roman Curia, from the early chroniclers or from other contemporaries that even once explicitly refer to Fr. Casani as the Founder. Nor is there a single explicit mention ascribing such a title to the said Father, neither in the nearly 5,000 edited letters of Calasanz nor in the thousands, also edited, that the Piarists and their relations wrote to him or to each other, filling more than 6,500 printed pages. And that is a lot of silence for such an important fact. A silence that, according to Vilá, amounts to a historical injustice: “Casani - he says - was the true creator and founder of the religious corporation destined to continue the work or institute of Pious Schools created by Calasanz... but history, or rather the biographers of Calasanz, have committed an injustice by concealing the fact that the creator of the corporation called the Pauline Congregation was the Servant of God Father Peter Casani.”[2051] But seen in this light, the biographers are not to blame; all the blame falls on Calasanz, Casani, the popes and all the others, “the well-informed” of the secret pact, who hid it from posterity and history with a zeal worthy of a better cause. And not only did they conceal it, they also lied every time they bestowed the title of Founder on Calasanz, and there were quite a few of them.[2052]

2051 PosCas, p.1439.

2052 The series of quotations from all ‘the well-informed’ on the subject would be endless. Suffice these few: ‘Calasan writes on September 28, 1647 to Fr. Grien: “If I had first had a report of this fact, as I have had through this last letter from Your Reverence, I would have written to you as Founder of the Religion that as soon as possible you should dispose of the said goods....” (c.4490). Of Casani see n.2050 above. From Castelli, another of his close collaborators, are these words: “I knew Fr. Joseph while he was a Secular Priest and I know that he instituted our Religion of the Pious Schools. ...” (ProIn, p.446). There are two long writings of Castelli, entitled: “Giustificatione del Governo del Fondatore e Compagni” (Justification of the Government of the Founder and Companions) and “Difesa del Governo del Fondatore e Compagni delle Scuole Pie” (Defense of the Government of the Founder and Companions of the Pious Schools), in which the title of ‘Fondatore’ is applied to Calasanz. Fr. Vila tells that the second one was a work “of F. Castelli and in which perhaps Fr. Casani co-worked” (PosCas, p.1414), and in this writing Calasanz is called Founder twice, in addition to the title. Berro, as a result of the appointment of General for life given by Urban VIII to the “dilectum filium Josephum a Matre Dei, eiusdem congregationis fundatorem” (PosCas, p.862), he writes: “The Fathers had no difficulty whatsoever in receiving him as such, as we had always done in the past, since we had always held him as our superior and Founder. “ (PosCas, p.810), etc.

This whole absurd thesis is based on an obscure sentence by Father Cioni in a letter to Bernardini dated March 11, 1617, in which he says: “I fear he [Father Casani] wants to remain confused thinking he must do a new congregation; God help him. I have told him my opinion; let him do what he wants.”[2053] Vilá comments at the bottom of the page: “We have here the clear and emphatic assertion that Fr. Peter Casani is the “founder of the new Congregation” It seems certain that Fr. Peter Casani himself informed him of this directly.”[2054]

2053 Literally: “I fear that he wants to be confused by considering he has to make a new congregation; God help him. I have written my soul; as you like” (PosCas, p.253).

2054 Ibid., n.76.

To tell the truth, what is most clear and convincing is the fear that he might be confused, that is, that what he is thinking might end to fail. And it is not so clear what he actually intends to do. On March 6, the Brief founding the Pauline Congregation was signed, but when Cioni wrote this letter on March 11, he did not know that this “new Congregation” already existed. However, he knows that they are in the process of founding it, because Casani has told him so. But Cioni apparently distrusts that they can do it, since it is difficult to found new Congregations. That seems to be the most logical interpretation. But even assuming that Casani was actually thinking of starting a new congregation, Cioni fears that he might succeed in his attempt; however, it is by no means claimed that he actually founded it. In other words, he may have thought about it and wanted to be a founder, but it does not follow that he was one. The illogical connection becomes even clearer in this other expression: “Casani believed that he was destined to be the founder of the new Congregation, and he actually was.”[2055] So, everything remained a dream, if he had one, because all the written documents clearly prove that the true founder of the new Congregation was St. Joseph Calasanz.

2055 Ibid., p.227.

Another piece of evidence - the second important one that Vilá cites - is the fact that Casani wrote some Constitutions for a future congregation. “Casani - he says - wrote the Constitutions Pussilli gregis idea, and in them he writes as an authentic and indisputable founder, “tanquam auctoritatem habens”, and not as a delegate of Calasanz, and this before the letter of March 6, 1617. Even Father George Sántha suspected this possibility, that it was actually Father Peter Casani who thought of founding a new congregation.”[2056]

2056 Ib., p.230. The text of Sántha is the following: “Auctor (of Pussilli gregis idea) loquitur tamquam auctoritatem habens et fundator, personam gerens, uti putamus, Calasanctii. Ast non videtur omnino excludenda hypothesis, iuxta quam in difficili illo tempore quod erectionem Congregationis Paulinae... immediate praecessit... ipse P. Casani quodam modo consilium cepit hanc religionem cum ministerio principali scholarum piarum condendi” (G. SÁNTHA, Pussilli gregis idea. Textus et commentaria: Archivum 3 [1978], 91, n.9).

Sántha’s hypotheses are really twofold: that Casani wrote his Constitutions for the Pauline Congregation in the name of its founder Calasanz, or that he himself thought of being the founder and therefore wrote them in his own name. Since in both cases it is a code of law, it is logical that he would command and order with authority as if he were the founder. But by good logic, one cannot conclude that he was. Just as those who write a papal encyclical will speak as if they were the pope himself. Sántha remains with a mere hypothesis that Casani was thinking of founding it. It is therefore unacceptable to move from this mere hypothesis to this assertion: Sántha “assumes that Casani can rightly be considered the founder of the new Congregation.”[2057] But even less acceptable is Vilá’s final personal conclusion: “This is precisely our thesis, not a mere hypothesis, Casani believed he was destined to be the founder of the new Congregation, and he was indeed the founder.”[2058]

2057 PosCas, p.227. Note the attenuating nuance of the previous text: the hypothesis that Casani in a certain way thought of founding does not seem totally disposable. From here to say that he could rightly be considered the founder there is an abyss.

2058 PosCas, p.227.

One could perhaps argue with some justification that Casani could be granted a transcendence comparable to that of the Founder himself, if his work Pussilli gregis idea had been accepted as the Constitutions of the new Congregation, or if ultimately the influence he had on the Constitutions written by Calasanz and approved by Gregory XV was clear and abundant. But Vilá himself states categorically: “We rule out that he had any influence on the drafting of Calasanz’s Constitutions for the Pauline Congregation: Calasanz never knew this writing by Fr. Casani; it is only natural that he never showed it to Calasanz when he saw that Calasanz, contrary to expectations, decided to wear the habit.”[2059] So what kind of founder was he? What is certain is that it was a blessing for the Pious Schools that Casani kept his constitutions secret and thus freed the new congregation from his utopias, rigorism, eccentricities and ridicule.[2060]

2059 Ibid., p.228, Sántha supposes that Casani composed his work in the years 1617-1620, but it was never diffused among the Piarists, not even as a manuscript, because when the Constitutions of Calasanz were approved, it no longer had any meaning. It remained ignored until 1908 when first time was spoken of it with a certain attention by Fr. F. Rolletta in his Commentario della vita del Ven. Servo di Dio P. Pietro Casani delle Scuole Pie (Rome 1908), p.60-68 (cf.G. SÁNTHA, o.c., p.89, n.5). The purpose of Casani’s work remains enigmatic. Most likely he composed it during the period when the famous “formula of concord” was being discussed between the Diet of the Lucchesi on the one hand and Calasanz-Giustiniani on the other. In that “formula” there was talk of making new constitutions; for the Lucca congregation that they wanted to profoundly reform by accepting the Pious Schools as their main ministry. But if we compare it with the formula approved on January 20, 1616, we see that he does not take it into account, since it contradicts many of his assumptions. Therefore, these constitutions could not be useful for the reformed Congregation of Lucca. Nor could they serve for the Pauline Congregation, since he does not take into account the provisions of the founding Brief. For what congregation, then, were they made?

2060 See the text and comments on the Pussilli gregis idea, in the posthumous study of Sántha, cited in n. 2056 above. Another edition of Vilá’s text and comments in PosCas, p.226-229 and 1442-1484; response to these comments in Juicio histórico-crítico..., p.224-232. These quotes are examples: the name of the congregation is Little flock (Pussillus grex); that of the religious, poor (pauperes); that of the houses, fold (ovile); that of the local superior, most poor (pauperrimus); that of the Provincial, Beggar (Mendicus), and that of the General, Greatest beggar (Mendicissimus). The religious live in hovels or huts, made of straw, wicker or something similar, with wooden floor a little raised from the ground; some common dependencies would be made of stone, brick and lime. The dining room would be a large hovel in which there would be neither tables nor chairs, and they would sit in the floor, leaning against the wall. They would sleep on mats, etc. Incredible! All this makes us think of the monks of Theibad and not of religious of active life in the middle of the 17th century.

The novitiate, the novices and their master

From March 25, 1617, the fifteen who had donned the new habit were novices. According to the foundational Brief, the duration of the novitiate was to be two years. At the beginning, they all continued to live in San Pantaleo and Frascati. The novitiate in Trevi had remained in the hands of the Lucchesi, who had acquired it before the union with the Pious Schools. It was therefore necessary to find a new house that was quieter and more suitable than that of San Pantaleo, which was overcrowded with children and teachers. Thus, towards the middle of the year, a new house was acquired on the slope of Mount Janiculum, near the church of San Onofrio, but at the beginning of the following year, the novitiate was moved near the church of Santa Maria in Via, in Trevi district. In June 1620, another transfer took place, back to San Onofrio, near the first residence, and there it remained until 1623, when the house had to be sold under pressure from the Jeromite Fathers of the San Onofrio monastery and another was acquired near Quattro Fontane, in the Quirinal, also known as Montecavallo, at the end of 1623.[2061]

2061 Cf. L. PICANYOL, Brevis conspectus..., p.89; BAU, BC, p.751-754; PosCas, p.295.

The founder appointed Father Casani as the first novice master. He was undoubtedly the most suitable, not only because he was the only priest in the whole group apart from Father Prefect, but above all because of his long experience of twenty-three years of religious life in the Congregation of Lucca and because of his undeniable spirit of piety and asceticism. Nevertheless, if we believe what Fr. Jericó writes, “since the Institute did not yet have Constitutions, since the living rules were the example of Blessed Joseph and all the others, and the Venerable Peter distrusted himself, he asked the Blessed Father to give him some maxims prescribing what he should teach the novices while he was forming the Constitutions. The Servant of God reduced them to ten points, which I would like to list here because they contain the highest points of religious perfection:

1. That the novice of the Pious Institute is considered and desires to be considered as the most base and contemptible of men, and that he is not worthy of any favor except to understand how to do the will of God.

2. That, being fully conformed to Christ crucified, he absolutely rejects all consolation, and makes his sorrows and troubles very familiar to himself, without seeking relief in adversity.

3. That he is afflicted only by the faults he has committed and the good works he has omitted, and that for the satisfaction of the one or the other he greatly loves the troubles, pains, and sufferings which justly punish and warn him.

4. He is to renounce all ideas of his own will, to leave all to the Lord’s disposal, and to place himself wholly in the hands of him who rules and governs him in his name, conforming himself to Jesus, obedient unto death.

5. He should have compassion on those who sin and do wrong, and therefore not condemn them, but mourn more for the spiritual suffering of his brother than for his own physical suffering, however great it may be.

6. That he should behave towards his brothers like a loving mother towards her dear children, who is deeply saddened by his poor state, and all the more the greater he be.

7. That he rejoices when his brothers progress and advance in the true virtues, generously emulating their zeal and following perfectly in their footsteps.

8. That he be very even in love to his brethren, imitating the sun, which does good to the good and the bad alike, as Christ taught in the Gospel.

9. That in all that he thinks and performs he has the glory of God as his aim, and that his thoughts and works are directly directed to the service of the Lord and the benefit of those who are close to him.

10. He should often reflect on the divine benefits and be especially grateful to the Lord for the immeasurable benefits of the sublime Sacrament of the Altar.[2062]
2062 Cf. J. JERICÓ, Varones insignes, p. 190-191. In presenting them C. Vilá says that “Latin version is that of Fr. B. Bartlik in his Annales” (PosCas, p.338). But it is not precisely the same text, although it is quite similar. See, for example, n. 8: “Nihil praeter Deum diligat, nec diligat aliquem amore aliquo particulari, sed communi”; or n. 10: “Dei beneficia crebro recogitet, ac praecipue quod eum voluerit sua immagine insignire, naturamque hominis assumere ac semetipsum in mortem tradere, in praesenti vita se in cibum ibi vero in praemium tradere ac exhibere.” Of these sentences Bartlik says: “Hucusque Regulae P. Praefecti, quas ex Thoma Kempensi collectas dicit Fr. Gabriel ab Annuntiatione” (EphCal 3 [1937] 75-77). The difference in text depends perhaps on the reduction or accommodation to the novices, operated by Casani, according to Jericó. In fact, Bartlik’s text begins his n. 1 thus: “Studeat servus Dei...”, and Jericó’s: “That the Novice of the Pious Institute may have...”

It is very significant that the master of the novices - the experienced religious Casani - asks the Founder for guidelines for spiritual formation and that these norms are considered by Jericó to be “the highest of religious perfection”.[2063]

2063 However, Vilá writes elsewhere: “Calasanz, in the first 5 years, contributed nothing to the formation of a spirituality characteristic of the Pious School: the constitutions written by him were not implemented until 1622 and they took up the spirituality contributed by Casani, symbolized in the set of prayers that are the same as those of the congregation of Lucca” (PosCas, p.872, n.95). The author has just assured us that the Constitutions of Casani did not have any influence on those of Calasanz, since he never showed them to him (cf. text corresponding to n.2059 above). And if the spirituality is symbolized by the prayers and these are those of the Lucca congregation, where is the influence of Casani? But if we have already read that Vilá denies that Calasanz is the true Founder, and that he did not contribute any element to the new congregation at the moment of its creation, since the whole group, with the exception of Calasanz, was Casani’s personal conquest, it cannot surprise us that he did not contribute anything to the formation of its spirituality either (see the topic extensively treated in Juicio histórico-crítico... p.51-65).

The novice master went to the novitiate of San Onofrio with a reduced group, apparently including none of those who had dressed on March 25 and who had to stay in San Pantaleo and even in Frascati to attend to their school or domestic duties in order to avoid unnecessary disturbances and absences. The group was made up of those who had received the habit after this date until the novitiate house was consecrated, with an increase in the number of those who were newly clothed. Thus, by the end of 1617 there were eleven novices, including two priests, six clerics and three brothers. And among these eleven were some whose fame would endure through the centuries for the holiness of their lives and for their outstanding role in the leadership of the Order. These were: Paul Ottonelli and Francis Castelli, both priests and of noble family, future General Assistants; Glicerio Landriani, whom we already know; John Macari, working brother, venerable among venerable men[2064]; John Paul Cananea, cleric, no less venerable than the previous one and both highly esteemed by the founder; Stephen Cherubini, of fateful memory, antagonist of the saint in the final drama of this long history.[2065]

2064 In 1644 Calasanz wrote to Fr. Apa: “…you ask me for the list of some of our Fathers, who died with the opinion of holiness, of whom for now I send you the names of four, who were among the first, that is: Fr. Thomas (Victoria)... The second, Br. Lawrence (Santilli)... The third and first of brothers, Giovanni (Macari) of St. Charles, that for the greatest devotion to the passion of Christ was called of the Passion...” (C.4238). And in C.4242 he weaves a brief eulogy of each of them.

2065 Among the other five I am pleased to remember by simple personal homonymy the cleric Francis Giner (Ginerium) of St. Mary of the Snows, of Reggio Calabria, who died before finishing the novitiate, at the age of thirty (cf. Liber Congr. Paul., p.6-8). Fr. Baldi, who was dressed on March 25, 1617, in his unpublished La víta del p. abbate Glicerio Landriani, written in 1645, remembers: “Together with three or four novices, he (Glicerio) began under the care of Fr. Peter (Casani) of the Nativity of the Virgin to give himself some form to the novitiate, which by way of provision was begun in a small house located in the slope of S. Onofrio on 7th July” (cit. in PosCas, p.296, n.21). Landriani was dressed, in fact, on July 2nd and from March 25th they were dressed only four: Paul Ottonelli, Francis Castelli, the Lucchese Antony Iacomini and the brother Augustine Mazza (cf. Liber Congr. Paul., p.6-7). Then Baldi is accurate. Bartlik cites five among the first, for he adds, to Baldi’s four, Esteban Cherubini, who was dressed the 19th Nov. (cf. B. BARTLIK, Annales: EphCal 5 [1936] 160-161).

In the almost five years that the Pauline Congregation existed, that is, from March 6, 1617 to November 8, 1621, when it was elevated to the Order of Solemn Vows, 18 priests, 75 clerics and 60 brothers wore the piarist cassock, 153 in all. Of these, 10 priests, 42 clerics and 24 brothers died or left the habit before their solemn vows, making a total of 76. Therefore, 8 priests, 33 clerics and 36 brothers remained in their vocation, making a total of 77 religious.[2066] The perseverance rate was therefore fifty percent. We cannot draw any valid conclusions as to whether it was high or not, as we have no statistics on the subject.

2066 Cf. Liber Congr. Paul., p.6-28.

What we can deduce from this is, on the one hand, that there were efficient selection criteria and, on the other, that the observance, rigor and spiritual trials to which the novices were subjected were not bearable for everyone. The person who contributed most to the creation of norms and customs was undoubtedly the first novice master Casani, even if he only held the post for one long year, as he left Rome in October 1618 to found the school of Narni. But it was a fruitful year, so that his full dedication to the formation of the novices, far from the hectic pace and school work of San Pantaleo, gave him time and a favorable environment to write - it seems - some Rules for Novices (clerics) and even some Common Rules for the whole Congregation, both revised by the Founder himself.

However, it is not certain that both works were written by Casani. In the case of the Rules for the Novices, there seems to be a double tradition attributing them to Calasanz and Casani.[2067] The Common Rules were only practiced, if at all, until January 1622, when the Constitutions of Calasanz were approved by the Pope. But there is no shortage of evidence that there were no fixed Common Rules in those years.[2068] It seems more likely that the Rules for novices were Casani’s instrument and program for his task of spiritual-religious formation. And this hypothesis is supported by the ideological parallelism with the Constitutions of the Congregation of Lucca, which he was involved in drafting.[2069]

2067 In the Process of Beatification of Calasanz, when in 1717 it was a question of the revision of his writings, among those that were expressly requested because they were believed to be his, were the Rules of Novices. It was answered that it was not sure that were from the Founder, since the tradition attributed them to Casani (cf. S. GINER, El Proceso de Beatificacion..., p.170). Nevertheless, they were revised (ibid., p.293). In 1845, when published for the first time in Genoa, they were entitled Regole per li novizi delle Scuole Pie proposte da S. Giuseppe Calasanzio...; this edition was translated into Spanish in 1898, having “the original from the Holy Patriarch.” There were other previous editions, at least since 1856, but nothing is said of their author (cf. PosCas, p.312, n.28 and 29).

2068 Father Baldi, a witness of the time, writes in the aforementioned Life of Glicerio Landriani: “I, being a present witness, can asseverate with what tightness it was lived in that time, when not existing particular rules that would containe with discreet brake the ardent fervor of the new Religion, the style of life was according to persons eager to suffer in extreme degree...” (RegServ, 39, p.49). The long study or analysis that Vilá makes of both works in the Positio does not satisfactorily clarify the problem of authorship (cf. PosCas, p.311-338).

2069 Cf. PosCas, p.315.

It would be unfair to judge the characteristic atmosphere of the novitiate by the capricious extravagances to which the masters resorted with the clear aim of creating in the novices a sense of humility and self-contempt, the root of all imitation of Christ, “who humbled himself”. The “tests” of the novitiate went beyond the limits of rationality and common sense and were based on an absurd concept of obedience that, in a way, brought man closer to the unfathomable abyss of the mystery of a humiliated, despised and obedient-to-death God. And this kind of “cult of the absurd” had its roots in the customs of ascetics in the desert who, out of obedience, planted cabbages upside down, with the roots pointing upwards, or used wicker baskets to collect water. Customs or “proofs” which, with their innovations and refinements, were passed on from century to century, within such indeterminate limits as the codified norm that there is an obligation of obedience for ‘everything that is not sin’.

And Father Casani - and his immediate successors - sharpened their wits to order their novices to do such strange things as the following, which Berro reminds us of: “...he had two others go through Rome, one on a donkey, backwards, his tail between his hands instead of the bridle, and the other on a leash, down the road of Banchi... He sent the former Captain Ottonelli a napkin with crumbs of bread and a bowl of boiled chickpeas to go with a companion to the steps of St. Peter’s Basilica in the Vatican on a Friday in March and invite the poor to eat with them in front of the many people who were visiting the basilica at the time. He sent others with a huge carafe to buy wine. First they should ask for the carafe to be cleaned, then they asked to be allowed to taste all the barrels in the store without saying how much they wanted until they had tasted them all, which they did. And when they told the wine merchant that they only wanted half a liter of one such barrel...” imagine the shopkeeper’s fury! And he continues: “When they paid him, they put a Spanish doubloon in his hand and asked him to give them back the remaining amount in a certain currency...” He did, but with a second string of expletives! He continues, “When he got home with the wine and the change, Father Casani tasted the wine, but I do not know what he found wrong with it, and sent them back to the store, telling them to keep the wine and give him back the doubloon...” The shopkeeper’s third reaction was to threaten to smash their heads in with the decanter, throw the doubloon on the floor and throw them out into the street. “Those two,” said Berro, “ were Father Castelli and Abbot Landriani, novices.” Castelli said the story to Berro. The anecdote ends with the clarification that the wine merchant had been forewarned by Father Master.[2070]

2070 BERRO I, p.93-94. See other examples of the period in which Casani was Master of Novices in Savona, in ibid., p.120-122.

The death of a hope

Perhaps the hope that the old Calasanz placed in the young Glicerio as the continuator of his work was never very firm. Ever since he arrived at the Pious Schools in May 1612, sent rather than recommended by Father Domingo Ruzola, it was known that the Carmelite did not want to accept him into his order because of his poor health.[2071] After all, the Pious Schools were not yet a Congregation with vows and Glicerio’s life and activities could develop with a freedom of movement and disposal of his own goods that he could not enjoy within the narrow confines of the Carmelite reform. Nor could the possibility - or the miracle - that his precarious health would be strengthened be ruled out. But this did not happen.

2071 In a letter of November 6, 1611 to Cardinal Frederik Borromeo Glicerio tells him: “I tried to enter the dilcaced Carmelites; the priests prevented me from doing so because of the health” (EC, p.1634).

What is certain is that Glicerio himself took no account of himself and devoted himself to a life of strange mortifications that gradually sapped the strength of his already weakened youth. And when there was no cure left, “in his last illness... -Berro writes: “When he saw that he had reached death with his excessive mortifications, at the end of his youth - he was 30 years old - and doubted that he had thereby prevented the greater glory of the Lord, he asked God for forgiveness for the harshness with which he had treated his body, although he was striving for virtue and wanted to please his Divine Majesty.”[2072]

2072 V. BERRO, Vita del Servo di Dio Glicerio di Christo: Archivum 11 (1982) 45.

Even in the final touch of supernaturalism, one can perceive a very human feeling in seeing his health collapse at the age of thirty due to rampant phthisis. This sad memory of Berro finds a similar expression in the pen of Father Baldi, who knew Glicerio personally and recounts in his life, with a touch of deep melancholy, that one day, when he was already ill, he was ordered by the Master Father Casani to go out, to get some air in the direction of Montecavallo and go to the ruined church of San Giacomo, on whose walls there was a well-preserved image of Our Lady, and ask her to tell him if he was cured of his illness, as at that time it looked as if he was getting better. “He went away, in obedience to his spiritual father, and when he returned home, he told him secretly that it had been revealed to him inwardly that he would very soon die of this illness. While the recreation time, Glicerio remained silent and looked at a cross. And the master of the novices, seeing him so mute, asked him if he needed anything. He replied that he did not need anything. And Baldi comments: “He knew very well what was about to happen and that he had reached the end of his days, but in order not to sadden the assembly, he kept silent, and with his silence he better showed the hidden graces that God had granted him.”[2073]

2073 F. BALDI, La vita del p. abbate Glicerio Landriani, cit. in PosCas., p.296, n.21.

He was an exceptional catechist inside and outside the Pious Schools, much admired in a Rome that had barely more than 100,000 inhabitants.[2074] And this genuine passion for catechetical work meant that he was greatly appreciated by Calasanz as a very useful collaborator in his Pious Schools. But his deep esteem and admiration for “Father Abate”, as he called him, must have arisen above all from that kind of supernatural intuition or mysterious relationship that arises among the saints. And Calasanz had no qualms about announcing that Abbé Glicerio died “in the opinion of holiness”,” and he remembered exactly to the hour of his death: “on February 15, 1618 at 6 o´ clock in the night”[2075]

2074 Cf. L. PICANYOL, Un apostolo della dottrina cristiana in Roma. II Ven. Clicerio Landriani delle Scuole Pie: Rass 3 (1938) 3-17; C. VILÁ, Glicerio Landriani, catequista: EphCal 11 (1981) 389-434.

2075 EGC II, p.171. Today time is 0:20 a.m. (cf. R. GARCÍA VILLOSLADA, Storia del Collegio Romano, p.85), that is, 0:30 a.m. on February 15th.

In 1620, at the Founder’s request, the beatification process was initiated, in which he himself testified as a witness and filled twenty-four pages of the summary with his explanations. Here are two succinct judgments: His life “was so exemplary that all who knew him, both during his life and after his death, considered and appreciated him as an extraordinary servant of God, because he did extraordinary things in the service of God and in contempt of himself, and I have always considered him as such.” “In summary, it can be said that in the said Father Abbé, as in a great servant of God, all the virtues that make a man perfect in the eyes of the Lord were united to a heroic degree, wasting neither time nor opportunity to exalt the glory of God and the benefit of his neighbor.”[2076]

2076 RegServ, 41, f.42r-44v.

It should be remembered that Calasanz took him to Frascati to found the Pious Schools and that he also left the fame of his holiness and his miracles there. Among them, Calasanz mentions the following in his processal statement, which is as beautiful and moving as the page of the Gospel he spontaneously evokes:

“There was another woman - he has just related what happened to a woman, also in Frascati - who had been abandoned by her husband three or four years ago because of her long and fetid illness, and feeling very distressed and in need, she wanted to speak to the said Father Abbé, because she revered him very much and he was esteemed as a saint by everyone in Frascati; and not knowing how to go about it, her mother warned her, saying: ‘Now this holy man is coming and will pass by our door.’ Thereupon the sick woman went out of the house as best she could as soon as Father Abbé had passed, touched him on the back, and returned home with such comfort and joy that she immediately felt much better, and was very soon completely cured, without having to take any other medicine.”[2077]

2077 Ib., f.43v.

There was another mysterious fact that Calasanz did not speak about in his long explanation, perhaps because he could not swear that it was really Glicerio and could be accused of being the fruit of his imagination or his dreams. However, there is no doubt that he revealed it to others, as he was the only witness. Berro had it written twice: the first time in his Life of Glycerio, which he had already completed in February 1644, for on the 15th of that month, the anniversary of the Venerable’s death, it was read out in the public dining room of the two schools of Naples. The unpleasant incident that occurred later was brought to Calasanz’s attention.[2078] And it is very likely that he felt the desire to read Berro’s little work, especially because it was about his beloved Father Abbé. And that is what he was able to read:

2078 In August 1644 there was a complaint to the Inquisition, which required a copy of the work, in case it went against the decrees of Urban VIII concerning Beatification and Canonization. Fearful of the consequences, Berro informed Calasanz on August 28, 1644 and he in a letter of September 3rd reassured him, saying: “non mi par che sia cosa di consideratione” (it does not seem to me that it is a thing of consideration) (c.4219; C. VILÁ, Vita del Servo del Servo di Dio Glícerio di Christo. Work of Fr. Berro. Introduction and commentaries: Archivum II (1982) 1-2).

“At the very hour when he (Glycerio) died, while Father General was lying in bed in the Pious Schools of San Pantaleo, although he was wide awake, he heard a knock at the door two or three times; each time he answered Deo gratias, open up, but when he saw that they were knocking and not opening, the thought occurred to him that it might be the Abbot going to heaven, and since he had always been very obedient in life, he did not want to leave this world without his blessing. So, he said, “God bless you, go and pray for me,” and there was no more knocking at the door. After a short time, two people from the novitiate came and brought the news of the happy death of the Servant of God.”[2079]

2079 Cf. C. Vila, o.c., p.47-48.

It is not recorded anywhere that he contradicted this “revelation” after reading it, because Berro himself recalled the scene again twenty years later in his Annotazioni, and he did not correct anything, but made it explicitly clear that it had been told to him by the Founder when he once spoke to him about Glicerio’s obedience and also put the story in the mouth of the Saint.[2080] The door he knocked on is still intact in its place. If only it would speak...!

2080 Cf. BERRO I, p. 168. Fr. Gabriel Bianchi in his Vita del Ven. Servo di Dio Gioseppe Calasantio, in 1681, again narrates the fact; but it seems that he writes by hearsay, with incongruities, since he tells that Glicerio died in Collegio Nazareno, founded in 1630. (RegCal. 91, p.47).

Foundation in Narni

No one has yet been able to explain satisfactorily - and I will not attempt todo so - why Paul V forbade the Pauline Congregation to move no further than twenty miles from Rome. And that in the founding Brief itself. But he did not attach too much importance to this clause, because the first time a foundation was offered after the Brief was issued was forty-two miles from Rome and the pope had no difficulty in approving it. It was in Narni, a picturesque little Umbrian village of about two thousand inhabitants, situated on a hill 140 meters above the plain of the river Nera that flows at its feet. It is a town with centuries of history and many monumental buildings that still give it a medieval appearance. Back then, it was the manorial estate of Cardinal Benedict Giustiniani. And he was the patron and protector of this foundation.

Strangely enough, the circumstances coincided with those of Frascati. In March 1618, when the municipal school of Narni was without a teacher, the government council decided, after many attempts to find a replacement, to turn to the “Paulines”, as the Piarists were called during the time of the Pauline Congregation.[2081] A commission took care of the procedure and in mid-March their Roman representative spoke with “their Father Prefect, the Founder of the said Religion, and with Father Rector (Casani)”, who accepted the offer and promised to send three or four of them to inform them personally about the needs and details of the foundation. They were willing to teach not only humanities and philology, but also theology, probably with the idea of maintaining a group of clerics there under the direction of Fr. Casani. They also said that they would live on alms “at the rate of 30 escudos per head, without owning anything. They would also hear confessions, preach and perform other spiritual exercises for the public benefit of the masses.”[2082]

2081 In this search for a teacher, the famous Jesuit Fr. Peter Caravita intervened, who offered them three Romans in February, (cf. PosCas, p.342, n.2).

2082 Cf. letter of March 17, 1618 from the agent in Rome to those of Narni (PosCas, p.358).

The twenty-mile clause was an obstacle, but Cardinal Giustiniani, as Lord of Narni and protector of the Pious Schools, took it upon himself to speak to the Pope about it, and on April 4th Calasanz wrote to them: “Cardinal Giustiniani, our protector, has obtained permission from our Lord (the Pope) for us to go there to serve you in the exercise of the schools.”[2083]

2083 Ibid., p.359. In this and other successive letters to the “Priori di Narni”, Calasanz speaks only of the “exercise of the schools”, without alluding to other ministries (cf. ibid., p.359-360), expressly mentioned in the letter of the previous footnote. This suggests to us the suspicion that whoever wrote it reflected ideas and promises typical of Casani and not of Calasanz, such as teaching Philology and Theology and exercising the ministries of confessing, preaching, etc. Calasanz’s mind was clearly contrary to those ministries (cf. many texts of Calasanz’s letters, in that sense, in Juicio histórico-crítico..., p.201-209). He even complains expressly of the attendance to processions, a practice introduced by Casani not only in Narni, but wherever he was (cf. c.591).

At the end of April, three emissaries from Calasanz arrived in Narni to inspect the place and they found the building they wanted to give them unsuitable for the schools. It was decided to house them in the so-called Palazzo Vecchio in Piazza dei Priori, which was adapted accordingly. The work for the accommodation, the permits and other formalities took several months. And finally, on October 20, 1618, Father Casani, as Rector, and eight other religious, more precisely “novices” as less than two years had passed since the vestiture, left Rome for Narni.[2084] And on November 15th, the solemn inauguration of the school and the course took place in the presence of the authorities and a large number of secular and regular clergy (Dominicans, Carmelites, Franciscans, Servites and Capuchins).

2084 Among the eight the following are known: Fr. Francis Baldi, Fr. Viviano Viviani, Fr. Lawrence Santilli, Fr. John Baptist Costantini and Br. Simon Castiglioncelli (cf. PosCas, p.345).

This was the first foundation of the Pauline Congregation outside Rome, which had already been constituted and was immediately followed by others. In order to adhere to clear and precise common criteria, the Founder drew up some brief norms that were to be observed in all foundations and in which the austerity, simplicity and poverty of the early days can be seen. We translate:

“About how the Pious Schools should be.

In order to introduce the work of the Fathers of Pious Schools, it is necessary that there should be at least twelve of them according to the papal Bulls, and in order that they may maintain religious observance, it is necessary that they should all be housed in a dormitory furnished according to the model of the Regulars, so that the superior may see the conduct of each one, and they may meet more easily at the hour of prayer, the chapter of faults and mortifications in the oratory or in a place provided for that purpose. In this dormitory there is a larger room for the oratory and another for the library or study, another room for the common wardrobe and three or four rooms for the sick.

Below the dormitory are the dining room, the kitchen, the pantry where the in-charge keeps his things, the woodshed and the laundry where the religious wash their own clothes. These things are never sufficiently available in houses for lay people.

This simple building was to be attached to a church that had already been built or was yet to be built, and a small space for a vegetable garden would also be necessary. The utensils and furnishings for such fathers are: a bed with a single mattress, a pillow and two blankets, a small table and a stool in each room; in the dining room they use only one napkin each time (no tablecloths), they eat meat three times a week, namely on Sunday, Tuesday and Thursday, if they are not prevented from doing so by the fast of the church.

The fathers usually provide themselves with necessities at harvest time by asking for them from private individuals who can give them, so that they have to live on money that they have begged themselves or brought free of charge from pious people. They can have no stable goods other than the adjoining orchard, and if anyone gives them goods, the community must take them and distribute them to other pious places, as the Fathers do not need them for their upkeep.

The schools for the boys may be near the residence of the Fathers, or they may be a little farther away, according to the convenience of the community.”[2085]

2085 EGC II, p.84-85. The document is written by Calasanz himself. It does not bear a date. Another hand put 1619, but it could be earlier, motivated by the foundation in Narni.

Other foundations of the Pauline Congregation

With the foundation of Narni, the twenty-mile fence was broken, but not abolished. Other towns began to ask for Pious Schools. The first was Mentana, a small village that gave its name to the famous Via Nomentana, very close to Monte Rotondo, fifteen miles (twenty-nine kilometers) from Rome. It was therefore not necessary to ask for an exemption from the twenty miles. It was founded at the request of Prince Peretti, a nephew of Pope Sixtus V and relative of Cardinal Alexander Peretti of Montalto (+ 1623), a great friend and benefactor of the Pious Schools, who probably supported his relative’s request. In a letter dated December 26, 1618, Calasanz spoke of this foundation being imminent and he thought of sending Father Francis Castelli as superior, accompanied by five others.[2086] But the foundation was very short-lived, as it lasted barely a year.[2087]

2086 Cf. C.30. Berro, however, says that the superior was the Spaniard Fr. Thomas Victoria (cf. BERRO I, p.94).

2087 Cf. L. PICANYOL, Brevis conspectus..., p.90; EGC II, p.79. It is not cited in J. B. Morandi’s Narratione del principio delle Scuole Pie et suo progresso (cf. Archivum 15 [1984] 8-9). Cardinal Montalto again asked for another foundation for his Abbey of Farfa in 1621, but it was not carried out (cf. c.90).

Equally short-lived was the presence of the Piarists in the diocesan seminary of Magliano, which Calasanz took over at the request of Giustiniani, to whom it was subordinate as Bishop of Sabina. It was only a tribute to the bishop’s many merits in relation to the Pious Schools, but this task did not fit in with the actual service of the institute. Calasanz therefore admitted him on the condition that he would only run the seminary for as long as the cardinal was its bishop.[2088] In fact, they left at the end of January 1621, when Cardinal Peter Aldobrandini was appointed local bishop[2089], having stayed there for “just over a year”.[2090] Berro reports that the superior was Francis Fabio Lamberti, “a religious endowed with all kinds of virtues and a faithful companion of Abbot Landriani”.[2091] He was accompanied by three others, including the former Jesuit Father Olderico Valmerana, who barely lasted a year with the Piarists.[2092] He must have been an excellent Latin scholar, because Berro says that “at the request of V. P. Joseph (Calasanz) he began to compose the entire Old Testament in verse, thinking that it could be used in the schools instead of Virgil, and two volumes of this work were published.”[2093]

2088 It also passed 20 miles. Much later the Saint was accused of having disobeyed the provisions of Paul V’s foundational Brief regarding the 20 miles, and Calasanz had to defend himself with this writing: “It is answered that the Fathers of the Pious Schools have not contravened the Brief of the Holiness of Paul V not to take houses beyond twenty miles from Rome, because if living the said Pope they went to make school in Narni it was with ‘beneplacito summi Pontificis’ obtained ‘vivae vocis oraculo’ from the Cardinal Giustiniano of good memory, Protector of the said Fathers, as it is written by his hand; and with order of the same Sig. Cardinal they went to Magliano in the Sabina to hold cure of the seminary with the condition to leave the said house always that said Lord Cardinal left the said diocese, that lasted for little more than a year and in time of said Pontificate of Paul V it was not taken other house beyond the twenty miles’” (RegCal 13, n.40 . The title bears the year 1637). Fr. Castelli, speaking of those of Narni and Carcare (EC, p.655), justified the said foundations; also Fr. Casani, saying that Paul V limited the foundations “within the space of twenty miles from Rome, restriction that was removed in short with vivae vocis oraculo made to cardinal Giustiniano, our Protector of the new Congregation, in vigor of which the place of Narni was taken and then that of Norcia” (EC, p.615-616). The attestation of Calasanz supposes that the prohibition persisted, in spite of the dispensations on a case-by-case basis. And this is confirmed, for when editing the first five papal Briefs in 1623 (cf. n.1995 above) he put a marginal note in this one of Paul V, commenting on the 20 miles and wrote: ”…et non ultra 20 milliaria ab Urbe voluit extendi. Hoc ultimum corrigitur infra, ut in 2 Bulla Gregorii XV” (RegGen 1). In this Bull, the Pauline Congregation was elevated to Order.

2089 In a letter of February 7, 1621, Calasanz writes from Narni: “the four that were in Magliano are now here (c.62).” Giustiniani was bishop of Sabina from September 16, 1615 to August 31, 1620 (cf. Hier. Cath., IV, p.38).

2090 Cf. n.2087 above. According to this text of Calasanz, they would arrive in Magliano at the end of 1619. In another text, however, it says that they arrived on June 21, 1620 (cf. Liber. Congr. Paul., p.46). In an account of foundations, we read that the one in Magliano was in 1618 (cf. RegCal 13, n.54).

2091 Cf. BERRO I, p.95-96.

2092 He dressed on February 2, 1620 and was dismissed “justis ex causis” on March 17, 1621 (cf. Liber Congr. Paul., p.23, n.117). He received it by order of Giustiniani (cf. C.392).

2093 BERRO I p.96; SÁNTHA, SJC, p.450.

While new foundations were being established more or less far away from Rome, the Pious Schools of St. Pantaleon took in more and more poor children, so that by 1619, according to Father Casani’s testimony, they had reached the incredible number of 1,500 children.[2094] There was no place for more. Concerned about the situation, Calasanz turns to the Congregation of Good Government of the city and emphasizes that it is a matter of taking care of the needs of the poor children, saying: “The fathers of the Pious Schools ... humbly point out the lack of space in the Pious Schools, which can barely accommodate a quarter of the poor pupils, and ask you, out of innate piety for the poor, to find a way to enlarge our schools so that the boys who are now excluded due to lack of space will not be disappointed and we will not be deprived of the merit of teaching them.”[2095] Perhaps this request reached the ears of the canon of St. Peter’s and Bishop of Alessano, Msgr. Sestilio Mazzucca, who was well acquainted with the work of the schools. When he saw that in the whole district called “il Borgo”, which stretches from Santangelo to the Vatican, numerous boys were wandering idly in the streets every day because they had no teachers, he offered the prefect to rent a house for the Pious Schools at his expense. The first seat was in the “palace” or building of Sant’Angelo alle Scale, next to today’s small church of St. Michael, in Borgo Santispirito, and from there it gradually moved to other buildings in the same neighborhood. The second Roman school of the Pious Schools was born, henceforth called “del Borgo”[2096]. Father Francis Castelli was appointed superior and the schools were opened on January 2, 1619.[2097]

2094 Casani asks Cardinal Caspar Borgia for help in paying the debts of the house “nella quale s’insegna a 1500 scolari in circa” (cf. EC 11, p.497). The exact date is not known. Here it is assumed 1617/21; elsewhere Sántha proposes “anno 1619 circiter” (cf. EphCal 9-10 [1962] 291, n.57).

2095 Cf. B. BARTLIK, Annales: EphCal 3 (1937) 77.

2096 Ib., 4 (1937) 103; L. PICANYOL, Brevis conspectus..., p.86.

2097 Cf. G. B. MORANDI, Narratione..., p.9.

On June 18 of the same year, Prince Mark Anthony Borghese, a nephew of Paul V, bought the fief of Moricone, a small village in the Sabine mountains, forty-five kilometers from Rome and thus a little further than the twenty miles allowed for the foundation of Pious Schools. But it was the diocese of Sabina, which was in the hands of Cardinal Giustiniani, who could easily have proposed the foundation to the “Great Community of Moricone” and intervened himself to obtain the Pope’s approval, as he had done with the two other places in his own diocese, Mentana and Magliano, and with his own dominion of Narni. Paul V was no doubt delighted that his Pauline Congregation was founding schools in the fief of his nephew Mark Antony, Prince of Sulmona[2098], who gave his consent and also intervened with his august uncle to obtain his approval.

2098 Paul V bought from Philip IV of Spain the principality of Sulmona for his nepote Mark Antony.

Calasanz appointed Father Thomas Victoria as minister or head of the village and sent him with two companions to open the schools on October 15, 1619. At that time, in 1615 to be precise, the town had around 300 inhabitants.[2099] The pupils were therefore also few. In a letter from Calasanz dated December 23, 1620 to Father John Peter Cananea, the vice-rector of the house, he says that he knows that there are forty students for whom the two brothers Dominic and Angel are sufficient to teach them. And Father Tomás Victoria “will take care of the study of matters of conscience and the administration of the sacraments, trying to introduce their frequency, and on some feasts, in good weather, when it seems convenient to V. R., he could go to the neighboring towns to teach Christian doctrine there, so that they too can receive help from our institute.”[2100] And this is what the venerable Father Victoria did, as evidenced by the fame he gained in those towns, for they called him “the apostle of Sabina”.[2101]

2099 In the Liber Congr. Paul. (p.47) Calasanz noted: “Die vero 15 octobris eiusdem anni (1619) rogati a Comunitate Moriconi, cum beneplacito et benedictione Smi. Dni. Ntri. Papae et consensu benigno Excmi. Principis Sulmonae, profectus fuit P. Thomas a Purificatione cum duobus sociis ad incipiendum et introducendum in dicto oppido nostrum institutum.” More news about this town and its Pious Schools can be found in C. VILÁ-L. CAPOZZI, Moricone. Fabbrica del Convento e della Chiesa degli Scolopi: Archivum 18 (1985) 177-274; C. VILÁ, Un altro santuario calasanziano: Moricone: EphCal 3 (1985) 180-186; C. VILÁ, Escuelas Pías de Moricone: su vida en los días de Calasanz (1619-1648): AnCal 54 (1985) 483-590.

2100 C.58.

2101 Cf. BERRO I, p.95 and 114; J. JERICÓ, Varones insignes, p.100. Of this venerable Sevillian, Calasanz wrote a concise eulogy in 1644 (cf. C.4242), more than twenty years after his death. But being still alive Fr. Cananea, who was his Rector in Moricone wrote: “ The said Prelate [Mons. Ginetti, future Cardinal, staunch defender of the Pious Schools] has received a report from two Jesuit Fathers who went on a mission last May to some castles (little villages) in Sabina, from our Fr. Thomas and with tears recounted it to this Mons. amazed of the great charity that they found in this Fr. Thomas and wishing that in every castle there was such a man who with so much fervor and without any interest sought the salvation of the souls of the neighbours....” (c.99).

This dedication to pastoral tasks, explicitly recommended by Calasanz, may seem contradictory for someone who demanded full dedication to the schools from the Lucchesi. However, it is not so contradictory when one considers that the teaching of the forty students was properly carried out by two Brothers and the two Fathers could therefore devote themselves to pastoral tasks outside the school and even outside the city. On the other hand, the fact that foundations are allowed in villages as small as that of La Sabina and others to follow might seem remarkable. However, they are a clear manifestation of the true spirit of Calasanz, which is so zealous and caring for the teaching and education of poor children, both in the cities and in the villages. To summarize, his idea was that all children should be taught and educated, as the reform of society depended on it; but the rich and those in the city had more opportunities than the poor and those in the small towns. Therefore, the latter should be given priority. This is precisely the idea that Father Casani set forth in a memorandum for the Apostolic Visitation of 1625, as a true expression of the Founder’s mentality, because it was for them that this work had been called into being:

“To see - he says - what is necessary to perfect and stabilize this most pious work of Pious Schools, I believe that we must turn our attention to the purpose and aim of this Institute, which seems to be nothing other than the perfect and absolute reform of Christian society, for it is the common voice of all philosophers, holy fathers, theologians and ecumenical councils that the good constitution of society depends on sound learning and the pious education of children. And although both are easily attainable and abundant among the rich and in the large cities, they are to be desired among the poor, who form the majority, and in small towns in general. That is why this work was undertaken from the beginning and has continued to this day.”[2102]

2102 PosCas. p.514.

Excellent! There can be no greater clarity.

Paul V died on January 28, 1621 and on February 9th, Cardinal Alexander Ludovisi, known as Gregory XV, was elected pope. The year 1621 was very rich in events, including the elevation of the Pious Schools to the Order of Solemn Vows on November 18th. But before this date, still as the Pauline Congregation, he founded three other houses in the same year, leaving the Papal States and settling in the Duchy of Modena and Genoa. These were also three small towns, each with a few hundred inhabitants.

The first was Carcare, in the Marquisate of Finale, near Savona, which belonged to the Spanish crown. The founders and generous benefactors were the Castellani brothers, who were born in this town and were both in the service of the new Pope Gregory XV in Rome: Bernardino as a doctor and John Andrew as a private secretary. Bernardino was also the physician to the House of San Pantaleo until his death in 1624. His brother John Mary succeeded him in this service and would assist Calasanz until his death and then perform the autopsy.

On June 6, 1621, Father John Peter Cananea and two companions left Rome for Carcare, and on October 18th they were followed by Father Peter Andrew Taccioni, who was appointed local superior.[2103]

2103 Cf. EHI, p.2129, n.1. In the Liber Congr. Paul., written almost entirely by Calasanz, in its second part the data of the foundations are noted, but in those relative to Moricone, Carcare, Fanano and Nursia, of which we now treat, the date of the departure of the founders to their respective towns is given (profectus est or profecti sunt), while in the Narratione ..., based in part on the previous work, Br. Morandi repeats the same dates, saying that in such days “furono aperte le Scuole Pie.” The truth, logically, is in the first book (cf. Liber Congr. Paul ... p.47, and Narratione ..., p.9). More data on Carcare in La Provincia Ligure dei Padri Scolopi. Notizie storiche, Genova 1984, p.15-17.

The second foundation in 1621 was that of Fanano, in the Duchy of Modena. From there came Count Ottonello Ottonelli, who, after being widowed, was ordained a priest and on May 4, 1617 received the Piarist cassock and changed his name to Paul. From that moment on, he began to prepare the groundwork for the foundation of a Piarist house in his town, securing it economically with his own assets. And on June 10, 1621, Father Santiago Graziani and five companions left for Fanano, and the founder himself, Father Paul, was appointed rector of the house.[2104]

2104 Cf. Liber Congr. Paul., p.47; Narratione ..., p.9. On Graziani cf. EHI, p.1280-1281, n.1; on Ottonelli cf. EC, p.1961, n.5; L. PICANYOL, Le scuole pie di Fanano: Rass 8 (1940) 3-18; 9 (1941) 11-49.

The third foundation took place in Nursia (Norcia), the home of St. Benedict, in Umbria. On July 29, 1621, Father Peregrino Tencani left Rome as Rector of the new house, accompanied by Father Giovanni Bta. Costantini and five other religious, as well as Father Sebastian Montagnani, who was waiting for them in Nursia. In a letter to Father Tencani dated the following October 9th, Calasanz reports who had prepared this foundation: “I am writing,” he said, “to the vicar Giulio Geggi, who, after the Lord, was the main reason for our institute to go to Nursia, because of the old friendship I had with the aforementioned Mr. Giulio.”[2105]

2105 C.90; Liber Congr. Paul., p.47; Narratione ..., p.9. On Tencani cf. EEC, p.1162-1163, n.1; on Costantini cf. EEC, p.340-341, n.1; on Montagnani cf. EHI, p.870, n.4.

By mid-November 1621, four and a half years after its foundation as a Pauline Congregation, when it became a religious Order with solemn vows, the Pious Schools had founded eleven houses, 153 novices had donned the Piarist cassock, and the body consisted of some 77 religious. There was vitality, enthusiasm and a lot of hope for the future.

On the back of a little donkey

At the age of sixty, a new phase of life began for Father Joseph of the Mother of God, for the new foundations within and beyond the capricious twenty-mile line forced him to leave Rome to inspect, orient, consolidate, occasionally lay the foundations of new schools or attend the solemn inauguration or consecration of churches. And all this, usually and for many years, on the back of a donkey. He would inevitably have to evoke the years of his youth, when Mosén Calasanz, ecclesiastical Official of Tremp and Visitator to the archpriesthoods of Tremp, Sort, Tirvia and Cardós, traversed the Pyrenean landscapes along endless roads and paths on the back of mules, the saddlebags made of chamois leather on his shoulder. Instead of mules, it was now donkeys, but instead of winding roads, it was the old consular roads of the empire, such as the Flaminia, the Nomentana, the Tiburtina, the Tusculana, the Casia ..., and the saddlebags were made of coarse canvas.

Among all the foundations, Frascati was favored for many reasons: it had been the first-born outside Rome; it was closest to the capital; and above all it was his home. And then, when it was built in 1634, the church of the Pious Schools had become a Marian shrine, when Calasanz himself transferred from Rome in 1617 a venerable icon of the Mother of God given to him by Don Francis Bovarelli.[2106] From the earliest times, a solemn procession with the icon had been organized through the main streets of Frascati on Whit Monday, which continues to this day. Calasanz took part on this occasion, and it seems that he did so for many years, but he was not particularly fond of great processions and celebrations.[2107] He went, however, on May 6, 1632, the day the foundation stone of the church was laid, and on October 15, 1634, the day of the solemn consecration with the transfer of the image from the domestic oratory to the new church.[2108] But in addition to these festive days, he also used to spend a few days off during the fall vacations.

2106 On the Madonna di Frascati cf. BAU, BC, p.373-378; CS, I, p.98, n.2; La Madonna delle Scuole Pie nel 350° anniversario della sua venuta a Frascati (1617-1967), Frascati 1967; L. PICANYOL, Anno Mariano e le Scuole Pie, Roma 1954, p.46.

2107 On June 11, 1628 he writes to Frascati: ‘Great disturbance is for the religious to be occupied about so many things every year, as are these of the present festivity ‘ (which was the following day) (c.872). And the year before, which also did not go to Frascati, he wrote to them: “Brother James is going to help there with these celebrations, but it would be better to simply pass it in the religious style....” (C.620). Controlling the dates of his letters from 1617 onwards, except for the years 1611 and 1618, in which he spends in Frascati some months in a row, including the day of the feast - if it was already done then - in the other years there is always an empty parenthesis of two or three days around the Monday of Pentecost, with the possibility that he attended, except for the years 1627, 1628 and 1632 and in the last years of his life in which it is recorded that he did not go. In 1637 he signs a letter in Frascati with this date: “Lunedí dello Spirito Santo”, which was June 1 (C.2732).

2108 C. 1781-1782, 2281-2285.

Not as often as in Frascati, he also enjoyed visits and even longer stays in the small towns more or less close to Rome, such as Narni, Magliano, Moricone and the tiny Poli, twenty-one kilometers from Rome, on the Prenestine hills, where he founded another school of the Pious Schools in 1628 on the requests of Don Appio Conti and his wife, Jacinta Santivali, Dukes of Poli. And no longer on the back of a donkey, but by other means, he reached Carcare in the north-east and Naples in the south, as we shall see later.

The constant, or rather annual, movements of the elderly founder through all these houses give us the impression that, despite his many years, he still felt young and vigorous, perhaps in contrast to his esteemed companion Dragonetti, who continued to add years undauntedly until 1628, when he died at the age of one hundred and fifteen.[2109] Without being exhaustive and sticking only to the dates of his letters, we note that he stayed in Frascati for long periods in 1617 and 1618; in Narni in 1619; in Narni and Magliano in 1620; in Narni and Frascati in 1621; in Moricone in 1622; 1623 in Carcare; 1624 in Moricone; 1625 in Frascati; 1626-1627 in Naples; 1628 in Frascati and Poli; 1629 in Poli, Frascati and Narni; 1630 in Poli and Moricone; 1632, 1634, 1635, 1636 and 1637 in Frascati; 1639 in Moricone, where the new church was consecrated.[2110] And it is likely that this, at the age of eighty-one, was the last of his travels.

2109 In his report of 1622 Calasanz writes: “Since the year 1603 an old venerable man of great spirit came to help in the said work, who had had a school of grammar and humanities in Rome for perhaps more than 40 years and now is in his 110 years of age and has always persevered and perseveres having school with the same strength as if he were young with great benefit to the students. His name is Caspar Dragonetti and he is from Leontino, in Sicily” (C.132a).

2110 Cf. C. VILÁ-L. CAPOZZI, o.c., p.235-236.

The affection and sensitivity that Calasanz felt for his traveling companions, the donkeys, give another Franciscan touch to the many that distinguish him and perhaps they made him instinctively return to his childhood years and yearnings in Peralta, when the long and quotidian herds of donkeys passed by his father’s forge before entering the valley of the salt pans.

In 1619, he wrote to the people of Frascati: “I am sending you the black donkey so that you can keep it there for ten or twelve days and treat it well so that it can recover a little, because here God knows how it will be treated; I will send the white one to the novitiate, because there it will be better than here in the schools.”[2111] In 1629 he wrote: “It is not surprising that the little donkey died, because not everyone knows how to look after animals as they should, and they usually die for lack of care and because they are mistreated without being given the right food and rest.”[2112] In 1627 he wrote to Fr. Garcia: “The gait of the donkey that Y. R. had hired pleased me very much, and if his master would like to sell him at the end of the harvest for ten escudos, I would gladly accept him to go some time to Moricone, or there to Frascati.”[2113]

2111 C.32.

2112 C.1233.

2113 C.656.

Speaking of donkeys, we must remember the following anecdote told by Fr. Scassellati during the process: “I heard that he was worried, as it happened once when he was helping the brother who was taking care of the donkey, and in doing so, he was seen by His Em. Card. Torres while he was tending the donkey, and when he asked him what he was doing, he replied that he was teaching the brother who was tending the donkey; and this was told to me by Father Archangel (Sorbino)... who said he saw it with his own eyes.”[2114] Cardinal Torres lived in the adjoining palace and it is likely that he watched the scene curiously from a window, as the stable where the donkey was kept was in the cellar and the door open to the ‘Vicolo della Cucagna’, where the scene must have taken place. This is how Armini tells the story in detail.[2115]

2114 ProcIn. p.119. It is recalled by BERRO I, p.146.

2115 Cf. ARMINI, Vita, p.120-121. Sebastian Previsano, who had a store on the first floor of the house of San Pantaleon, speaking of the room of Calasanz, which overlooks the Vicolo della Cucagna, said in the Processes “whose windows face Cardinal Torres’.” (ProcIn, p.504).

Incidentally, the location of the stable in the cellar gave rise to another, less well-known anecdote, this time told by Caputi. In December 1647, there was a catastrophic flooding of the Tiber. And because the little donkey was in danger of drowning in the cellar, Calasanz ordered it to be taken out of the stable and “brought to the recreation room... where he stayed for three days and three nights without ever bray out, as he was used to do; for when he was in the stable he brayed out frequently both during the day and at night, sometimes disturbing the Fathers and interrupting their sleep, and he would not move nor bray out, and the Father entrusted him to the almoner to take care of him and not harm him, for he had served the house for more than twenty years.”[2116]

2116 CAPUTI, Notizie historiche, cit. in EcoCen 2 (1948) 14.

There are also some miracles in favor of donkeys, such as one recounted by Talenti with all the details. On October 24, 1639, Father Francis Leuci arrived in Rome from Campi with a small donkey, accompanying two novices, one of whom was the future Father Caputi, from whom the memory comes. The two novices made their solemn profession from the hands of the founder on November 6th and were to return to Campi on November 8th - some 650 km from Rome - under the guidance of Father Leuci and with the same donkey. But the poor animal was still suffering from the wounds and scratches of the previous journey. They took him to a veterinarian who told them that he would not be better in eight days and that he would die on the way if they left before then. The Holy Founder said to them, “Come on, come on, you will leave tomorrow, because I am going to check on the animal.” He left in the afternoon and wiped the wounds with his handkerchief. The next morning, Father Leuci went to the animal and found it completely healthy.[2117]

2117 TALENTI, Vita, p.292-293.

More moving, if possible, is this other procedural statement by Father Scassellati, whom Father Sorbino, an eyewitness, told about it. He was once traveling with Brother Lawrence Ferrari, who became impatient with the donkey and beat him up. When they arrived home, the Holy Founder reprimanded him for what had happened and told him “that God had not punished him like that,” and - according to Father Sorbino - “he could only know this through a divine revelation, because it all happened in the countryside while they were begging, and that was more than 25 years ago.”[2118]

2118 Cf. ProcIn, p.78. The declaration was made on May 15, 1651, therefore the fact occurred before 1626.

Calasanz spent many hours on the back of small donkeys as he rode up the Tiber valley on his way to Narni or crossed the Roman countryside, descending or ascending the Alban or Sabinas hills. Perhaps he was not too moved by the grandiose splendor of the October sunsets in which he and the gray beast were wrapped, like another “Platero” laden with glory. Rather, he sometimes thought of deeper things: “The way to become a wise and prudent man in the inner school,” he wrote to Father Cananea, “is to become a fool in the eyes of men and let yourself be led like an ass. This is the true teaching, but few understand it because it contradicts human reason and prudence.”[2119] And in the Constitutions of the Order, he wrote: Obedient religious “adopt an attitude most pleasing to God, allowing themselves to be led and guided by his providence through their superiors, like the little donkey on which Christ rode on Palm Sunday, who allowed himself to be led and guided everywhere.”[2120] This obedience tamquam cadaver of Ignatius of Loyola is transformed in the pen of Joseph Calasanz into the gentle donkey that Christ rode on the day of the triumphant Hosanna in the mouth of the children of Jerusalem.

2119 Cf. C.130, date November 8, 1622. He repeats the same phrase, almost verbatim, to Father Joseph Frescio in a letter of December 3, 1634 (C.2300).

2120 CC, p.11, c.2, n.108.

The first vows

The founding Brief of Paul V prescribed a two-year novitiate. But before the first year had elapsed, Father Joseph of the Mother of God, no doubt by virtue of his dignity as Founder of the Congregation and Superior General, took his perpetual vows with papal dispensation from the second year of the novitiate at the hands of Cardinal Protector Giustiniani in the same private chapel where he had received the Piarist habit a year earlier. The ceremony took place on March 19, 1618, the feast of St. Joseph.[2121] Everyone else had to complete the two years of the novitiate, including the first novice master, Father Peter Casani, who was Rector of Narni at the time. By a special concession of the Founder, Father Casani placed his profession in the hands of the Bishop of Narni on April 1, 1619, who received it in the name of Father Joseph of the Mother of God. On the same day, Father Casani, as superior of the house and representative of Father General, received the profession of Father Viviano Viviani and Francis Baldi as well as of Brothers Simon Castiglioncelli and John Prospero.[2122]

2121 The formula refers to the three common vows and the fourth vow is not yet named. It says: “promitto Omnipotenti Deo et Beatissimae Virgini Mariae... Obedientiam, Paupertatem et Castitatem toto tempore vitae meae... Quae vota... firma ac valida semper fore et esse volo.” Nor does it say “summam paupertatem” (cf. B. BARTLIK, Annales: EphCal I [1937] 8-9). Bartlik notes that there was papal dispensation from the second year of Novitiate and pontifical authority delegated to Card. Protector. With a view to this future vow of poverty, Calasanz had taken precautions a few months earlier regarding the personado of Claverol who continued to collect. In a letter of September 8, 1617 to Mr. and Mrs. Motes he told them: “and because I can no longer have this income, I want it to be used in this pious work”, which he had previously said consisted of “buying so much wheat and distributing it among the poor of Claverol and Ortoneda” (c.16’). On January 20, 1620, he still insisted on the matter, which apparently had not been resolved (cf. C.45).

2122 Cf. B. BARTLIK, Annales 4 (1937) 104-105; PosCas, p.378-379 and 352.

Father Casani had made his profession in Frascati, without us knowing exactly why, at the hands of Calasanz himself, on April 20, 1617, twenty-six days after he had put on the new habit, without papal dispensation, as a private act of no canonical value. For this reason, he repeated it publicly when the legal time of the novitiate had elapsed, like the others, except Calasanz.[2123] It is striking, however, that Casani says in the formula of profession that Father Joseph is vice-prefect of the Congregation, and the same is repeated by the four who professed under his hands on the same day in Narni, and it also appears in other documents, especially in relation to Narni, in 1618.[2124] No one can explain this fact satisfactorily, especially when one sees that in the same months in which the title of vice-prefect appears in certain documents, the title of prefect appears at the same time in others.[2125]

2123 Formula in PosCas. P. 320. Bartlik clarifies that Casani “hactenus tacita professione Congregationi obstrictus, expressa etiam voluit se talem contestari” (1.c., 4 [1937] 104). Consistent with his thesis of exaltation and pre-eminence of Casani with respect to Calasanz, Father Vilá wonders about the meaning of this first profession of Casani, prior to that of Calasanz: “Was it intended to put him at the head of the congregation as such...? Our hypothesis is that Casani was destined to be the Rector General who appeared in the first minutes of the Brief. But at the last minute, Calasanz decided to become a religious of that unexpectedly created new congregation....” But unexpectedly Vilá replies: “However, this hypothesis does not satisfy us in any way.” And he is right. He is not right, however, when he says that Calasanz had been specialiter electo for it, that is, to receive the profession of Casani, since the obvious meaning is that he had been “specially elected Prefect of the Congregation”, as can be seen in the text: “et tibi adm. R. Patri Josepho a Matre Dei praedictae Congregationis Praefecto, a Ssmo. Dno. nro. specialiter electo, et successoribus tuis...” (cf. PosCas, p.293 and 320). He was their legitimate Superior and, therefore, did not need any delegation or special election by the pope. The statement that “Casani was the first to profess in the new congregation” (ibid., p. 292) is also ambiguous. If this first profession had been valid, canonical, normal, there would be no sense in the second one. And if in the signed professions (cf. RegRel 71) the first (private) of Casani appears before the public one of Calasanz, however, it appears in second place, after Calasanz, in the Libro delli Professí nella Religione de Chieríci povrri della Madre di Dio delle Scuole Pie (1617-1629) (RegCal 11,3) and in the Catal. Rel., n.1 and 2.

2124 Cf. PosCas, p.294, 378, 352; c.23 and 24.

2125 Bartlik already warned: if Casani and those who professed at Narni call him Vice-Prefect, “certe Romani, quorum etiam hoc ipso mense Aprili quinque numero professi sunt, titulum Praefecti suis Professionibus inscripserunt” (B. BARTLIK, 1.c., 4 [1937] 105-106). In the Liber Congr. Paul. the Holy Founder notes all the vestments from 1617 to 1625 and not once is he called Vice-Prefect, the formula used is: “ ... idem Praefectus induit...”, or “fuit indutus ab eodem Praefecto...” (cf. Archivum 19-20 [1986] 6-20). This is probably due to some oddity, exigency or reflection of Casani. Cf. EGC II, p.74-75.

Father Joseph of the Mother of God provided further evidence of his deep Marian devotion by minting a curious medal commemorating the Perpetual Profession of the first Piarists of the Pauline Congregation, adding Marian symbolism that, as Father Bau commented, would have pleased Saint Louis Marie Grignon de Monfort “by fully realizing his thoughts on Marian slavery.”[2126] Indeed, the obverse shows a Piarist kneeling before the Mother of God with her Son in her arms, who offers him a kind of ring or slave shackles from a cloud, the explanation of which is inscribed on a cartouche held by an angel with this Latin inscription: ‘Foedus perpetuae servitutis’ (commitment or covenant of perpetual slavery). The scene, already expressive in itself, is enhanced by three angels framing it with three chains, above which are three explanatory words: ‘vinculo indissolubili votorum’ (with the indissoluble bond of vows), alluding to the three vows of poverty, chastity and obedience. The fourth vow of education would later appear in the formula of solemn profession of 1622. Although these were simple vows, it is said that they are an indissoluble bond, as it was a perpetual profession.

2126 Cf. Bau, BC, p.378-379.

On the reverse of the medal is the coat of arms or emblem of the Congregation, consisting of a large M interspersed with an A, an anagram of Mary’s name, below which is another anagram of the title “Mother of God” in Greek. Above the large M is a cross, the symbol of the Passion of Christ, and at the bottom is a heart pierced by seven swords, the symbol of Mary’s pain.[2127] Rays of light surround the circle in which the above letters and symbols are enclosed, and around it we read this Latin inscription: “Professus Congr. Paulinae Pauper. Matris Dei Schol. Piar.” (Professed of the Pauline Congregation of the Poor of the Mother of God of the Pious Schools).[2128]

2127 This reference to Mary’s sorrows makes us suspect that it was a devotion deeply rooted in Calasanz and that he practiced it perhaps daily, following the form in easy Latin verse that was sung every day in the church “Beatae Mariae de Monteserrato, Hispanonrm, Coronae Aragoniae Almae Urbis Romae”, as recorded in a folio printed in 1633, which the Saint had in his room (cf. RegCal 13,23).

2128 See the history of this medal, preserved in the General Archives of Rome, according to Caputi’s version, translated into Latin by Picanyol (EphCal 6 [1932] 247-251). The emblem of the Order was definitively composed of the abbreviated letters, without the upper cross or the pierced heart. Generally, the letters MA crossed with a royal crown. Cf. Caputi’s description in PosCas, p. 1747.

It may seem a subtlety, but it is worth clarifying that the adjective “poor”,” which has been part of the official title of the Pious Schools since the foundation of the Pauline Congregation, not only recalls the “extreme poverty” professed, but is also and above all linked to the Mother of God, before whom poverty means lack, neediness, emptiness and must inspire full trust in the Mother of God. This is how Calasanz explained it to his esteemed Father Cananea in a letter dated December 23, 1620: “Be aware that we are the poor of the Mother of God and not of men, so we must be importunate with our Mother and [not] with men, for she is never bothered by our importunity, but men are.”[2129]

2129 C.58.

The Constitutions

Three and a half years had already passed since Paul V had entrusted his “dear son, Joseph Calasanz, with the prefecture, care, government and administration of the established Congregation of Pious Schools”, as stated in the founding Brief. As a consequence of these obligations, “Joseph and the said Congregation were granted, with the consent of the Bishop and Cardinal Benedict (Giustiniani), as long as he was Protector, to issue and publish all necessary and expedient statutes, chapters, ordinances and decrees for the happy governance of the said Congregation and its houses and schools... to be approved and confirmed by the Apostolic See...”[2130] And it was time to think about it.

2130 Cf. ‘Bullarium Sch. P.’, p.20-21.

“In 1620, the same Cardinal Giustiniani - according to Calasanz in his report of 1623 - ordered the aforementioned Father Joseph to withdraw from Rome and draw up the Constitutions that seemed necessary for the good governance of the Congregation. He withdrew to the House of the Pious Schools in Narni and wrote the Constitutions there, which were later approved by the Apostolic Letter of Gregory XV on January 31, 1622.”[2131]

2131 Cf. EGC II, p.172.

So, one fine day at the end of October 1620, he mounted his donkey and set off for Narni along the Via Cassia with a few traveling companions. It was a four-day journey. He spent the first night in Campagnano, where he was welcomed by “the very merciful archpriest ... whose charity is very great”.[2132] “After Campagnano, -he wrote to Father Garcia- it happened to me that, while I was walking because of the bad road, I stumbled with my foot over the root of a tree that was visible on the road, and without being able to support myself, I fell and although I did not feel it at the time, or only very slightly, it was still necessary, that night, to give me lotions with camomilla oil because of the pain that remained in my ribs, in Civita (Castellana), where we stayed at the hospital of Saint Sebastian, and the next night in Magliano....”[2133] in the seminary run by the Piarists. By the fourth night they were already in Narni. When he took the books, notes and documents he had with him to write the Constitutions out of his saddlebags, he realized that in his haste he had forgotten to take paper with him and asked Father Garcia in the above-mentioned letter to get him “half a ream of good paper” and to send it to him as quickly as possible through the muleteer.

2132 C.71.

2133 C.46 written from Narni, as soon as he arrived, on the last day of October 1620. The mishap made him lengthen the trip, since the normal were three days with nights in Campagnano and Civita Castellana, as Calasanz details in another letter (C.71).

Drafting the Constitutions took the Founder four months of intensive work. And there is no shortage of ancient and modern hagiographers who confirm the special inspiration of the Blessed Virgin in their composition. Suffice it to quote Talenti, according to whom “the Blessed used to say that the Constitutions had not been conceived and formed by him, but that they had been taught to him by the Mother of God, the Protectress of the Congregation; that he had put nothing of his own into them and that he could sincerely confess that these statutes and rules had not been composed by him, but had only been written after they had been suggested to him by the Queen of Heaven.”[2134] On the other hand, this has been one of the common myths in Religious Orders since the first monastic Rule in history was dictated to St. Pachomius by an angel in the fourth century. Even St. Ignatius of Loyola was not free of something similar in his Spiritual Exercises.[2135]

2134 TALENTI, Vita, p.532. Nor is Jericó less categorical: “he [Calasanz] made himself worthy that Mary Most Holy (as it is believed) dictated to him in three parts and 30 chapters the sum of religious perfection...” (J. Jericó, Vita, p.532). (J. JERICÓ, Varones insignes, p.26). Cf. BAU, BC, p.385, etc.

2135 Commenting on this legend, one of the last biographers of Loyola asks: “Is it possible that the Virgin of Nazareth, whose soul vibrated in the joyful and hopeful poetry of the Magnificat, dictates the dry prose, the countless rules and the complicated methods of the book of the Exercises? (I. TELLECHEA IDIGORAS, St. Ignatius of Loyola, p.150).

More realistic in this case was Berro, who wrote: “He retired to the city of Narni and devoted himself wholeheartedly to every exercise of religious virtue and especially to prayer, also having in his hand many Rules and Constitutions of other ancient and modern Religions, in order to select from them all, like a busy bee from the best flowers, the honey, that is the doctrine that would best suit his Congregation.”[2136] And this is what all the founders or writers of Rules and Constitutions did, perhaps without exception.

2136 BERRO I, p.102.

Recent studies confirm the direct sources that served the Founder of the Pious Schools in the drafting of his Constitutions, among which those of the Jesuits, the Clerics Regular Minor or Caracciolini and the Theatines stand out, and to a lesser extent those of the Capuchins and the Confraternity and Congregation of Christian Doctrine.[2137] Of course, all those writings such as memoranda, reports, summaries, formularies and papal Briefs that had characterized the life and activities of the newly created Pauline Congregation since its beginnings as a Venerable Secular Congregation also served as inspiration and even as literary sources. The practices, customs and habits that had gradually become established were also codified.[2138]

2137 The best comparative critical study is undoubtedly that of F. CUBELLS, Explorando las fuentes de las Constituciones de San José de Calasanz: AnCal 44 (1980) 515-575. See also: D. CUEVA, Calasanz y sus Constituciones, Salamanca 1979; C. VILÁ, Fuentes inmediatas de la pedagogía calasancia; ID, Constituciones de la Congregación Paulina: texto original de Narni: Archivum 17 (1985) I-62; F. GUILLÉN, Las Constituciones de las Escuelas Pías en tiempos de S. José de Calasanz: AnCal 37 (1977) 149-176; A. GARCÍA-DURÁN, Itinerario ..., p.166- 168. Many extracts of the Constitutions of the Jesuits, written by Calasanz, are preserved in the General Archives (cf. RegCal 11,7).

2138 In the manuscript of the Constitutions Calasanz included a series of 15 customs, already admitted in practical life, and codified them expressly indicating ut moris est (according to the custom) (cf. D. CUEVA, Calasanz y sus constituciones [Salamanca 1979] p. 18-19).

That winter in Narni was very harsh, especially in the first two weeks of February, for in his letters the saint complains urgently: “The winds are so terrible and so cold here - he writes on January 31st - that my heels often freeze, which does not happen to me in Rome”; “And because I am very busy - he says on February 3rd - and also oppressed by the cold, I will be brief”; and in two letters dated January 7th: “I cannot attempt to return to Rome until this great cold, which I believe will last the whole month, is over”; “From Narni, with great cold of more than a span of snow frozen by the tramontana”[2139] And to the cold was added poverty and the lack of means to endure it, as is clear in this lament: “...and God knows how we are in clothes to cover us at night.”[2140]

2139 C.66, 67, 68. The one of February 3rd was not published in the Epistolario (cf. EphCal 2 [1959] 44).

2140 C.67.

On February 17th, he wrote to Father Castille: “By the grace of God, I have finished the Constitutions and if the white donkey with the good packsaddle and the good saddlebags is here on the first or second day of Lent, I will leave in two or three days with the Lord’s help, if the weather is good.”[2141] So, riding on the white donkey and carrying the Constitutions in the good saddlebags, he would arrive in Rome at the end of February. But before he presented them to the Holy See for approval, he read them to the older religious and asked for their advice and consent.[2142]

2141 C.72. Ash Day in 1621 was February 24th.

2142 Thus Berro states: “…made them also see by many learned and perfect Religious” (BERRO, I p.103) and Bartlik: “…opportuna non praetermissa occasione, de consilio atque assensu Religiosorum suorum seniorum, qui Regulam seu ConstituÍiones dictas legerunt, quemadmodum ipsemet (Calasanz) in quodam manuscripto fatetur” (BARTLIK, Annales: EphCal 6 [1937] 177-178). Too bad he did not quote that manuscript or at least indicate it! That was the Founder’s intention before leaving Narni, and it is clear from the letter he wrote to Father Garcia on February 9th: “As for the matter of the Constitutions, it will be dealt with with the Lord’s help in Rome with the maturity that is required.” (c.70).

Much later, however, in the years of great tribulation, there were those who accused him of having written the Constitutions single-handedly, contrary to what “perhaps the Brief of erection” wanted.[2143] And that would distort the obvious meaning of the Brief, for although it says that “Joseph and the said Congregation” were given the power “to make and publish statutes, chapters, ordinances and decrees for the happy government of the Congregation, its houses and its schools.” it is not required that this whole variety of laws be enacted by Joseph and all the members of the Congregation together, but it is expressed that the Founder and his present and future institute are given an autonomous legislative power, such as all recognized Congregations have. It is even added that, in due course, they can “freely change, amend, correct, reform...” the whole series of norms and laws, as required.[2144]

2143 In an unworthy allegation it is said that Calasanz was concerned “more to form Constitutions on his own, than in company with others, according to what the Brief of the Constitution wanted” (EC VI, p.2813). (EC VI, p.2813).

2144 “…facere et edere, illaque pro tempore, prout eis videbitur et expediens fuerit... mutare, alterare, corrigere et in melius reformare, libere et licite valeant” (Bullarium, p.21, n.4).

In all Religious Orders, it was customary for the Rule or Constitutions to be written by the Founder of the Order himself, although he could have or allow collaborators. In fact, neither the Pope nor the Congregation of Bishops and Religious made any difficulty, and it is certain that they knew who had written them. But the gross accusation was taken up by Pietrasanta in his first report as Visitator, in which he tried to prove that the founding Brief was null and void. And he even spoke to the Holy Old Man about it, “and he told me - says Pietrasanta - that he had previously been commissioned by the Pope to draw up the said Constitutions with the advice and communication of the Elders, but Cardinal Giustiniani, the Protector at the time, told him to draw them up himself, and so he retired to the convent of Narni for a few months and drew them up himself...”[2145] So why was he accused if he did nothing more than obey? Nor does it appear that Giustiniani overstepped his duties, since the founding letter made this matter subject not only to his mere advice and assistance, but to his consent and decision in his capacity as Cardinal Protector.[2146] So nothing was objected to, neither by the Pope nor by the aforementioned Congregation.[2147]

2145 Cf. EGC IX, p.132.

2146 «Insuper Josepho et Congregationi huiusmodi, de consensu dicti Benedicti Episc. et Card., ac pro tempore existentis Protectoris...» (Bullarium, l.c.).

2147 C. Vilá airs the old accusations again, defending a truly disconcerting parity of legislative rights: “This task (to make laws) is not entrusted (in the Brief) exclusively to Calasanz, but to him and to his companions of the Congregation; with the consequence that all enjoyed the same right to legislate, on a par with the Superior, who as such had greater weight.... Contrary to such collegial disposition, Calasanz drew up the Constitutions by himself in Narni... made return to Rome, neither let his companions see them, nor discussed them with them... It follows that, since the confreres had equal rights in the drafting of the Constitutions...” (Juicio histórico-crítico..., p. 105).

Paul V and Gregory XV, two good friends of Calasanz

Paul V died in Rome on January 28, 1621. This must have hit Calasanz in Narni very hard. Throughout his pontificate, he had been a great benefactor of the Pious Schools and had given Father Prefect many signs of affection and admiration. He certainly remembered the audiences in the summer villa of Mondragone or in the papal palaces in Rome on the cold nights when he could not sleep. And also the other one, so original, in Pantheon Square.

Berro recounts that “once when he met him in the Rotonda [the Pantheon], accompanying the children, the Pope had the palanquin stopped and spoke at length with our Father Joseph. And I know this from someone who was there.”[2148] And no less pleasant was the other meeting in Frascati in May 1617 with the students of the Pious Schools, which is so similar to today’s audiences with young people. Calasanz, an eyewitness, wrote about it: “The meeting with the Pope was very amusing, with little flags in different colors and with great joy for all involved.”[2149]

2148 BERRO I, p.97. Berro also says that Paul V “many times in Frascati accompanied him on foot discussing for a long time and hours” (ibid.). Also, Caputi narrate both things in Notizie historiche V, p.XI (cf. EcoCen 2 [1945] 15-16).

2149 C.13.

He also recalled - if Berro is to be believed - that “at the end of his pontificate, he included him in the list of cardinals he wanted to create, and he told Cardenal Scipione Borghese, his nephew, and even gave it to him in writing. But after the news had spread around the city, our Father, while others felt great joy, felt great sorrow... and the students themselves said so publicly... and one must believe that he would entrust himself to God and take other steps to get rid of this dignity, as he did through the said Cardinal Scipione.”[2150] The unsuccessful candidate for canonries renounced the cardinalate!

2150 Ib. Armini brings the testimony of Card. Montalto (cf. ARMINI, Vita p.217). Brasavola also adduces the testimony of Montalto, who saw him on the list for the promotion of January 11, 1621. But Calasanz went to the Quirinal palace and dissuaded the Pope (cf. R. BRASAVOLA Emerologium (1727): Archivum 3 [1938] 65). Talenti says that the offers of Paul V were three: in July 1609 and in the promotions of August 17, 1611 and January 11, 1621. And Calasanz rejected all three (Cf. TALENTI, Vita, p.99, 101 and 133).

And he could continue to remember certain solemn ceremonies with emotion, not because of their baroque opulence, but because of what they had made the fibers of his soul vibrate. Among others, Paul V had canonized Charles Borromeo and the Spaniard Thomas de Villanueva, who were so loved and venerated by Calasanz, and beatified the equally beloved Philip Neri as well as the Spaniards Isidro Labrador, Pascual Baylon, Ignatius of Loyola, Francis Xavier and Teresa of Jesus.[2151]

2151 Cf. PASTOR, o.c., vol. 25, p.203-212.

A chronicler of the time wrote in his diary on the death of Paul V: “He was... magnanimous, splendid, a champion of justice, a lover of peace, protector of the poor, preserver and multiplier of abundance... He used to say that he liked to do two things for people: one was to give them work to earn a living, and the other was to preserve abundance, which he always did in a wonderful way.”[2152] And on his concern for the poor and the people, Ausenda says: “I think I am not far from the truth when I say that Paul V was the pope who understood Calasanz best, because they had in common a love for the poor, and like him he set out to help them out of misery through decent work for a living. In fact, the school of Calasanz... was intended to teach the boys those concepts that would enable them to work competently to obtain the necessities of life.”[2153]

2152 G. GIGLI, Diario Romano (1608-1670), Rome 1958, p.48-49.

2153 G. AUSENDA, Interessante documento della Roma del sec. XVII: Ricerche 18 (1986) 365.

Also worth mentioning is this magnificent eulogy by Pastor, in which he combines the names of Calasanz and Borghese in a single chord: “That time, Joseph Calasanz worked in Rome. Like Clement VIII, Pope Borghese also protected the school founded by this friend of the people. Since this school was free, it was a real blessing for Rome.”[2154]

2154 PASTOR, o.c., p.218-219.

During the vacancy, Calasanz and the Piarists of Narni prayed for the election of the future pope: “Here, - he wrote to Rome - we will always pray for the election of the new pope, and may the Lord grant that he will be as we wish him to be.”[2155] And he was right. Although it would have been more correct to say “the one who” instead of “as”, because he was probably thinking of Cardinal Alexander Ludovisi, without excluding Giustiniani.[2156] And the reason for this goes back to the month of October 1619. On the 27th, Calasanz wrote from Narni that he had Cardinal Giustiniani as a guest in his house.[2157] And on the 30th he wrote again to Rome:

2155 C.66

2156 At one point in the conclave, Giustiniani believed that he could be elected, until a letter was read to him in which it was said that he was not acceptable to the King of Spain (PASTOR, o.c., vol 27, p.67).

2157 C.41.

“On the way back from Loreto, Cardinal Giustiniani was lodged here with two Prelates, and he left very satisfied, not only because of the profit our Teachers have made in such a short time - three students have recited to him as well as one can wish - but also because of the treatment he has received, so that having found Card. Ludovisi near Otricoli told him to come and stay at our house, which he did, for he would not find better lodgings in Narni, for I had two doors opened and he had a small hall and two rooms very well prepared, and outside, instead of the hall where the people were for the audience, a corridor or bedroom 90 feet long and 16 feet wide... I am afraid we will have to accommodate a lot of cardinals when they come by here, because that would be a bit of a nuisance.”[2158]

2158 C.42. Narni was an almost obligatory stopping point for the carriages going to or coming from Rome.

The occasion was as follows: Alexander Ludovisi, Archbishop of Bologna, was made a cardinal on September 19, 1616. He traveled to Rome at the end of 1618 and received the cardinal’s hat at the consistory on 20th November. He remained there until the end of October 1619, and after returning to his seat he went to Narni.[2159] Both Caputi and Berro speak of this meeting between Calasanz and Ludovisi in Narni in their memoirs, but they confuse the dates and believe that it took place in 1621, when the Archbishop of Bologna was on his way to the conclave in which he was to be elected Pope with the name Gregory XV. Naturally, in these circumstances, an allusion to the possible election and the cardinal’s promise could not be omitted, who, according to Berro, “put his hand on his back and said: Father, if God gives me the grace to do it, I promise you that I will help you.”[2160] Another biographer, Bianchi, goes further and adds, according to his own account, that Calasanz predicted the pontificate to Ludovisi and that the latter gave him the promise of which Berro speaks.[2161] But the clarity of Calasanz’s letter, which is dated October 30, 1619, makes these assumptions impossible.[2162]

2159 Cf. PASTOR, o.c., vol. 25, p.266, and vol. 27, p.73.

2160 BERRO I, p.98.

2161 Cf. EGC II, p.95-96. As happens other times, Talenti accepts everything and recomposes it, saying that there were two encounters, one in 1619 and the other in 1621, with prophecy and promise in the last trip. (cf. TALENTI, Vita, p.137-138).

2162 Cf. the incongruities of Berro’s narrative in EGC II, p.95-96. The possibility of a second meeting in 1621, as a result of the conclave, is unlikely, since in the letters of those days in which Calasanz speaks of the subject, he would necessarily have alluded to it.

Much more conclusive is the fact that Ludovisi was familiar with the Pious Schools of Bologna, which had been founded in 1616 by John Francis Fiammelli “with the approval and authority of the Most Reverend Archbishop” and whose rules he also approved.[2163] Fiammelli undoubtedly spoke to Ludovisi about the Pious Schools in Rome, of which he had been a “brother” and teacher, and about their founder, Father Prefect Joseph Calasanz. And in Narni, Calasanz and Ludovisi would talk about Fiammelli. It was therefore logical that Calasanz considered Ludovisi to be a future pope, especially as he could not ignore the fact that throughout that year the Cardinal of Bologna was in Rome, “the opinion had spread that he would be the successor of Paul V”, as Pastor says.[2164] This fame and the friendship that had developed in Narni, as well as the discussions about the future of the newborn Pauline Congregation, gave Calasanz well-founded hopes of the protection of Ludovisi, the foreseeable pope. Perhaps this was the meaning of a Sibylline phrase he wrote to Father Garcia about ten days after the meeting with the Cardinal of Bologna: “I am sure that the Lord will help us greatly by means we cannot imagine.”[2165]

2163 Cf. Regole per la Congregatíone delle Scuole Pie di Bologna, approvate et confirmate dall’Illmo. e Revmo. Sig. Card. Lodovisio Arcivescovo et di esse Protettore benignissimo. Cap. I Origine et Istituto delle Scuole Pie di Bologna (cit. in L. PICANYOL, Le Scuole Pie e Galileo Galilei, p.60, n.2).

2164 Cf. PASTOR, o.c., vol. 27, p.73. In this case the prayers and wishes of Calasanz were fulfilled. But this is not always the case with the saints. St. Ignatius of Loyola did not want Card. Caraffa to be elected and Fr. Camara wrote on April 6, 1555: “About what the Father (Ignatius) said today to pray that, being equal service to God, no Pope would be elected who would mutate the Society, because there are some papables who it is feared would mutate it”; and upon learning that Caraffa had been elected on May 23, 1555, who was Paul IV, Camara says: “the Father made a notable change and alteration in his face and... all the bones in his body turned over” (C. DALMASES, El P. Maestro Ignacio [BAC, Madrid 1979], p.243 ).

2165 C.43.

On February 7th, he spoke again about the future election and said: “We will still pray here for the good election of such an important world spiritual leader. I hope that the cardinals will agree soon after the conclave. At least I hope so.”[2166] There are some who saw a more or less clear prophecy in this last sentence.[2167] He wanted to leave it at a mere wish, but the facts proved him right, for the conclave of 1621 was extraordinarily short compared to the other five that took place in the fifty-six years of Calasanz’s Roman life.[2168]

2166 C.67.

2167 Picanyol in EGC II, p.122; TALENTI, Vita, p.138.

2168 The conclave of Gregory XV lasted two days (cf. PASTOR, o.c., vol. 27, p.67-69); that of Clement VIII, 21 days (ibid., vol. 23, p.34-40); that of Leo XI, 19 days (ibid, vol. 25, p.11-16); that of Paul V, 9 days (ibid., vol. 25, p.24-32); that of Urban VIII, 19 days (ibid., vol. 27, p.297-309), and that of Innocent X, 38 days (ibid., vol. 30, p.17-25).

Approval of the Constitutions

It is very likely that after his arrival in Rome in late February, Father Joseph sought out the Cardinal Protector and presented him with the Constitutions, since he had written them at his command. Both would determine the steps to be taken to obtain his approval. And the first was obligatory: the Founder had to congratulate the Pope on his election, perhaps accompanied by Giustiniani. And when the first audience took place in mid-March, he certainly presented him with a memorandum asking for the approval of the Constitutions and, of course, the elevation of the Pauline Congregation to an Order with solemn vows. Although it was headed with his name, it does not seem to have been written by him, as the style is too confused. The first is a reminder of the prayers with which they implored God for their own election, seeing this as an immense divine beneficence; the second is a truly providential historical coincidence. Here are their words:

“...our small and still nascent Congregation has received from God our Lord, with great generosity and divine favor, all that it could desire and for which it had most earnestly petitioned His Divine Majesty during the past sede vacante, with prayers of the students and sacrifices of their own, and constant prayers day and night before the Blessed Sacrament, with strict fasting and other penitential exercises. For he has granted us Your Holiness, in which this smallest Congregation, besides the obvious gifts admired by the whole world, recognizes above all a holy and most happy prophecy for itself, and that is that Paul III, a Roman of happy memory, brought the Society of Jesus into being in the Church of God, and then Gregory XIII, a Bolognese of happy and immortal memory, confirmed it and brought it to the perfection in which it is today ... Thus, it seems to us that we can and should hope with certainty, since God our Lord willed that Paul V, a Roman of venerable memory, should erect it and give it its beginning, and so he has chosen Gregory XV, a Bolognese and heir to the name, high aims, and great spirit of Gregory XIII, to give this work the permanence and perfection necessary to satisfy the world, which desires and demands almost everything...” And then comes the request: “Therefore, the above-mentioned orator [Father Joseph of the Mother of God] humbly and affectionately begs Your Holiness to direct his pious and generous mind to this enterprise and to confirm what your predecessor has done in favor of the said work, and also to approve its Constitutions, to promote it with your favor and to protect it with your authority...”[2169]

2169 Cf. A. GARCÍA-DURÁN, Itinerario..., p.169-170, n.750; BAU, BC, p.392-393.

The Pope accepted the request and sent it to the Congregation of the Regulars on March 16th. There they read the memorandum and, due to the baroque ambiguity of the content, understood that only the approval of the Constitutions was requested, which they put on record under the date, adding that they should present the said Constitutions.[2170]

2170 The back of the memorandum reads: “Alla Congregatione dei Regolari. 16 di Marzo 1621. Petit confirmationem Constitutionum. Exhibeant Constitutiones” (RegCal, 13,22).

We know that after his return from Narni, Calasanz did not go to the community of San Pantaleo, which was his own, but directly to the novitiate in San Onofrio, where he spent at least the month of March, if not longer.[2171] In the novitiate, Father Casani was again the novice master. The copy of the Constitutions submitted to the Congregation of Bishops and Religious was carefully drafted by Casani, as was the final copy, into which all corrections were incorporated.[2172] However, three other copies are also kept in the archives of the Order, two of which are autographs of the Founder.[2173] All of these copies bear corrections, erasures and marginal notes, many of which can be traced back to the hand of the Founder, who ultimately decided on the final text. There were probably other copies that have disappeared.

2171 In his Epistolario it is noted that the last letter written in Narni is dated February 17, 1621 and announces that he will leave for Rome two or three days after the first or second day of Lent. The Ash Day was February 24th. Two or three days later, plus another three days of travel, brings us to March 3rd or 4th. The next letter is signed on the 6th in the novitiate and the following one also in the novitiate, dated March 30th. The following one is already from August (cf. C.72-75).

2172 Vilá calls them “Casani 1” and “Casani 2.” The first returned to the archives of San Pantaleo, while the second is preserved in the Vatican Secret Archives. Section of Briefs, n.654, ff.152-178 (cf. C. VILÁ, Constituciones de la Congregacion Paulina. Texto original de Narni: Archivum 17 [1985] 1-2).

2173 Vilá calls them ‘text of Narni’, ‘text of Cáller’ and ‘anonymous text’ (cf. ibid., p.1, 52 and 57). The first two are autographs.

All this indicates that during the month of March, the novitiate worked intensively not only to copy the original text, but also to revise and correct it before submitting it to the Holy See; a correction and revision that was probably carried out by Calasanz, Casani and some of the older and more respected companions of the first hour, as we have already said.[2174] In reality, this first domestic or internal revision or correction was aimed primarily - though not exclusively - at the external form or style, more than at the content.[2175]

2174 Cf. n.2142 above.

2175 See Vilá’s comparative study between the original text and the corrections coming from the various correctors or censors. In our case, the domestic corrections would be those presented in the text of Cáller (cf. C. VILÁ, o.c., p.54-57) and those indicated by the acronym VC in the notes (cf. ibid., p.3-50). They are really many.

The original text, already polished and revised, was copied by Father Casani in his clear and elegant handwriting and submitted to the Congregation of Regulars. There, as usual, a number of censors, theologians, lawyers and experts in religious life were called in to examine the submitted text and contribute their judgments and corrections. Berro does not give names, but he clearly distinguishes the two moments of examination: before submitting it to the Holy See, he says that Fr. Joseph “had it examined by many learned and perfect religious”, and then the Sacred Congregation “had it examined also by other very knowledgeable men from other Religions and especially by the Jesuit Fathers”.[2176] Caputi, exaggerating as usual, gives two different lists with seven names, of which only Father Bagnacavallo, a great friend of Calasanz and then Superior General of the Franciscan Conventuals, can be considered certain.[2177] In his report of 1623, Calasanz names Cardinal Tonti and Father Bagnacavallo and adds that they were verified “by many other serious and learned religious”.[2178] In a memorandum of 1624 signed by Calasanz and his Assistants, the Pope is informed that “the Constitutions were approved and signed after a rigorous examination by three theologians, namely Father Peter Alagona, Jesuit, Father Bagnacavallo, then Superior General of the Conventuals, and Father Artemio, secular priest of Siena.”[2179] Of these three, however, only the latter two, and perhaps a few others of those named by Caputi, made their corrections to the text copied by Casani.[2180]

2176 BERRO I, p.103.

2177 Besides Bagnacavallo he names his friend and successor John B. Berardicelli da Larino, the Carmelites Fr. John of Jesus Mary, who had already died on May 28, 1615 (cf. Fr. FLORENCIO DEL NIÑO JESÚS, El P. Fr. Juan de Jesus Maria, p.242-243) and Dominic Ruzola, who was then away from Rome, from June 17, 1620 until the beginning of December 1621 (cf. A. AGUSTÍN, Bishop of Albarracín, Epitome de la Vida... del Ven. Fr. Domingo de Jesús María, p.160 and 188), the Dominicans Jacinth Petroni and Cándido and the Franciscan Luke Wading (quoted by D. CUEVA, Calasanz y sus Constituciones, p.13).

2178 EGC II, p.172.

2179 EC II, p.510. Nothing is known of Father Artemio.

2180 In Vilá’s study the observations of these theologians are indicated with the acronym CENS, and are of a very different nature from those of the previous VC correctors.

To these theological censors must be added the jurists, namely Cardinal Michael Angelo Tonti, whom the Congregation of Regulars appointed as presenter of the case, and his auditor Don Alexander Luciani.[2181]

2181 Cf. C. VILÁ, o.c., p.2-3; D. CUEVA, o.c., p.14. Cardinal Tonti received his doctorate in utroque at the Sapienza in Rome on September 10, 1591 (cf. C. VILÁ, El doctorado del card. Michelangelo Tonti fundador del Colegio Nazareno: EphCal 4 [1981] 164-165).

Casani’s first copy, enriched and smeared with all the corrections, crossings out, warnings and questions of the censors, theologians and jurists, was sent back to Calasanz so that he could examine it and decide on each individual case and then write another copy. This was done. And Casani rewrote the corrected text, which was given to the Congregation. After examination and approval by the plenary, an official decree was drawn up, which summarized as follows:

“We, Michelangelo... Cardinal Nazarene, on behalf of the Sacred Congregation... have seen and carefully examined the said Constitutions... in which we have found nothing that is not suitable for a regular institute and for the life and morals of religious, and after reporting all this to the Most Reverend Cardinals, they themselves... unanimously judged that the said Constitutions should be confirmed and approved, as indeed they are... provided the placet of the Apostolic See. This day of September 14, 1621.”[2182]

2182 Cf. C. VILÁ, o.c., p.61 (full Latin text).

This decree was submitted to the Pope for approval. However, when he realized four days later that there was no Cleric Regular among the official censors, he ordered that someone be consulted in order to obtain more certainty.[2183] Father Peter Alagona (1549-1624), a Syracusan Jesuit, advisor to the Roman Congregations, professor of morals and canon at Collegio Romano, examiner of bishops, etc., was appointed the last censor. Father Alagona spent barely a month examining the Constitutions and wrote down only nine very brief remarks on a separate sheet of paper.[2184] Calasanz read them and accepted only three of them. As there were only five words, Cardinal Tonti did not consider it appropriate to repeat the copy, but inserted them into the fair copy, adding his initials with each correction.

2183 In the Decree of the Congregation, the Pope had written the following: “18 di settembre 1621. Smus. Mandavit ut consulatur aliquis Regularis arbitrio secretarii” (RegCal 13,22). The censors had been of mendicant orders (Franciscans and perhaps Dominicans) or of the secular clergy. The Congregation of the Pious Schools, however, was of the regular clergy.

2184 See in C. VILÁ, o.c., p.52 and in D. CUEVA, o.c., p.15.

On their own initiative or at Cardinal Tonti’s suggestion, the Piarists again asked the Congregation of Regulars for approval of the Constitutions, which replied, also curtly, on October 16th, that the Pope had ordered the publication of a Brief for their approval.[2185] This letter was finally issued on January 31, 1622.[2186]

2185 Here are the texts: “The Clerics Regular Poor of the Mother of God of the Pious Schools, humbly beg Your Illme Lordships for the confirmation of their Constitutions, that the whole etc....” And next: “Smus. Dnus. Noster Constitutiones ptas. per Breve ex certa scientia et cum illarum insertione confirmari mandavit. Romae die 16 octobris 1621. A. Card.lis Saulius” (Paolucci, p.92).

2186 Cf. Bullarium Sch. P., p.24-26. The original Brief with the complete text of the Constitutions inserted in it is preserved in RegCal 11, IIº.

The final step: Religious Order

Cardinal Giustiniani was undoubtedly anxious to achieve the end of this great adventure: the elevation of the Pious Schools to an Order with solemn vows and the approval of its Constitutions. Perhaps his last intervention was the delivery of Calasanz’s memorandum to the Pope, in which he demanded both, if Calasanz had not presented it himself at the first audience granted to him. However, on March 16, 1621, the aforementioned memorandum was sent to the Congregation of Regulars on behalf of the Pope. Giustiniani did not live to learn more, as he died on the 27th of the same month of March at the age of sixty-seven, as can be read on his tombstone in the Basilica of Santa Maria sopra Minerva.[2187]

2187 In the family chapel of the Giustinianis, the 4th on the left, on the floor, is his tomb, on whose slab we read: ‘Benedictus Episcopus Portuensis S. R. E. Cardinalis Iustinianus Genuensis Josephi filius obiit anno salutis MDCXXI, VI kal. Aprilis aetatis LXVII.”

A great protector of Pious Schools and a good friend and admirer of their Founder, who asked for many suffrages for him, had passed away.[2188] And in the coming months, his successor would make his appearance, not with an official title, but with charity, interest, protection and deep appreciation for Calasanz and his work. He would be Cardinal Nazareno, Michael Angel Tonti. Things developed as follows. When Calasanz’s memorandum arrived at the Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, they understood that only the approval of the Constitutions was required.[2189] And the examination of the Constitutions began. Calasanz and his followers saw that the more or less ambiguous request for the elevation to Order of solemn vows had not been considered, and decided to make it explicit in this form once again:

2188 Cf. letter of Calasanz to Fr. Cananea, giving him the news, asking for suffrages and remembering the 2,000 escudos with which he had guaranteed part of the interest debts for the purchase of the house of San Pantaleon. His heirs were to pay them (cf. c.74).

2189 Cf. previous note 2170.

“The Fathers of the Congregation of the Mother of God of Pious Schools, desiring to stabilize the said Congregation and to place it in a state of perfection, humbly request Your Excellencies - since the said Congregation has the three simple vows of poverty, chastity and obedience - that the said vows be declared solemn because they are essential in a Religion, and that the said Congregation be placed in a state of perfection like the other Religious, etc...”[2190]

2190 Cf. A. GARCÍA-DURÁN, o.c., p.180, n.800.

In the Congregation, however, they were not in favor of creating new religious Orders and relied juridically on a literal and strict interpretation of the old canon 13th of the IV Ecumenical Lateran Council, as we have already seen when the Lucchesi tried to obtain this rank for their Congregation. And in a special way, Cardinal Tonti, who presented the cause, seemed irreducible. “He - according to Berro - was strictly opposed to the establishment of new Religions, and since he was so learned and respected at Court and before the Pope himself, he prevented this to a great extent.”[2191] Calasanz undoubtedly had long conversations with the cardinal in which he understood the reasons for his firm opposition to new Religious Orders. And he resolutely set about the task of proving to the cardinal that none of his supposed reasons were valid in view of the absolute novelty of Pious Schools in the Church of God.

2191 BERRO, I p.101. St. Ignatius also encountered opposition from Cardinal Guidiccioni because of the Fourth Lateran Council. Ignatius and his companions, in addition to other prayers and penances, promise to offer three thousand Masses in honor of the Holy Trinity to obtain the approval of the Society (cf. C. DALMASES, El P. Maestro Ignacio [BAC] p.144,147). St. Camillus de Lellis, likewise, in order to obtain the elevation of his Congregation to an Order of solemn vows had “many hundreds of Masses” celebrated, in addition to ordering fasts and penances, even very hard ones, and commits himself to make a personal pilgrimage to Loreto (cf. A. PRONZATO, Todo Corazón para los enfermos. Camilo de Lellis [Sígueme, Salamanca 1985], p.203). The prayers and penances are explained, but the exorbitant number of Masses is still somewhat extravagant and strange.

This famous writing has gone down in history under the name Memorandum to Cardinal Tonti. It is a very long, energetic, solidly reasoned plea for the legitimacy and even the necessity of elevating Pious Schools to the Order of solemn vows. A masterpiece, an original, splendid hymn to the educational work of the school, presented as a novelty in the field of evangelization and the reform of the Church. An extraordinary writing in which Calasanz shows himself to be a man deeply convinced of the transformative power of the school and in love with his own vocation as an educator.

The interpretation that popes have made over the centuries of the famous Canon 13th of the Fourth Lateran Council – Calasanz was telling - was in fact,

“… to declared tacitly that the Council alluded only to superfluous and similar Orders, because the popes themselves had approved many others, especially those that exercise a different, necessary and specific service in the Church of God. And among the latter is the work of the Poor of the Mother of God of Pious Schools, with a service which, in the general opinion of all, clergy and laity, princes and citizens, is irreplaceable and perhaps the first for the reform of the corrupt morals of the world; a service which consists in the good education of the children, for on this depends all the rest of the good or bad life of men... Therefore it cannot be doubted that it will be favored and ennobled with the name of a true and observant religious Order, a name which so many others have hitherto received, perhaps not so useful and necessary, perhaps not so much applauded by all, perhaps not so much wanted, and, without perhaps, less requested, than this institute has been desired in so short a time, which is truly the most worthy, most noble, most meritorious, most useful, most necessary, most natural, most reasonable, most grateful, most pleasing, and most glorious institute.”[2192]

2192 See the original Italian text in A. GARCÍA-DURÁN, o.c., p.170-179; translated into Spanish in BAU, BC, p.411-417; LESAGA, ASIAÍN, LECEA, Documentos fundacionales de las Escuelas Pías (Salamanca 1979), p.183-193; SANTHA, SJC, p.703-709.

We respect the superlatives as they appear in the original Italian, both for their fidelity to their true meaning[2193] and for their expressiveness and euphony. Their rhythmic sound, like a mighty cataract of praise, gives us the measure of the admiration and enthusiasm, of the esteem and fascination that Calasanz felt for the educational mission of the school.

2193 The original italian says: “Istituto (ministry) in vero dignissimo, nobilissimo, meritevolissimo, commodissimo, utilissimo, necessarissimo, naturalissimo, ragionevolissimo, graditissimo, gratiosissimo e gloriosissimo” (cf. A. GARCÍA-DURÁN, o.c., p.172). Both Bau and Sántha (cf. l.c.) translate with relative superlatives (“the most worthy, the most noble...”, while Lesaga-Asiain-Lecea (cf. l.c.) use the absolute (“worthiest, noblest...”). C. Vilá qualifies this last version as inaccurate, saying that with it “the superlatives used by the Saint lose all their comparative value” and advocates -like Bau and Sántha- for the relative superlative “which is what Calasanz tries to prove and without which his global thesis lacks all value” (cf. EphCal 11 [1980] 487): It is unquestionable that Calasanz sometimes affirms that his institute or ministry is the most effective. But here he is content to use those absolute superlatives in ‘-issimo’, while he could have used the relative ones (‘il più...’). He didn’t. He even attenuates the immediate context with a “perhaps” (forse). For his thesis it is enough to prove that his institute is “different, necessary and specific in the Church”, as he says above, and not common to other Orders. The superlatives, both absolute and relative, are simply redundant. But the translator must respect the author’s attenuation, which avoids in this case the presumption of placing his work above the others.

Cardinal Tonti must have been astonished and completely convinced when he read the memorandum, and from being an opponent he became an enthusiastic protector of Calasanz’s cause. In fact, on August 31, 1621, thanks to Cardinal Nazareno’s positive report,[2194] the Congregation of Regulars decreed that the Congregation of the Pious Schools could be elevated to a religious Order with solemn vows.[2195] The decree of the Congregation was presented to the Pope together with a plea from Calasanz, in which he asked for the pontiff’s approval and gave a summary of the reasons for his request. He said:

2194 The appellation came to him from the title of archbishop of Nazareth, received from Paul V in October 1608, a month before he was named cardinal (November 24, 1608). This archdiocese was in southern Italy, in Barletta, and had arisen when Palestine was occupied by the Turks at the end of the 12th century, when the fugitive bishop of Palestinian Nazareth took refuge in the church of St. Mary of Nazareth, near Barletta (cf VANNUCCI, Il Collegio Nazareno [Rome 1930], p.50, n.4).

2195 The decree says: “Si Smo. Dno. Nostro placuerit, s. Congregatio Cardinalium negotiis regularium praepositorum, Illo. Nazareno referente, praefatam Congregationem nominatam Pauperum Matris Dei... in Religionem trium votorum sollemnium approbari posse censuit. Romae die 31 augusti 1621. A. Card. Saulius” (cf. A. GARCÍA-DURAN, o.c., p.180, n.802).

“The Congregation of the Poor of the Mother of God of Pious Schools, erected by Clement VIII and confirmed by Paul V of blessed memory, wishes to continue to perfect itself in the vocation of the Institute which it professes for the good education of boys, which is as important, not to say necessary, in the Christian republic [society] as its scarcity, natural reason, experience, constant examples, general applause, and the books of both pagans and Catholics show, recognizing that for the accomplishment, firmness, and propagation of such a work in the Church of God, the strong bond of solemn vows is in many respects necessary.”[2196]

2196 Ibid., n.803.

Everything seems to indicate that it was Cardinal Nazarene who personally presented to the pope the approving decree of his own Congregation and the request of the Founder, adding the necessary recommendations to obtain the Brief, for on the same day, August 31, Gregory XV ordered that it be duly issued.[2197] Moreover, Calasanz already knew a week before signing the decree of the Congregation that the cardinals had decided it, which he was certainly informed of by Cardinal Nazareno himself. So, he immediately began to communicate this and ask everyone to thank God for the great boon received. Here is a letter dated August 25, 1621, which was sent to Nursia:

2197 “Ad relationem Illmi. Nazareth expediatur iuxta formam alterius religionis Clericorum Regul. Matris Dei” (ibid., n.804). And it is prefixed with the date “August 31, 1621.” (RegCal 11,68, p.224) On that same date, the Congregation of Regulars decided by decree to elevate the two Congregations of the Mother of God, that is, the Congregation of the Lucchesi and the Congregation of the Pious Schools, to the Order of Solemn Vows. The corresponding Briefs, however, were issued on November 3rd for the Lucchesi and on the 18th of the same month for the Piarists (cf. EC II, p.503, n.5).

“As soon as you have received this letter, let everyone assemble and go to church to pray the Te Deum laudamus and give thanks to the Lord, who by his mere mercy, without our merit, has made the cardinals of the Congregation of Regulars give our Congregation the firmest and most constant stability by declaring it a Religion and giving it the solemn vows.”[2198]

2198 C.82.

Nevertheless, several months had to pass until November 18th, when the Pope signed the Brief In supremo Apostolatus.[2199] This created the last Order with solemn vows in the Church that still exists today: the Order of the Pious Schools, which from then on was no longer called the Pauline Congregation.

2199 Cf. Bullarium Sch. P., p.22-23. It is striking that Calasanz in his Report of 1623 says that the Brief is dated November 23rd (cf. EGC II, p.172) and the same is repeated by Morandi in his Narratione copying the first (cf. Archivum 15 [1984] 5) and also by Armini (cf. Vita, 112). In the documents of the “Fondo Paolucci” the date is given as Nov. 28th. (cf. Paolucci, p.90), and García-Durán accepts it, although he cites the Bullarium (cf., GARCÍA-DURÁN, o.c., p.181). They also cite the Bullarium and keep to its date of Nov. 18th: Bau (cf. BAU, BC, p.398), Sántha (EphCal 2 [1967] 84, n.36). Vilá (Pos Cas. p.309 and 405). The same date of Nov. 18th is given by Berro (cf. BERRO I, p.101) and Bartlik (cf. EphCal 2 [1938] 41). The original Brief was stolen, along with many other documents by Napoleon’s troops. But Fr. Octavio Manetti, archivist general (1760-1663) composed in 1762 an Inventario cronologico d’ell Archivio Generalizio delle Scuole Pie edited by Picanyol in 1955, and in the section of Briefs, decrees, etc., it appears in n. VIII: “Innalzamento della detta Congregazione a stato di Religione co’Voti Solenni. l8 Novembre 1621 -anche in carta stampata” (o.c., p.38). There was, then, the original, but there was also a printed copy. And this gives us the explanation for the wrong date in Calasanz’s report. In fact, of the 5 Briefs he published in 1623 (cf. n.57 above), the second is the one of Gregory XV In supremo Apostolatu, which we are dealing with. It bears the date: “die XVIII Novembris MDCXXI, Pontificatus Nostri Anno Primo.” But in the margin, we read, also printed: “Dat. Pot, an. primo die 23rd Novembris.” When composing his report in 1623, Calasanz must have looked at the marginal note and not at the text, and put 23. Both Roman numerals, moreover, are easily confused: XVIII (18) and XXIII (23).

Coming of age: Solemn vows

Cardinal Nazareno was destined to be a new Giustiniani. But his term of office was too short. On January 31, 1622, the Constitutions were approved with the papal Brief, but it took another month for them to reach the hands of the Founder, who waited for them to be copied according to the number of houses, a task that took him another three weeks.[2200] So, he was busy almost until the end of March. But he did not lose contact with the Cardinal, who spoke to him about endowing the Pious Schools with his goods and building at least one house of study and a novitiate for the Order. The Founder of the Order did not want to accept such a donation, as he considered it incompatible with the poverty proclaimed in the Constitutions, and suggested founding a school for poor and gifted children that would bear his name. The proposal pleased the Cardinal, so he decided in his will to appoint his universal heir - with a few exceptions requested by his relatives - to the institution called Collegio Nazareno.[2201]

2200 In the introduction to the Catalogue of Religious from 1617 to 1637, written by Morandi by mandate and with the supervision of Calasanz, we read: “And not having had the said Constitutions approved within the Apostolic Brief by the hand of the Apostolic Ministers until a month or so had passed, which was the whole of February, and the General spent three weeks or so making copies of them and sending a copy to each house outside Rome so that in all of them they would be put into observance...” (Catal. Rel., p.18-19)

2201 Cf. BERRO I, 105; BAU, BC, p.566-567.

With this future foundation in mind, he bought the grandiose palace in Via del Buffalo from the Caetani family, which was to become its seat - and has remained so to this day - and to which he moved.[2202] He had not yet spent a month in his new stately home when he felt seriously ill and feared the worst when he made his will in favor of his universal heir, the future Collegio Nazareno, on April 19, 1622. He stipulated that the administration of the Collegio Nazareno should be entrusted to the auditors of the Roman Rota and that its management and operation should be in the hands of the Pious Schools. Twelve scholars were to be admitted, poor but very talented boys - today we would say gifted - who would later grow to twenty.[2203]

2202 The purchase of the palace and of the annexed small house, in which the college would be installed at the beginning, was made on January 29, 1622 (cf. P. VANNUCCI, Il Collegio Nazareno [Rome 1930] p.92, n.10).

2203 Ib., p.80 and BAU, BC, p.568-569.

The following day, April 20, Father Joseph appeared at his palace with four companions at the express wish of the Cardinal. Calasanz recounts it as follows:

“On April 20, 1622, Father Joseph of the Mother of God, Minister General, made his solemn vows at the hands of the Reverend Cardinal Michelangelo, called Nazareno, in his room, while he was ill, in the presence of Fathers Peter of the Nativity of Our Lady, Viviano of the Assumption, Francis of the Purification, and Paul of the Assumption, and many other relatives of the said Cardinal. Then the said Joseph of the Mother of God, together with the said Fathers, went to the temple of Santa Maria Maggiore and after the Mass celebrated by him at the altar of the same B. Virgin, the said Fathers made solemn vows into the hands of the said Joseph in the presence of the clergy of the said chapel and many other persons.”[2204]

2204 Liber Congr. Paul., p.47.

This is the traditional version that has prevailed to this day. Nevertheless, Fr. Bartlik quotes in his Annals, together with the testimony of the Founder, a paragraph from a letter from Fr. Casani to Fr. John Baptist Costantini, written on the same day of the events, which says: “This morning we placed our solemn vows in the hands of the dying Card. Tonti, and from his house we went to St. Mary Major and renewed them after Mass, which was said publicly by Our Father at the altar of the Blessed Virgin, with surplice and stole at the same altar.”[2205] Bartlik did not comment on the difference in the versions, as he was only interested in establishing that Calasanz had indeed made his solemn profession at the hands of the dying Card. Tonti.[2206] Presumably each of them read the formula for profession. But they have all disappeared, as we shall say later. And they must explicitly state to whom it was made, whether to the cardinal or only to Father Joseph.

2205 BARTLIK, Annales; EphCal 3 [1938] 77; EC, p.504.

2206 For Vilá we would have again another example - parallel to the one of Calasanz’s dressing only by Giustiniani - of the conspiracy of the contemporaries to highlight the person of Calasanz as Founder, although they knew that in reality it was Casani. And again, it would be Calasanz the author of the farce (cf. PosCas, p.231-232; Juicio histórico-crítico..., p.26-28).

In any case, it is indisputable that there was an act of special reverence and recognition towards Cardinal Nazareno, to whom the elevation to the Order of Solemn Vows and the approval of the Constitutions were due. And it is equally certain that there was another act of veneration in the Paolina or Borghese Chapel of Santa Maria Maggiore before the venerable image of Our Lady Salus Populi Romani. This chapel was built at the behest of Paul V from 1605 to 1613, when the venerated icon attributed to St. Luke was solemnly placed there. And both Father Joseph and his companions must have been particularly moved by this pauline Chapel, not only because of its Marian character, but also because it contained the tombs of Clement VIII and Paul V, the two popes whom the Pious Schools had held in such high esteem and favored. And although the two tombs and their mediocre statues had been finished for years, the mortal remains of Paul V had only recently been laid in his monument: precisely on January 30 of the current year I622.[2207]

2207 This is what G. Gigli records in his Diary, p.55 (cf. A. AUSENDA, o.c.: Ricerche 3 [1986] 364).

The day after the solemn profession, April 21, Card. Nazareno died in the arms of Calasanz.[2208] He wanted to be buried in the church of Gesù, and so it was. His relatives were supposed to erect a monument in the presbytery, but they did not, demanding that the Collegio Nazareno pay for half of the simple tombstone, which was placed in front of the altar of St. Ignatius on the left side in 1637, with a long Latin epitaph written by Calasanz himself.[2209]

2208 “li morse nelle braccia” (he died in his arms) (BERRO I, p.186).

2209 A transcription is preserved in the General Archives (AGEP), on the back of which we read “Epitaffio pel Card. Tonti del V. P. Fondatore 1637” (Epitaph for Card. Tonti from Our Ven Fr. Founder 1637) (RegCal 12,67), which coincides with the one on the tombstone of the ‘Gesu’, except for some minor variations that we note: the words in italics are only on the tombstone and those in parentheses are only in the document in the Archives. The rest is identical in both versions. Here is the epitaph: “D.O.M./ Michaeli Angelo Tonto Ariminensi / a Paulo V P.M. Prudentiam fidemque viri saepius experto / primum Datariae Praefecto (postea) tum Arch.Nazareno/ postremum S.R.E. Cardinali (creato)/ atque ad intima quaeque adhibito / Quo tempore post coniunctam / cum florenti Principis gratia singularem modestiam (habuit unde)/ in adversa quoque fortuna constantiam (exerceret) exhibuit dignus qui (non nisi reflorescente) recepta gratia / diem (obiit) obiret /Anno Dom. MDCXXII aetatis suae (anno LII) LVI / Antonius Tontus Avunculo / et Collegium Nazarenum ab illo (istitutum) institutum / et Sac. Rom. Rotae Auditorum patrocinio commendatum/ Patrumque Pauperum Matris Dei Disciplinae traditum / Parenti optimo posuere / An. Dom. MDCXXXVII.” Vannucci is surprised that there are authors who quote this epitaph, while he presents a totally different one, which is certainly not the one on the sepulchral slab, as anyone who goes to the Church of Gesù can verify (cf. P. VANNUCCI, o.c., p.57).

This solemn profession had been hasty, perhaps to please the dying cardinal. Then came the reflection and reasonable doubt that it might be invalid, since the cardinal had no authority to receive the vows, nor, strictly speaking, did Calasanz have the authority to receive those of his companions, since no one had appointed him Superior General of the new Order, although he remained implicitly so. To assuage consciences, it was decided to ask the Pope for a solution. And on April 28, 1622, Gregory XV issued the letter Apostolici muneris, in which he appointed Father Joseph (Calasanz) of the Mother of God as Minister General for nine years and not for life, as the Constitutions had stipulated, as well as Fathers Casani, Viviani, Castelli and Ottonelli, so that with him - as the letter states - “they would “represent the body of the religion”, i.e. he appointed them General Assistants. As far as solemn profession was concerned, he granted the five of them the right to make it at the hands of any prelate they chose.[2210]

2210 Cf. Bullarium Sch. P., p.27-28.

The prelate chosen was Archbishop Peter Lombard, Archbishop of Armagh, Primate of Ireland, friend and neighbor of the house, who was happy to ordain the Piarist clerics when they asked him.[2211] In order to have greater security, which was perhaps excessive, they called Don Felix de Totis, Notary of the Apostolic Chamber, and two witnesses to authenticate the act, and on May 7, 1622, Father General and his four Assistants made their new solemn profession in the hands of the above-mentioned Archbishop in the chapel of the novitiate, in the slope of St. Onofrio.[2212] In the formula, they added to the three general vows the fourth vow of education proper to the Order, with the expression that was already in the Constitutions[2213] and that will remain forever.

2211 C.69.

2212 Cf. PosCas, p.407-409. In the Libro dei Professi (RegCal 11,3) are listed in order: Calasanz, Casani, Viviani, Ottonelli and Castelli, and of the five it is said that they made their solemn vows on May 7, 1622, without alluding to the first profession on April 20. And after n. 5 (Castelli) it still adds that all of them professed on May 7 by the Apostolic Brief “per rapresentar il corpo della Congregatione.” (because they represent the body of the Religion) The whole book is autograph of Calasanz. The same is read in the Catal. Rel., p.19-20.

2213 “summam paupertatem, castitatem et obedientiam, et juxta eam peculiarem curam circa puerorum eruditionem” (PosCas, p.408-409; CC, n.31).

The solemn profession of the General and his Assistants was a concession of privilege, for they had to - as the letter says - “represent the body of the Religion”. All others who had already completed the prescribed two years of the novitiate and taken simple vows, had to wait at least two more years from 1622, because the elevation to the Order of Solemn Vows was like a new state of religious life that required another two years of probation or the second novitiate.[2214] And it was indeed a profitable test for the nascent Order, as the Founder says: “In the course of the two years of the novitiate, some who had already taken simple vows did not wish to take solemn vows and were given the dispensation by the Sacred Penitentiary, and others who were not found fit to take solemn vows were dismissed with the same dispensation, leaving only those who seemed fit for the Institute.”[2215]

2214 In the Report of 1623 Calasanz wrote that with the Apostolic Brief the General with his four Assistants were appointed to “represent the body of the Religion and had active and passive voice, because, entering the new state, all were novices” (EGC II, p.172).

2215 Ib.

The sifting must have been remarkable, for Berro says that the Founder, “who had only the glory of God and the good of Religion in mind, dismissed many without regard to the priesthood, or to the more than ordinary knowledge or to other gifts, as Father Valmarana, who... although he was very learned, took off the habit, and another who had been superior for a long time... and he did the same with many others, and there were about 30 of them.”[2216]

2216 BERRO, p.124.

So, after two years, on the day of the Annunciation in 1624, the first promotion of solemn professed took place, simultaneously in Rome, Narni, Genoa, Nursia, Fanano, etc.[2217] And others were added in the course of the year. It can thus be said that the new Order entered into normality. The extraordinary period of testing or running was over.

2217 See ms. Libro dei professi (Regcal, 11,3), Catal. Rel., p.20-30 and Liber Cogr. Paul., p.5-29. In all three it is noted that those dressed before 1622 make their solemn profession in 1624, and those dressed after January 1622 make their solemn vows at least two years later.

To complement and officially recognize this kind of coming of age, on October 15, 1622, Gregory XV granted the Pious Schools, in the letter Ad uberes fructus, the communication of the privileges, immunities, liberties, faculties, exemptions and all other spiritual and temporal graces and indulgences that the popes had previously granted to the mendicant orders and which were henceforth granted to them. And all this -said the Pope - because “seeing the rich fruits which the Pious Schools produce in the Church militant, and trusting that they will be even richer in the future, we wish to shower them with graces and favors, so that they may adhere with greater zeal to their praiseworthy institute.”[2218]

2218 Cf. Bullarium Sch. P., p.29-31.

This generous pope had yet another detail of his benevolence for the Pious Schools when he freed the church of San Pantaleo from any parochial obligation to provide pastoral care and placed it forever at the free and unrestricted disposal of the Order, both the church itself and the adjoining premises, which until then had been intended for the parish vicar.[2219] It should also be remembered that Gregory XV continued to grant the Pious Schools annual alms of 200 scudos throughout his pontificate, as his predecessors Clement VIII and Paul V had done.[2220]

2219 Cf. the Brief in Archivum 8 (1934) 29-34. Cf. also G. SÁNTHA, 350 anni a condita domo S. Pantaleonis, p.276-277. For a complete artistic-historical overview of this church see G. SPAGNESI, San Pantaleo, Rome 1967.

2220 In some autographic pages of Calasanz the alms received from the popes are minutely noted, and concretely it says: “His Holines Gregory XV gave orders to pay the 200 escudos in two payments as was used with the mandate of the Treasurer. “ (RegCal II,33, p.275-276). And in the long list of alms (71 recipients) about Card. Ludovico Ludovisi, nepote of Gregorio XV, reads: “To the priests of the Pious Schools sc. 60” per year. For the construction of the Church of St. Ignatius - where Gregory XV is buried in a grandiose monument - 6,000 scudi per year were destined. And to the “Compagnia de’SS. Apostoli”, to which Calasanz belonged, he gave 2,000 scudi annually (cf. PASTOR, o.c., vol. 27, p.465-467).

Pope Ludovisi also left this world too soon, as did Cardinal Nazareno. Father Joseph could have expected great things from both of them, but his hopes were dashed. The friendship and protection of Cardinal Tonti lasted less than a year; that of Gregory XV two long years. He died on June 8, 1623, and the Barberinis’ era was to be something else.

Admirable as a miracle

Berro tells us about it. It barely takes up half a page. But it deserves to be read. There is no baroque exaggeration or supernaturalism. It is the simple sublimity of the men of God.

Among the thirty or so whom the Founding Father refused solemn profession,

“…there was one - he writes - the most furious and obstinate, who did not want to take off the habit and, tempted by the devil, stood one afternoon with a thick stick behind the door of the stairs to the oratory of St. Pantaleo, waiting for our Father General and Founder to pass by to go to prayer to give him a blow. And it would have happened as he wished if the former Captain Ottonelli, I mean Fr. Paul of the Assumption,[2221] had not been right behind our Father as he passed and stopped the thick stick that was already sticking up in the air and threatening him. The Cardinal Vicar’s guard had to be called in to remove his habit on the orders of the said Father Paul. But the Father did not allow him to be punished as his audacity deserved. In the end, he was stripped of his habit and devoted himself to repairing pots in Rome. And Father General not only helped him in everything, but I remember that when the unfortunate man fell seriously ill in the Holy Year 1625, our Holy Father not only sent the family doctor and Fathers to visit him morning and evening and bring him what the doctor prescribed from our infirmary, but he himself went to him every two or three days and always brought him something pleasant.”[2222]

2221 Jericó writes of him: “…in the world he was Count Otonelo Otoneli... and from his youth he followed the militia in which he became famous for the courage of his arm” (J. JERICÓ, Varones insignes, p.111).

2222 BERRRO, p.124-125.

These are the acts of revenge of the saints: like miracles. There are people who always walk in the ways of God, who are so different from the ways of men, and ask him in humility and without lies: “Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us.” And our Father was surprised that there were Christians who so easily forgot these words that he so often pondered.[2223]

2223 And he wrote: “Is it possible that Mr. Manilius does not understand those words sicut et nos dimittimus. debitoribus nostris, and that for the love of the Lord who lost his life and honor for him he does not wish to forgive his neighbor?” (c.1528); ”…these gentlemen do not consider that God will forgive us as we forgive our enemies”; (c.1715 ) “When our Redeemer taught us how to effectively obtain forgiveness for our sins, he did not say forgive us Lord because we have done many penances, nor because we have done many prayers or miracles, but because we forgive our enemies, which when this is done out of his love is the most effective remedy for any forgiveness” (C.2506); “And for the common good the man must forget of every particular insult or disgust following the Spanish saying: Dando gracias por agravios negocian los hombres sabios” (the wise men negotiate giving thanks for grievances) (C.2593), etc. “

Chapter 17

Nature and novelty of Calasanz’ work. Piety and letters

A pause in the rhythm of our historical narrative is necessary. Sooner or later this had to happen, but we have preferred to wait until now so as not to hinder the development process of Calasanz’s work. Once the Pious Schools have been transformed into a religious Order, with the stability and ecclesiastical status that places them in concert with the other Orders of the Church, we can look back and carefully examine their nature and transcendence in cultural history. At this point in our narrative, some twenty-five years after its humble appearance, it is already a mature work with a clear purpose, clear and stable structures, methods and ideas in its dual aspect as a religious body of the Church and as a cultural and social institution in the world of human civilization.

We do not intend to give an exhaustive vision of the subject, but merely to sketch in a few lines the picture of each of the aspects that define the work in its entirety. These aspects would be in particular: social, ecclesiastical, religious-spiritual, educational and historical. The defining and specific aspect of the Pious Schools is, of course, the pedagogical-educational aspect, which is based on the motto of the order: Piety and Letters. This is why it deserves more attention and more pages than the others. The historical aspect is like a logical extension of the previous one. In it we want to give an overview of the historical situation in which the “popular school” found itself in the most important nations of Europe, or rather, in those that have researched more about their own pedagogical history, modestly trying to give Joseph Calasanz the place that corresponds to him.

For the good of society

There is hardly an autograph document by Calasanz in which the social aspect of his institution is more evident than in this memorandum of 1626, addressed to the cardinals of the Holy Office and asking for their help. It is also perhaps one of the most eloquent declarations of the preventive nature of educational work in the face of a possible dramatic future, translating the positive version presented in the Preamble to his Constitutions into the negative: “If children are diligently instructed in Piety and Letters from their earliest youth, it is undoubtedly to be expected that their whole life will be a happy one.”[2224] Here is the translation of the memorandum:

2224 CC, n.2.

“It is incumbent upon the institute of Pious Schools to instruct boys, especially the poor, many of whom, on account of poverty or the neglect of their parents, neither go to school, nor learn any trade or exercise, but wander about lost and idle, and therefore easily give themselves up to various games, especially to playing cards; and necessarily, if they have no money to play with, they must first steal it at home, and then wherever they can, or they will find it in some other lousy way. To prevent such a pernicious evil to society in the first place, the Fathers of Pious Schools set themselves the arduous task of teaching them out of charity. If your Lordships will think of this, and try to find a way to help these poor boys, it will free them from the gallows and the galleys, where they usually end up when they are older; and it will be a work of great service to His D. Majesty, which may always increase his holy spirit in your Lordships.”[2225]

2225 RegCal, 11, 42.

The purely human purpose of the social aspect of Calasanzian work is clear in these lines, for there is no mention of the work of evangelization that accompanies it and justifies it as a work of the Church, and the only religious nuance of the whole task is reduced to the exception that it is done “for charity” and not for philanthropy.

Calasanz is aware of the human value of his work, and when he tries to justify it or emphasize its transcendence, he not only invokes the authority of the Ecumenical Councils and the Holy Fathers, but also adds the benevolent opinion of philosophers and pagans, because with this Institute he wants to collaborate not only in the reform of the Church, but also in that of society or the Republic, as it was said at that time. Suffice it to mention the example of the memorandum to Cardinal Tonti, in which he describes this work as “an irreplaceable office in the common opinion of all, clergy and laity, princes and citizens, and perhaps the most important for the reform of depraved morals, an office which consists in the good education of the many, for on this depends all the rest of the good or bad life of man.”[2226] He had already said this before in the Constitutions: “The Ecumenical Councils, the Fathers of the Church and even the best thinking philosophers agree that the reform of Christian society depends on the diligent exercise of this ministry.”[2227] And we have read it in one of the memoranda in which he asks for the declaration of religious Order dedicated to “the good education of boys, which is so important, not to say necessary, in the Christian Republic, as its rarity, natural reason, experience, constant examples, general applause and the books of both pagans and Catholics prove.”[2228]

2226 Cf. LESAGA-ASIAIN-LECEA, Documentos fundacionales de las Escuelas Pías, p. 184, n. 5.

2227 CC, n.2. Undoubtedly this series of testimonies perhaps Calasanz had read them in a work of his friend St. John Leonardi, entitled: Trattato della buona educatione dei figliuoli, la quale di quanto gran momento sia si manifesta con l’autorita della divina Scrittura, dei Sacri Concilii, dei Padri, e di Scrittori gentili, con vive ragioni et esempi (Napoli 1594). The nine chapters of the booklet develop precisely these testimonial sources (cf. the index in C. VILÁ, Fuentes inmediatas..., p.202, n.126).

2228 Cf. A. GARCÍA-DURÁN, o.c., p.180, n.803.

This general principle applies to all types of education and society. But Calasanz’s work is more concrete. Its authentic social nuance lies in its devotion to the poor, first with exclusivity and then with preference. And that is why it is a free school from the beginning, because it is open to all those who have no money, not even to pay the modest monthly fees of the teacher of the neighborhood. Calasanz was personally convinced of this during his forays through all of Rome’s neighborhoods as a visitor to the poor when he belonged to the Confraternity of the Apostles.[2229] Sometimes there is no lack of testimonies that explicitly repeat the words that motivated Calasanz and that continue to motivate new foundations, as can be seen in this letter from the jurors of Ancona from June 1633:

2229 Cf. chapter 13, n.1467.

“The orders that Fr. Stephen received from Y. Rev. Paternity to open these schools and begin their exercises with the Fathers who came from Venice were of inexplicable satisfaction to the whole city, since it was greatly desired to set this holy work in motion for the glory of God and for the benefit and advantage of the children who, because of the poverty of their parents, were not educated and instructed in the acquisition of virtues.”[2230]

2230 EHI, p.67.

The work of Calasanz makes no sense if one does not emphasize his privileged devotion to the poor. At the end of his life, when the storm is unleashed against his institution, one of the obvious reasons to destroy it will clearly be the idea that the poor should neither have the right to culture nor abandon their condition as servants of the rich, for the opposite would be a social revolution. And Calasanz and his followers will side with them, convinced that truth, reason and justice will benefit the children of the people. Perhaps at no time in his life did he raise his voice so loudly in defense of the rights of the poor to culture as in this last phase of his struggle, with memoranda to the Pope, to cardinals, to Roman communities, shortly before his ninetieth year and his death.

One cannot read this memorandum from 1645 without emotion, in which the same ideas are repeated as always:

“It cannot be denied that in Christian society the institute of Pious Schools, consisting in the Christian instruction and education of children, especially of the poor, and conducted by the Poor of the Mother of God, is not only not superfluous, but necessary. First, for the general reason that youth must be instructed and educated in good and virtuous morals, of which the books of the moral philosophers, the Holy Fathers and all the Holy Councils are full. And above all for the special reason that Christian society consists for the most part of towns, villages and poor people who have to earn their daily living by their own labor and have no time to care for their children. These, though poor, are not to be neglected, since, as has been said, they constitute the majority of Christian society, and have also been redeemed with the precious blood of Christ, and are so esteemed by His Majesty, who said that He was sent into the world by His eternal Father to teach them: Evangelizare Pauperibus misit me. From this it is clear how far removed from Christian piety and the mind of Christ is that policy which teaches that it is injurious to society to teach the poor by diverting them, as it is said, from the mechanical arts and crafts. Experience itself proves this to be false, for here in Rome, after fifty years in which the Pious Schools have taught the poor, we see no deficiency in any trade, but we see that most of them, thanks to the schools, are able to keep the accounts of their business without others having to do it for them, as was the case before the beginning of these schools. And the reason that the schools do not prevent the existence of artisans is that the poor are rare who, after learning reading and writing, go on to grammar [Latin], since they stop at the school of writing and bookkeeping and, having learned these, take up some trade or other. Moreover, for some professions practiced by the poor, a little grammar is also necessary, such as notaries, copyists, surgeons, clerks, and the like... And even supposing that erudition is not suitable for the poor, who, feeling himself a Christian, can deny them a good education, which is the principal object of the Institute of Pious Schools?”[2231]

2231 PosCas, p.1312-1313. We can see this other text from an Apologia of the Pious Schools by Fr. Castelli: “I do not think it superfluous for a poor Christian to know how to live a Christian life, nor for a poor man to know how to read, write and do accounts, useful to everyone to do his own well, and even necessary to do the accounts of others, like errand boys, accountants, butlers and masters of rich houses and many other trades that do not allow one to count on one’s fingers. Nor do I believe that Latin is superfluous for many poor people, so useful for so many things and so necessary for some trades necessary to the world and only exercised by the poor, such as notaries, copists, fiscal agents, apothecaries, surgeons, pedants (tutors) and other similar ones” (EC, p.2833).

The specific references to the usefulness of mathematics and Latin will be better understood if we explain the organization of the classes, the subjects, the examinations and the duration of the courses that make up his didactic system, because all this revolves around a central axis, namely the practical usefulness for poor boys, i.e. the eminently social character of his work.

This preference for the poor maintains a line of normality, i.e. his schools are open to the boys of the common people and the poor who live with their families. There is no indication that he took a special interest in the orphans, the abandoned, the lost and the beggars. There were already other institutions in Rome for this group of children, which were more concerned with taking them in and providing them with a home and sustenance than with teaching them. These institutions were not schools, but hospices and orphanages. It was new the foundation of the Somaschi by St. Jerome Emilianus, which were expressly dedicated to orphans, and that they carried out their activities in Rome in Santa Maria in Aquiro, the seat of the Archconfraternity of Orphans, for which Cardinal Antonio Maria Salviati founded a school bearing his name in 1591. At the end of the century, Leonardo Cerusi’s hospice, called il Literato in Rome, which took in all kinds of abandoned children, also became famous. To earn a living, he had them sweep the streets in front of the houses and palaces of cardinals, nobles, rich people and businessmen to give them alms, and they sang in the streets for the same purpose. Calasanz had to get to know this charismatic personality, who was admired throughout Rome and who died in Cardinal Borromeo’s house in 1595.[2232]

2232 Cf. SANTHA, SJC, p.32-35.

Although the Pious Schools were founded for poor children, there were many reasons for Calasanz to break with this exclusivism and leave the doors open to all kinds of children as long as there was room, always maintaining the preference for the poor (praesertim pauperes) as something essential and institutional. Poor and rich[2233], nobles and commoners[2234], even Jews in Rome[2235] and Protestants in Germania were accepted.[2236] The memorandum to Card. Tonti, which states that this institute is “a most efficacious preventive and curative remedy against evil, inductive and enlightening for the benefit of all boys of every class, and therefore of all men who are before this age...”; “assuming, therefore, the usefulness and necessity of this work, which embraces all persons and conditions and places.”[2237] In the first of his four summaries, he says the same thing succinctly: “They have as their proper and special institute the good instruction and pious education of children of all classes, especially the poor.”[2238]

2233 Perhaps the exclusivity for the poor was only in the first years of foundation, since from the beginning of the century there are indications that the rich were also admitted (cf. BAU, BC, p.351).

2234 In 1646 they write to Calasanz from Pisa: “The Institute is doing very well, being attended by nobles and commoners with universal satisfaction. “ (EHI, p.150).

2235 The experience was short-lived because of the opposition of the rabbis, although Calasanz promised them “not to treat them ever especially in the matter of our holy faith, but to speak only in common with all others of the necessary virtues to live with the love of God and to observe his holy Law, but all this was not enough and to avoid this in the Ghetto would be opened a free school for their Hebrew poor” (BERRO I, p.84).

2236 Cf. G. L. MONCALLERO, La fondazione delle Scuole degli Scolopi nell’Europa centrale al tempo della Controriforma (Alba 1972) p.113-118; SÁNTHA, SJC, p.387, n.14.

2237 Cf. A. GARCÍA-DURÁN, o.c., p.112 and 177.

2238 Cf. C. VILÁ, Cuatro Sumarios de la Congregacion Paulina; Archivum 17 (1985) 66. In the other three it simply says: “the pious education and diligent erudition of the children” (ibid.).

The mixing of children from all social classes in the classrooms, in church, on the playgrounds, etc. was undoubtedly an incomparable means of merging the different classes of society with mutual understanding, respect and Christian charity, the consequences of which can be guessed at. This is all the more true when one considers that Calasanz insisted in his school regulations that wealth and noble descent were not the highest values of society: “In our schools,” wrote the saintly educator, “no one should claim any pre-eminence or precedence over others except for integrity of morals or the greater diligence and profit in study”; “in school no one should claim honor, precedence or preeminence over others for any other reason than for the value of intellect and integrity of customs”.[2239] It was an entirely different set of values from those that prevailed in that baroque and ceremonial Rome, where more than once there were serious tumults, not between rich and poor, or between nobles and plebeians, but in the high spheres of nobility and diplomacy, as the ambassadors of the great powers of the time, for the simple obsession of defending their supremacy. And Calasanz alludes to these dramatic encounters more than once in his letters.[2240]

2239 SÁNTHA, SJC, p.443, n.27.

2240 On September 6, 1631, the carriages of the Venetian ambassador and the prefect of Rome, Tadeo Barberini, met. The ambassador’s coachman stopped the carriage and his master interpreted this as a sign of obsequiousness and precedence to the prefect. The humiliated Republic of Venice demanded the head of the poor coachman... and they got it! Calasanz speaks of this scandal in his letters 1693, 1711 and 1715. In the latter he comments: “and these gentlemen do not think that God will forgive us in this way, as we forgive our enemies.” In 1634 an identical case occurred between a Caetani and a Colonna; the former fell dead and the latter with five of his companions were seriously wounded. In 1642 another clash between the French and Spanish ambassadors. In the same year the Spanish and Portuguese ambassadors met and after a gun battle between the two escorts, there were several deaths in both camps (cf. PASTOR, o.c., vol. 28, p.186; vol. 29, p.40-45). In 1646 the Spanish ambassador crossed paths with Cardinal d’Este, protector of France, and the clash caused the death of four Spaniards and several more wounded died later in the hospital. Calasanz speaks of the tension between the two characters in his C.4370. Cf. the Diario de Gigli, in G. AUSENDA, Interessante documento della Roma del sec. XVII: Ricerche 18 (1986) 354-356.

While such tragedies played out in the streets of Rome, the rich and the nobility were reminded in the classrooms of the Pious Schools that neither money nor rank could be considered higher values than intelligence, integrity of morals and culture. And that was to be educated.

A work of the Church

“The Second Vatican Council proclaims: “It is in the interest of the world to recognize the Church as a social reality and as the leaven of history.”[2241] But it would be a mistake to believe that the Church is only that and to disregard its supernatural and salvific reality, as it says above: “The Church, which gives help to the world and receives manifold help from the world, has only one goal: the coming of the Kingdom of God and the salvation of all humanity.”[2242] By analogy, we can say that the world received the social work of the Pious Schools as a leaven of culture and salvation with great satisfaction. Calasanz never ceased to praise this aspect of his Institute, especially when he saw that it was being persecuted and, in some ways, condemned to destruction by a decree of the Holy See: “I cannot quite understand - he wrote in March 1646 - that an Institute so useful and desired by the whole of Europe, and praised even by heretics, can be so easily destroyed by human malice.”[2243] However, it would be a mistake to believe that this was their main purpose and that their direct relationship to the progress of the Kingdom of God and the salvation of mankind was neglected.

2241 GES, 44a.

2242 Ib., 45a.

2243 C.4341.

When the Pious Schools became a religious Congregation and then a religious Order, they entered a special sphere within the spiritual organism of the Church; a sphere in which the scale of values is changed in the light of the Gospel message. With a certain theological precision, Calasanz begins his Constitutions with this paragraph, which is completely original, i.e. not copied from another text, as he did in so many later points:

“In the Church of God, all the Religious Orders, guided by the Holy Spirit, pursue the perfection of charity as their proper goal through their specific ministry. Likewise, our Congregation is determined to fulfill its specific apostolate entrusted to it by His Holiness Pope Paul V, of happy memory, the Vicar of Christ on earth.”[2244]

2244 CC, n.1.

The specific service of the Order is therefore only a means to achieve perfect charity and not an end in itself. To this specific service is added the observance of the three vows common to every religious Order, which represent the true path of following the Lord in the spirit of the Gospel, a path that leads infallibly to the summit of perfect charity, as he also said of the service itself. These complementary and substantial ideas in the concept of consecrated life are expressed by Calasanz when he speaks of the vows in general:

“Those who wish to reach the summit of perfection will find no more appropriate or straighter path than the faithful practice of those virtues which religious try to live according to their profession, renouncing the world and seeking union with God through the vows. Therefore, it will happen that through chastity, poverty, obedience and other virtues described above, renouncing everything for the Lord, they will follow Him more quickly in body and soul.”[2245]

2245 CC, n.95. It is interesting to note the harmony of these concise ideas of Calasanz with texts of the Second Vatican Council. The Decree on religious life begins as follows: “Perfectae caritatis per consilia evangelica prosecutionem Sacrosanta Synodus praevie ostendit... a Divini Magistri doctrina et exemplis originem ducere” (PC, n.1). Calasanz speaks of the “Spiritu Sancto duce”, and PC, 1b: “Spiritu Sancto afflante”; and LM, 43a: “duce Spiritu Sancto.” Cf. M. A. ASIAIN, La experiencia religiosa de Calasanz (Salamanca 1979) p.15-32.

Calasanz is therefore well aware of what a religious Order means in the Church. And in line with this conviction, he will demand of himself and his own everything that the Church demands or expects of religious. His Constitutions are undoubtedly the main lines of his conception of consecrated life, and in them he speaks about all aspects of this life. Nor could he omit anything essential or important, since he wrote them against the background of the Constitutions of the Theatines, Jesuits and Caracciolines.[2246] By choosing these three Orders as a model, he proved his integrity and his sentire cum Ecclesia (feeling with the Church), because for a century all the newly approved Orders formed the modality of the Clerics Regular, to which the Pious Schools were added as a final point.[2247] His deep friendship with the Carmelites and the Conventual Franciscans would have led him to expect a preferential influence of their respective constitutions, but this was not the case.

2246 Cf. F. CUBELLS, Explorando las fuentes de las Constituciones de San Jose de Calasanz: AnCal 44 (1980) 515-575.

2247 The group of Orders of Clerics Regular is formed by the Theatines, Barnabites, Somascans, Jesuits, Camillians, Lucchesi, Caracciolines and Piarists.

Calasanz is equally aware that his work is useful and even necessary in the Church, and that despite the enormous variety of religious Institutes already approved, his work is a genuine novelty, totally different from the others and in some ways complementary to them. Here are some eloquent paragraphs from the Memorandum to Card. Tonti:

“Even if, according to the hypothesis, there were or were to be feared an excessive number of Orders, this should not refer to the useful and necessary Institutes, but to the superfluous ones, that is, to those which have no specific offices, but remain in the general and common to the others...; if it is a question of the other Orders, the confusion may come either from habit, and ours is already different, or from the ministry, and ours is very different... And if the Holy Church is accustomed to grant this grace [elevation to Order] to so many other ministries, why not to this one, which may be considered as a compendium of them all, not only by helping the neighbor in need in everything that the others help him, but by preparing and disposing souls by a good education to receive the service of all the other ministries? ... If the Church has granted this grace to so many Institutes of general and common ministry, why not to a specific and particular one? If she has granted it to many particular ministries, which are perhaps not so necessary and at least not so much in demand, why not to this one which is most necessary and most in demand? ... ... If it has not been denied to those who help to die well, why and with greater justification is it not granted to those who help to live well from the earliest years, of which the good death, the peace and tranquility of the people, the good government of cities and princes, the obedience and fidelity of subjects, the propagation of the faith, conversion and preservation from heresies ... and finally the reform of all Christendom depend...”?[2248]

2248 Cf. LESAGA-ASIAIN-LECEA, o.c., p. 188-189, 192-193.

In many of his writings already cited, we have seen that Calasanz considers this last idea of the reform of all Christendom to be the one that precisely defines the purpose of his Institute. In doing so, he deliberately places himself in the line of the so-called and misnamed Counter-Reformation that prevailed in the Church of his time. There is even an explicit reference to the mandate received from the Church to exercise his own institute, assuming, with a certain exaggeration, that to exercise other offices is to interfere in the domain of another.[2249] And not without good reason, because the adults are adequately cared for by other religious, while the children, especially the poor, have only the Pious Schools.[2250]

2249 “Although in our Religion there are practical theologians and graduates, I have never allowed them to climb the pulpit or the chair to preach, knowing that there is no lack of men in the Church of God who by office and their own institute have the right to preach and do it to perfection. And it should be far from us to put the sickle into someone else’s harvest. It would be sufficient to humble ourselves to the ability of the boys, to whose instruction the Holy Church has sent us” (C.2577).

2250 “Let them attend with all care to the exercise of the schools and especially to the piety and holy fear of God in the pupils, for this is our own ministry, in which there is greater merit than in attending to older people, who have many religions to help them, while the school children have only ours” (C.2623).

The novelty of the Order therefore lies in the novelty of ministry, which is “sacralized” by being considered a fourth vow. Calasanz sometimes refers to this by reminding his religious that they are obliged to teach through this particular vow: “”I have read your opinion about the vow to teach children, which, if you think about it properly, is not absolute like the other three, but a consequence of the vow of obedience, so that if the superior wants someone to teach, he must teach, and if the superior does not want someone to teach, he is not bound by the vow of teaching.”[2251]

2251 C.2712, 2110.

The service of teaching is not only sacralized because it is the fourth vow, but Calasanz sees it as the true path of salvation for his religious: “I cannot fail to remind you in all my letters - he writes - that teaching should be practiced with all diligence, even if other exercises must sometimes be left aside, because this, the schools, is our specific ministry, and when it does not go well, we deviate from the true path of our salvation”; “I hope the Lord will give every one here and there a true sense of the profession of the Institute, in which our salvation consists”; “encourage in my name all who are at home to save their souls by practicing our ministry, which is the true path in which we must reach heaven.”[2252] He thus returns to the fundamental idea that the own perfection is above the good we can do to our neighbor. This is the summit of perfect charity, for the attainment of which the direct way or the appropriate means for the Piarists is the exercise of their own ministry.[2253]

2252 C.1287, 4318 and 4549.

2253 This is the last conclusion reached in the Declaratio de spiritualitate calasanctiana of the Special General Chapter (1967-1969). Cf. Declarationes et Decreta Cap. Gen. Specialis (Rome 1970) p.93-94.

The final sacralizing nuance of the Institute itself, as a work of the Church, is the explicit reference to the Gospel, especially in relation to poor children: “If those of our people who have gone to these regions -wrote the founder to Cardinal Dietrichstein - would consider that what is done to a poor child is received by Jesus Christ in his own person, I am sure that they would do so with greater zeal.”[2254] Even in the preamble to the Constitutions, he likes to apply the Gospel text to “poor children” and not simply to “children”: “And since we profess to be the true Poor of the Mother of God, we will never in any way look down on poor children, but with great patience and love will try to enrich them with every good quality in view of the Lord’s words: Whatever you did for one of the least of these children of mine, you did for me.”[2255] It is an application that he maintains until the end of his life, as can be seen in this letter from 1647: “We have a firm hope that the blessed God will intercede for our Institute -which was degraded in 1646 - based solely on charity, especially to teach poor boys, so that it cannot be said that the children asked for bread and there was no one to distribute it to them (Lam 4:4). Be there all of you with a great desire to serve the Lord in your members who are the poor, that we may hear in due time: As you did it to one of the least of these, you did it to me” (Mt 25:40).[2256] No less eloquent is this other text: “As for the reception of poor students, Y. R. acts holily in admitting as many as arrive, for our institute is made for them, and what is done for them is done for the blessed Christ, who does not say the same of the rich.”[2257]

2254 C.2441.

2255 CC, n.4.

2256 CCP, p.333.

2257 C.2812. One more text: “…if he loved, I do not say the Institute, but God Blessed and himself, he would take care to learn what he does not know in order to do good to the poor, or rather, to Christ in the poor” (C.3041).

This explicit application of the text from the Gospel to poor children, although he could actually only apply to children (minimis meis), once again gives us the guarantee that the preference for the poor (praesertim pauperes) was an essential nuance of the new ministry that emerged in the Church, namely that of Pious Schools. The new order thus joined the ranks of the Clerics Regular, whose concrete and specific ministry was focused on the poor.[2258]

2258 Among them were the Somascans, dedicated to orphaned and abandoned children, and the Camillians or ministers of the sick poor. Joseph of Calasanz could say of his poor children what Camillus de Lellis said of his sick: “This is my vocation, my resolution and my whole end: to serve these poor as my kings and princes, because in serving them I serve Christ our Redeemer” (A. PRONZATO, Todo corazón para los enfermos. Camilo de Lellis [Salamanca 1985] p.256).

Charism and particular spirituality

From what we have just seen, it is clear that for Calasanz his work was rooted in the Gospel. And this was more than a sacralizing nuance of his ministry. “The richness of the Gospel... allows for the existence of different lifestyles within Christian spirituality... It is the same Gospel that can win people’s hearts from different angles... This is what each of the founders, and therefore Joseph Calasanz, understood. What is a founder in itself? A man who knew how to read the Gospel in a certain way, who knew how to discover a different way of embodying the face of Jesus for the people, according to the needs of the time in which he found himself. He is a charismatic man in whom the Spirit is alive in a special way.”[2259]

2259 M. A. ASIAIN, Espiritualidad de la Orden, in Escuelas Pías. Ser e Historia, p.355.

It is this determined reading of the Gospel that characterizes the work of a founder. “Whoever explores religious life and tries to get to its original reality comes across the following of Jesus... Following the Master is therefore the substance of religious life.”[2260] But this following of the Lord, which is common to all consecrated life, acquires its specificity through the different ways of reading the Gospel or embodying one of the many facets in which Jesus presents himself in the Gospel. More precisely, it is a supernatural phenomenon which requires special inspiration from the Holy Spirit. So, it is not the founder who simply reads the Gospel and develops the new idea for his work, but it is God himself who inspires it. This is the fundational charism: “the vocation that the Lord bestows on each individual (the founder) for a particular service in the community and at the same time empowers him for this service.”[2261] In other words, the “founding charism” arises at the prompting or invitation of the Holy Spirit “from the awareness of a need that must be fulfilled or from the discovery of a void that no one has bothered to fill.”[2262]

2260 ID, La experiencia religiosa de Calasanz, p.43.

2261 H. KÜNG, La estructura carismática de la Iglesia: Concilium 4 (1965) 62-63

2262 J. M. R. TILLARD, El dinamismo de las fundaciones: Vida Religiosa 52 (1982) 166.

In the previous pages we have described Calasanz’s desperate search for people who wanted to teach and educate poor children free of charge, but all his attempts failed. And finally, he decided to “fill the “void” himself. He also had to theorize about the uniqueness and novelty of his institution and insist that “his charism” was completely different from all the others in order to get a place among the various Religious Orders. And he succeeded.

His charism was thus clearly established in his own and definitive dedication - as a person and as an Order - to the instruction and Christian education of all kinds of children, but especially the poor, through free schooling from the first letters.[2263] For the first time in the history of the Church, a religious Order was founded that was dedicated to this special service and was also endowed with a fourth vow. In order to do justice to this service, the Founder wanted the members of his institution to be teachers, religious and priests at the same time. But it was only after many years of experience that he came to this conclusion. At first, he was only concerned with finding “teachers” and he accepted priests and lay people. In a second period, i.e. since the foundation of the Pauline Congregation, he renounced lay people and demanded that they be religious. The schools were in fact staffed by his religious, both priests and brothers. His order’s membership of the Clerics Regular group required that the majority of its members were priests. On the other hand, it is clear the importance he attached to priestly work in the pedagogical-didactic conception of his schools, especially at some levels. But despite the setbacks and difficulties that arose from the presence of brothers in the school work, he never gave up his idea of keeping them in the school service, despite some extreme tendencies that wanted to exclude them. Moreover, he was not rigid when it came to closing the doors of his schools to non-religious teachers, because there was always a lay person like Sarafellini or a priest or cleric who did not belong to the Order, such as Andrea Bayano and Caspar Dragonetti.[2264]

2263 Cf. Declarationes et Decreta Cap. Gen. Spec., IV: Declaratio de Charismate Calasanctiano, p.22-78; M. A. ASIAIN, El carisma de José de Calasanz: AnCal 50 (1983) 419-483; S. GINER, El carisma de San José de Calasanz según los testigos del Proceso de Beatificación: AnCal 39 (1978) 183-212.

2264 See developed the evolution of these constitutive elements of the Piarist vocation in our writing: La vocación escolapia, en Escuelas Pías. Ser e Historia, p.301-335.

The religious-spiritual aspect of the Pious Schools which we examine in this section is determined by the nuances that arise from the constitutive elements of their own specific ministry and from the characteristics of the vocation of their members. And it is clear that many of these nuances are common to all Orders and Congregations, such as those arising from the vows, the concept of consecration and all the essential aspects or traditional practices of religious life as a whole. There are even elements that are inherent to all Christian spirituality and therefore cannot be absent from the piety of convents.

Consequently, it does not seem appropriate to characterize the spirituality of Calasanz and his Order with the general and universal features of all Christian piety, such as faith, hope, charity, Trinitarian piety, Christocentric and - in a special way - Marian piety. Nor can it be distinguished from other Institutes by the observance of the vows of poverty, chastity and obedience, or by the practice of prayer or the spirit of service to the Church. All these references, as well as the references to the priesthood and some others, are elements that cannot be missing in the formation of Calasanzian spirituality.[2265] However, one cannot look for characteristics outside this framework of virtues, practices and attitudes of Christian and religious piety, and it will be the special nuances of some of these elements that characterize the specific spirituality of the Pious Schools and their Founder.

2265 Cf. Declaratio de spiritualitate calasanctiana, in Declarationes et Decreta..., n.334-358; M. A. ASIAIN, La espiritualidad de San José de Calasanz: AnCal 50 (1983) 485-544.

These nuances derive precisely from the ministry that is proper to the Order and by which it is distinguished from others: “This ministry is its own apostolate and the particular means of sanctification and also the particular end by which its entire spirituality is shaped and nourished, defined and wonderfully developed.”[2266] And here are some eloquent paragraphs from a 1644 memorandum in which we are spontaneously offered something of what we have been looking for:

2266 Declaratio de spiritualitate calasanctiana, n.353. There is, for example, no religious Institute that does not boast of its profound Marian piety. For this reason, it cannot be a determining note of any one in particular, but common to all. However, it is worth noting some nuances. Calasanz’s preference for the title “Mother of God” is unquestionable, which in addition to the resonances of his mother tongue and of his childhood (Mare de Deu), could be guessed as the most appropriate for his Institute because the concept of motherhood is the most appropriate for children. Likewise, in the Crown of the twelve stars the Son of God “who wanted to be educated by her in his infancy” is praised. Nevertheless, there is no other explicit reference neither of Calasanz nor of his posterity to this precious Marian prerogative of Mary Teacher or Educator of the Son of God, so suggestive for the Pious Schools, as far as we know, until the Special General Chapter (1967-69), which calls her “omnium Matrem et Magistram” (Declaratio de spiritualitate calasanctiana, in Declarationes et Decreta, n.349), a title that has remained even today as a precious hidden pearl.

“...our Religion has been founded with extreme poverty and with extreme humility, in proportion to the Institute and the work it performs of teaching poor and very poor little children. They need more than others to have someone break their bread and teach them the first elements... And this lowly exercise of humility in teaching the poor, which is foreign to the other religious, cannot be preserved among us unless there is supreme poverty.”[2267]

2267 RegCal 14, 64.

Calasanz is a true lover of poverty. It would suffice to recall his visions of the Madonna Povertà at the end of the century, when his life was marked by Franciscan fervor in Assisi or in the Confraternity of the Stigmata of St. Francis. The chapter on poverty in his Constitutions begins with this moving paragraph: “Venerable poverty, mother of precious humility and other virtues, must be loved by our Religious as the strongest defense of our Order...”[2268] But apart from the Franciscanism that he expresses in this preference for poverty, we must, above all, see in it the direct relationship to his own ministry, as the Official Declaration of the Order which we have quoted reminds us: “With joy he took upon himself extreme poverty so that the poorest children could attend his schools without blushing.”[2269]

2268 CC, n.137.

2269 Declaratio..., n.355. Cf. M. A. ASIAIN, La experiencia religiosa de Calasanz, P.63-90.

There is hardly any virtue or attitude that Calasanz insists on as much and ad nauseam as humility.[2270] And that is because, like extreme poverty, it is demanded by the ministry itself. Today it is neither a humiliation nor does the ministry demand humility from elementary school teachers, but in Calasanz’s time it was something else, especially because of his fondness for poor children. The great pedagogue Cardinal Silvio Antoniano, who visited the schools of Calasanz together with Baronio, wrote in 1584, long before this visit, that the teachers of the municipal schools of Rome were very often “vagabonds and unstable persons... and for this reason, though without cause, it was a detestable and contemptible practice to teach children”, so that “honest men and older citizens did not like to teach.”[2271] And Calasanz recognizes this and therefore calls for humility: “that they learn to humble themselves inwardly as much as possible to be fit for so high a task as teaching children, which to the world, our enemy, seems so low and sordid...”; “I hope there is no lack in our Religion of those who must humble themselves for a great benefit, not only to teach calligraphy or arithmetic, but even to teach little ones to read...” “We are required to set a better example than the other religious, either because we are the last to be recognized, or because we have the lowest office of all and are therefore of greater humility than the others.”[2272]

2270 See a very long series of quotations from his letters in D. CUEVA, Calasanz. Spiritual and pedagogical message, n.1005-1058; A. M. ASIAIN, La humildad en los escritos de Calasanz: PanEs 53 (1975) 115-121.

2271 SILVIO ANTONIANO, Tre libri dell’educatíone chrístiana dei figliuoli (Verona 1584) lib. III, c.28 and c.29. And J. L. Vives, the great Valencian humanist, wrote to Erasmus: “Me tenet tantum scholarum taedium ut quidvis facturus sim citius quam ad has redire sordes et inter pueros versari” (ALLEN, Opus epist. Des. Erasmi, V, 113). St. Ignatius of Loyola writes to Philip II through Fr. Ribadeneyra: “All the good of Christendom and of the whole world depends on the good institution of youth, which, being as soft as wax in its early years, is more easily moulded.... (for this reason) the Company... has lowered itself to take this part of lesser glory but not of lesser utility than the institution of the boys and children...” (MI, Epp X, 705f) (A. PIGNATELLI, Il Collegio della Compagnia di Gesu e l’educazione in esso incentrata, in Esperienze di pedagogia cristiana nella Storia, vol. I: Sec. IV-XVII, Las [Rome 1981] p.106). And note that the Jesuit Colleges were neither for the poor (although they were free) nor were they for primary education.

2272 C.1160, 4276, 678.

Perhaps the clearest expression of what the ministry itself means as a source of deep spirituality is this paragraph, originally written in an Italianized Spanish:

“I am very concerned that Y. R. have so many problems and worries, as you write in your last letter to me, that do not stem from humility, because if you had it, you would know that the shortest and easiest way to reach the right knowledge and from there to the attributes of mercy, prudence, and the infinite patience and goodness of God, is to descend to give light to the children, and especially to those who are like the helpless of all, who for an office so low and base in the eyes of the world, few are willing to descend...”[2273]

2273 C.1236. A memorandum of 1644 reads: “Quam sit inglorium apud homines, quam vile et abjectum prima litterarum elementa pueros docere eosque per vias civitatis publice circumducere et, ut uno verbo dicam, obscuri cuiusdam, sordidique pedagoguli vices implere.... Denique in eo nihil gloriosum, nihil magnum, nihil eorum qui suscepere honoris... cuncta plena periculis, distractionibus, laboribus immensis, abiectione et, pene dixerim, ignominia et opprobio” (PosCas, p. I265).

There was even someone - Jano Nicio Eritreo (1577-1647), a famous Roman humanist of the time - who went so far as to describe the Pious Schools of Rome as a kind of sewer, since the scum, the lowest and most despicable of the city’s children gathered there to learn letters.[2274] How far were all these invectives against the schools of the poor of the people from that sonorous cataract of praise which had flowed from the pen of Calasanz in his Memorandum to Cardinal Tonti! It must be admitted, however, that all this litany of glowing praise did not detract one iota from the stark reality: It was a humiliating task!

2274 Speaking of the humanist Bayano, he writes that “postremo vitae suae tempore hanc eandem Grammaticae artem professus est apud eos, ad quos puerorum Urbis faex atque quisquiliae, tamquam in cloacam aliquam confluunt, ut literulis imbuantur” (I. N. ERYTHRAEUS, Pinacotheca imaginum illustrium virorum, I, n.144). Cited in EC IV, p.1808.

Dealing with poor, very poor children required the highest degree of poverty and humility. But the simple treatment of children, whether rich or poor, noble or bourgeois, also required the utmost simplicity. And this is also one of the virtues that Calasanz encouraged in his religious: “Oh, how I wish that we all lived with a holy simplicity...”, he wrote to a master of novices.[2275] And even more clearly and with very fitting evangelical echoes, he wrote on another occasion:

2275 C.1392.

“And whoever comes to this practice of considering himself like a little two-year-old who falls many times without a guide, will always distrust himself and always invoke the help of God. And this refers to the sentence that is so little understood and even less practiced: “Unless you become like this child, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven” (Mt 18:3). Learn this practice and try to achieve this great simplicity, for then you will find the truth of the sentence that says: “He [the Lord] speaks to the simple” (Prov 3:32).[2276]

2276 C.912.

And he knew much of these inner words of the Lord: “I know a man - he said anonymously about himself, like St. Paul - who with a single word that God spoke to his heart endured for fifteen years with great joy the great tribulations that came upon him.”[2277]

2277 Cf. BERRO I, p.79.

Humility and simplicity are, after all, a special way of imitating the divine Master, who on several occasions explicitly named himself as an example worthy of imitation when he said: “Learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart” (Mt 11:29). “It is obvious to anyone who studies his life a little, that the inner path of Joseph [Calasanz] was to imitate the simplicity of Jesus. If anything shines in the Founder as a whole, it is the simplicity, the humility that shines forth in his person... That is, the aspect under which the Founder sees the Lord is that of humility or simplicity.”[2278] In other words: “He became a child with the children, with great simplicity and humility.”[2279] And that is how he wanted his followers to be.

2278 M. A. ASIAIN, El camino de José de Calasanz, p.207-208.

2279 Declaracion sobre la espiritualidad calasancia. Notas (Rome 1969) p.7 and corresponding notes.

In addition to modesty and simplicity, the Founder often advised about patience, in which he excelled so much that he was rightly compared to Job.[2280] “I invite you - he wrote - to walk in simplicity and try to reap a good harvest of merit by great patience”; “use all diligence to be patient and humble”; “I am not resolved to ask the Lord to take away your tribulations, but to give you patience to bear them, and great love not to feel them”; “it is necessary to ask the Lord for patience and more and more patience”; “try to exhort all to patience.”[2281]

2280 See some of the so-called “votes” of those who recognized the heroicity of his virtues in S. GINER, El proceso de Beatificación..., p.340-341.

2281 Cf. D. CUEVA, o.c., n.1135-1160.

His constant exhortation to rejoice is also remarkable; and no less so in a man who has grown old among children. So perhaps he has been wronged by always being portrayed as a serious, grumpy man incapable of a smile of joy. And he could not have advised others to do so if he had not often shown it himself. Here are some of his utterances: “If you want to do something pleasant and give me great comfort, try to live joyfully and attend school with determination”; “go forward joyfully...”; “try to live joyfully, and if you are joyful together with patience, you will do very meritorious works”; “work joyfully”; “remain joyful in the Lord and if anything happens to you, tell me and I will comfort you.” And as a colophon, read this glorious paragraph that specifically refers to service to the poor and to the promises of God’s Word:

“Do not entertain gloomy thoughts that weigh down the heart and trouble the mind, but think of things that can bring you joy, for example, the reward that God has in store for those who help the poor, especially in spiritual things and in the holy fear of God, as the wise man said, “Those who teach many will shine like stars for all eternity” (Dan. 12:3). This task should be fulfilled with joy, as St. Paul exhorts us: “God loves a cheerful giver” (2 Corinthians 9:7).[2282]

2282 Ibid., n.1172-1185.

It therefore seems indisputable that among the virtues that Calasanz wanted to inculcate in his religious, and which were necessary and most required for his own ministry, these five stand out: Poverty, humility, simplicity, patience and joy.

Selection of candidates

The Founder of the Pious Schools was fully aware that his corporation was not simply a cultural and charitable association of teachers. Perhaps he never thought about it, at least not since the beginning of the century, when he began to call his work by the evocative title Congregation of Pious Schools. It consisted of a group of collaborating brothers who lived in community and followed certain disciplinary norms and practices of piety that made them similar to religious. But as soon as the Pauline Congregation and later the Order of Pious Schools was founded, its Founder and Superior General Calasanz began to legislate and demand responsibility for everything that was characteristic of religious life.

If his basic idea was that the reform of Christian society depended on the instruction and education of children, he could not help but think that the future of his own institution depended on the selection and formation of candidates, starting with the novitiate. He never was tired of emphasizing the importance of the novitiate to Provincial Superiors and novice Masters: “the foundation of the Religion consists in a good course of the novitiate”; “the whole Religion consists in the formation of novices”; “pay particular attention to a good formation of novices, which is the foundation of our Religion.”[2283]

2283 C.2947, 2616, 3087. See numerous other quotations from his letters in D. CUEVA, o.c., n.351-385; M. A. ASIAIN, El Noviciado en el pensamiento de Calasanz: PanEs 39 (19e74) 31-36.

The problem of the formation of novices and juniors caused serious difficulties for the Order from the outset, primarily due to the complexity of the Piarist vocation, in which it was necessary to take proper account of the three constitutive elements - religious-priest-teacher. The extreme institutional poverty made it impossible to establish houses for novitiates and juniorates or houses of study with sufficient resources for their autonomous functioning. And with student clerics and active religious living together in a house that was generally overburdened, there was a constant temptation to turn to young clerics to fill vacancies or make up for the absence of teachers.

The problem was exacerbated over time by the many new foundations. The Institute was in constant demand not only in various parts of Italy, but also in other European countries where it became known. And the new foundations demanded more and more religious with “an incredible insatiability”,” as Sántha rightly says.[2284] It was undoubtedly flattering for the Founder and his sons to see that their schools were sought after, praised and appreciated by towns, parishes, civil and ecclesiastical authorities in so many places. Nor is there a lack of such eloquent statements from Calasanz as these: “If I had ten thousand religious now - he wrote in 1633 - I could distribute them all in a month in the places that ask me for them with great instance; so our Religion is not like many others that try by various means to get into the cities, for ours is demanded and desired by many cardinals, bishops, prelates, great lords and important cities, as I have been able to prove by various letters.”[2285] “There are so many who want our institute - he wrote in 1623 - that it would not be enough if each of us were worth ten”.[2286] In November 1626 he wrote, when he wanted to found in Naples: “So far I have been offered five or six places in different parts of the city... and if we had a hundred religious here, it would not be enough to satisfy so many who seek our work.”[2287]

2284 Cf. G. SÁNTHA, Probatio ac institutio juniorum nostrorum temporibus S. P. N.: EphCal 6 (1966) 202.

2285 C.2027.

2286 C.142.

2287 C.556.

It was not possible to satisfy everyone, but many times he was forced to fulfill the requests of great ecclesiastical and secular personalities with whom he was connected through services received or repeated promises. We do not know to what extent the poor Funder was in reality a victim of selfishness or the indiscreet requests of his benefactors and sincere admirers, who were less interested in the problems caused by the lack of personnel than in the benefits they received in their cities through the foundations. It is very significant that the same Founder appeals to the Pope to tie his hands and prohibit new foundations at least for a biennium in order to be able to take better care of the formation of his young religious.[2288]

2288 In 1627 he begged Urban VIII: “For the benefit of the Institute of the Pious Schools, which is being requested with great urging in many cities and places that need it, it would be very important that Your Holiness deign to order the Father General of the said Pious Schools not to accept any foundation for a period of two years, so that during this time skilled and professed subjects may be prepared to exercise this work with the perfection that is due” (cf. EphCal 4 [1959] 199, n. 38).

The growing need for personnel could give the impression that Father General is closing his eyes a little and opening the doors to easily let in the candidates who ask for the Piarist habit with a certain profusion. Or that he would even flippantly overlook the requirements of the religious and priesthood in order to have teachers for his schools. However, when one reads his extensive correspondence, one cannot help but notice his double concern for the selection of candidates and the serious formation of their religious and priestly spirit. Let us look at some of his recommendations for selection:

“Ask the Lord to send us many good vocations”; “it is necessary to be very careful and to know each one well before giving him the habit”; “I insist that you be very careful in admitting novices”; “take care to admit only persons of good sense to the habit”; “It is much better to be few and good than many who are disorderly and careless”; “see that you admit few and that they are very intelligent, instead of carelessly admitting people who are not useful”; “be very prudent in giving our habit only to young men of excellent intellect.”[2289]

2289 Cf. these and many other quotations in D. CUEVA, o.c., n.313-385.

These recommendations are addressed above all to the Provincials, about whose ease in admitting novices he sometimes complains, especially to Casani when he was provincial of Naples.[2290] Nevertheless, there are those who try to excuse Casani for this frivolity, accusing the poor General of having insisted on his right to intervene in the choice and selection of candidates.[2291] Similar accusations were already made against Calasanz in the first days of the Apostolic Visitation of Pietrasanta, making him solely responsible for all acts of government, especially in the admission of novices and professed, as if he had decided despotically in all this and disregarded the advice of his General Assistants. For this reason, the Fathers Casani and Castelli, who had held these offices since the beginnings of the Order, made an affidavit in 1644 in honor of the truth and in defense of the slandered General:

2290 “Warn the Provincial that he should be very cautious in dressing novices of the greatest age” (C.1315). “”I have also written that he [Casani] should be very cautious in dressing novices because of those who came last year I had to send away some who do not have that humility which should be required” (C.1160)...” the said Father Provincial [Casani] should be very cautious and considered in accepting novices because the profit and progress of the Religion consists in knowing the vocation of them and he will consult first with the General, informing him minutely of the qualities of those who request our habit” (PosCas p.604). “The Provincial did not so easily vest similar subjects so quickly, which, without doubt, if he had differed a little more, he would have known better” (C.797). “You will warn the Provincial that he should go slowly in dressing because I am doubting whether he will have the fame of easily dressing all kinds of people, especially those recommended by others who are not suitable.” (C.808).

2291 Father Vilá writes: “Father Casani was not always right in giving the habit to novices... However, we believe that the main fault was always that of Calasanz, who reserved for himself the right of admission and it is repeatedly proven that he exercised it” (PosCas, p. 579); “one cannot blame the failures of vocations only on the one who has only the right of presentation [Casani], but on the one who reserves and practices in all cases, the right of admission, - that is, in our case, Father General, who was then Calasanz. It is important not to forget this in order to know how to interpret the insistence with which he repeats to be careful in admitting novices” (ibid., p. 606).

“We, the undersigned, the only survivors among the four Assistants assigned by Gregory XV to our Father General, that with him we may represent the whole of our Order and have with him an active and passive voice, give undisputed faith and testify by this letter that we have always consented in all the acts of the aforesaid Father General and especially in the reception of novices and their admission to profession. And believing it to be true, we have signed the said document with our own hand. This day, March 16, 1644, in Rome.” And they both signed it.[2292]

2292 Cf. PosCas, p.1973.

Since they did not always know the individuals, both the Founder and his Assistants had to abide by the judgment and reports they received from the Provincials and Masters of the novices. Therefore, Calasanz’s complaints and his stubborn insistence on the selection were justified by the weakness and negligence of those responsible for reporting.

It is true that he sometimes expressed a desire to accept those already formed in order to make use of them once they had completed the novitiate, but even in these cases he set the conditions in a very nuanced way so that they could be properly examined.[2293] Therefore, it is not permissible to infer general notions from here, as if the Saint rejected young people and preferred older, adult, already trained persons.[2294] His tactics were exactly the opposite. In his letters he speaks much more of young people than of adults, and there is no doubt that he favored the students of his schools, as he explicitly states in these very strong words, which unfortunately have been so little remembered over the centuries

2293 Faced with the need of people for the newly founded college of Messina, Calasanz writes to Fr. Alacchi: “It will be necessary that Y. R. make use for now of some seculars, and give the habit to some subjects that are able to help soon in the schools but it is necessary that they learn to observe our Constitutions because otherwise they will be religious of habit only and they will serve only to disturb the Religion.” (C.2194).

2294 Vilá writes: “It is clear that he [Calasanz] had little or no interest in giving the habit to young people who wish to receive it; he seems to be happy that his own parents are opposed to it. Unfortunately, he was interested in the admission of persons already formed and mature, who, after the obligatory novitiate of one or two years, could be employed in teaching” (PosCas, p.548).

“For our purposes, the young people educated in our schools are preferable, for we can see whether they are well or ill disposed, whether they have a good mind or not, and by educating them well they achieve good results. What I write, even if I do not order it in holy obedience, must be carried out as the word of God coming through the Superior.”[2295]

2295 CCP, p.271.

If he sometimes speaks out against the admission of young men, it is because they have something that he does not like, because it harms the Order: “I do not decide - he writes in 1617 - to admit young men as clerics who do not have a good command of grammar.”[2296] “It is very important not to accept young men with poor judgment. Let him warn the Provincial to beware of giving the habit to such young lads.”[2297] “I have heard that there is a novice of small stature and that he has a widowed mother and three poor sisters. This novice should not and could not be admitted, as there is no other man in the house.”[2298] “They should have a good mind and good manners and not come from a very poor family.”[2299] “Give our habit only to young men of excellent intellect, for we have more than enough of the common people.”[2300] “As for the young men, I am not worried about their clothes, because I have dozens here [in Naples] with excellent minds and good manners, but if their parents are not happy, neither are we, because we do not want to upset anyone.”[2301] “As for the two young men you say will clothe them, they must be tried until spring - he wrote on December 25, 1632 - and I would like that the first to take the habit were not common subjects, but good or nothing.”[2302]

2296 C.20.

2297 C.1129.

2298 C.3771. About the short stature he already said in another letter of 1636: “As for the novices, see to it that they are not admitted to the habit unless they are persons of good intellect and not too small in stature” (c.2559). The Provincial of Naples wrote in 1643: “A lay brother, for being of small stature and of ugly, indeed very ugly features, we have still dismissed him” (C., p. 1313). Also of St. Ignatius of Loyola it is said that “he even paid attention to the physical appearance, excluding those who had some physical defect that could be repellent. He once complained that one who had a crooked nose had been admitted. It was attributed to him the saying: Mala facies malum faciens” (bad face, bad deeds) (C. DALMASES, El P. Maestro Ignacio, p.215).

2299 C.4552. He refuses, on the other hand, donations from the rich, avoiding compromises: “I want you to know that I refused 5,000 escudi from one novice and 3,000 from another, because I want they enter poor.” (C.732).

2300 C.2685.

2301 C.607 Note, however, the subtle irony with which he writes to some well-wishers and friends in Naples, because they do not want their son to be a Piarist, but to be a member of another “principal” Order: “Your Lorship being of the opinion that if John Mary should become a religious, he should enter the religion of the Dominicans or another principal Order, I would not want in any way to cause displeasure to Your Lordship or to your wife by entering among us, who are religious of very little fame, of very little virtue and of a thousand other defects. With all that, such as we are, we will ask the Lord for Your Lordship and all your house” (C.3750).

2302 C.1937.

In addition to what has been said, there is no lack of warnings from the Founder regarding the reception of adults, for in 1630 he wrote to Naples: “Tell me in which house you live and what novices there are, and of what age and qualities, and warn Father Provincial [Casani] to be very careful in dressing novices, especially if they are older and of age.”[2303] He asked for the same precautions in dealing with priests: “For God’s sake,” he wrote in 1634, “let him take care to know beforehand the priests to whom the habit will be given, for last year four or five came whom I believe can only serve to say Mass.”[2304] He also showed no great restraint when it came to dismissing them if there were good reasons to do so.[2305]

2303 C.1315.

2304 C.2177.

2305 In the years of the Pauline Congregation (1617-1621) 18 Priests entered the novitiate, of whom 11 left, but only one is said to have ‘recesit’ (left), while the other ten are said to have ‘dimissus’ (dismissed). It is interesting to note that among these dismissed there was a priest and a deacon from the village of Calasanz, neighboring Peralta (cf. Líber Congr. Paul., p.5-28).

As General of the Order, he did what he could to teach those in charge, both Provincials and novice Masters, that the quality of vocations was more important than their number or quantity, and he repeated ad nauseam and in a thousand ways that it was better to have few and good vocations than many and bad ones.[2306] But despite his zeal and vigilance, he could not always curb the excessive and careless zeal of some who were more concerned with increasing the number than considering the quality.[2307] And even the reports he received logically depended on the personal criteria of judgment and insight of those who gave them.

2306 “It is necessary to give the habit to few and well known.” (C.2739) “It is much better to be few and good than many who are messy and relaxed” (C.4031); “try to receive few and who are very intelligent, rather than easily admit people who are not useful” (C.4059); “I judge it better not to dress and to be few than to be many religious without piety and spirit” (C.4127) (cf. D. CUEVA, o.c., P.107-121).

2307 For example, Fr. Peter Andrew Taccioni, responsible in a certain way for Calasanz’s complaints against Casani, during his provincialate of Naples. “I know very well that Fr. Peter Andrew (as Your Lordship writes) is very zealous in the service of God and of our religion, but I am not in the Indies and he could have consulted me about which individuals should be dressed, of what age and what qualities they should have… up to now no Provincial has dared to dress, I do not say fourteen or fifteen, but not even one without consulting me, since religion should be governed and provided by the General... I removed the faculty to Fr. Peter Andrew because until now he would have dressed thirty or forty by himself, thinking to do good to religion and it is not convenient to do things so hastily, since in this matter the saying it is more shameful to send a guest away than not to admit him is very true.” (c.732).

Religious-priestly formation

Of the three aspects or elements of the Piarist vocation - religious, priest, teacher - it was undoubtedly the first to focus more strongly on the concerns, demands and recommendations of the Founder. And he already did so in the novitiate. He wrote to Fr. Berro: “Try, Y.R., that they [the novices] first take care of the most important thing, namely religious perfection... make it clear to them that the first aim of the religious after the glory of God is his own salvation and the second is the salvation of his neighbor, and that it is necessary first to gather as a bowl and then to pass on as a channel to others.”[2308] A week later he wrote to him again, insisting on the same thing, and sketching a sort of outline of the things already known to him, and in which he was to practice them most: “Instruct them frequently in prayer, in self-mortification, in the subjection of their own will to that of others, and in forgetting the comforts of the parental home, to attend only to detachment from themselves and the mortification of self-love, and assure them that in this way they will be able to secure their salvation.”[2309] In a special way, they were to be instructed and practiced in the three essential vows of religious life, poverty, chastity and obedience, which they were to take at the end of the two-year novitiate. During this time, as well as during the years of preparation for the priesthood, they should continue to strive to acquire all those virtues, habits, customs and practices that characterize religious, beginning with the humility and simplicity that are so characteristic of Piarist ministry. “I will ask the Lord - he wrote in 1627 - to give the students the spirit to learn humility as well as the letters, for without this virtue they are more a hindrance than a help. Exhort them, therefore, to embrace it with great zeal, so that they may later be of use and honor to the Order.”[2310] And in 1640 he continued to convey the same message: “I feel great comfort when I hear that the studies in those regions [in Germania] are progressing well, for I hope that the letters, if accompanied by holy humility, will be of great benefit.”[2311]

2308 C.4120.

2309 C.4121, cf. CC, n.21-22.

2310 C.708.

2311 C.3341. Cf. also C.678, 1160, 4276.

The immeasurable wealth of virtues and holiness of his soul overflows and is transparent in all his extensive correspondence, for he wishes and instills in everyone the same virtues that he has achieved and which make him a perfect role model for all his followers. And what he says to his elders, he also wishes for the young.

During the years of study and preparation for the priesthood, the juniors should retire twice a year to the novitiate or another suitable place, five to six days before Easter and another ten days before the feast of All Saints, to do spiritual exercises and renew their vows. In this way, they were to regain and strengthen their zeal and religious spirit. He also strongly recommended them in the Constitutions with a succinct formulation: “They must combine study with piety and both must help each other.”[2312]

2312 CC, n.210-211.

He also demanded that young clerics be worthily prepared for the priesthood, both in piety of spirit and in the knowledge required for this ministry. And, as always, he insists in a special way on humility as a necessary condition for the transmission of the mysteries of God. Here are some recommendations: “Try to acquire so much humility that in time you will find yourself worthy to be promoted to the priesthood, for which a great disposition and a great capital of virtue is required”; “if they are not very humble, it will be much worse for them to be promoted to the priesthood than to remain as they are, because they will have to deal with very serious matters with the Eternal Father and the Most Holy Trinity in the name of the Holy Church.” “If you do not humble yourself, you will never be a good priest”; “Try to make yourself fit for the priesthood by growing every day in the holy fear of God and by acquiring humility with special diligence.”[2313]

2313 Cf. D. CUEVA, o.c., n.427-431.

No less numerous are his recommendations for them to acquire the science and knowledge required for ordination to the priesthood at that time: “To become a priest - he says - it is not enough to be twenty-five years old, but you must also have the necessary knowledge”; “to become a priest and be ignorant does not suit your salvation, for the dignity of the priest is so great that many learned men who have known it have not had the courage to accept it.” “I would like you endeavor to prepare yourself well the exam for sacred orders, not only by studying the necessary things, but much more by striving for the virtues which fit a man for the exercise of holy orders.”[2314]

2314 Ibid., n.433-437. On this theme of the formation of the religious and priestly spirit see SÁNTHA, SJC, p.75-127; S. GINER, in Escuelas Pías, Ser e Hístoria, p.301-334; ID., Ideas sobre el sacerdocio en el epistolario de S. José de Calasanz: AnCal 50 (1983) 337-367; A. SAPA, S. Giuseppe Calasanzio sacerdote fra il Tridentino ed il Vaticano II: ib, 369-389; J. M. Lecea, Ministerio especializado: el sacerdocio en las Escuelas Pías: ibid., pp. 391-408; O. TOSTI, Nel IV Centenario dell’ordinazione sacerdotale di S. Giuseppe Calasanzio: Ricerche 11 (1984) 196-227; G. AUSENDA, Come il Calasanzio intese e visse il sacerdozio: ibid., p. 350-362.

These vague requirements for sacred science, for knowledge of “the necessary things”, do not go beyond what the Church demanded of candidates for the priesthood after the Council of Trent. Calasanz was far from demanding from his religious the long career of ecclesiastical studies that he had completed. Nor would it be right to think that since Trent the long years of training and the numerous subjects that today make up the ordinary priestly career have been required in seminaries and similar religious houses.

In our case, we must remember above all that since the union with the Lucchesi, the prevailing idea of Calasanz to reduce the ministry to the attention of the schools and to relegate to the background what until then had been the apostolic task of the Lucchesi, namely to confess, preach, catechize and pastoral care in general, resulted in the renunciation of higher theological studies. The Lucchesi were not only opposed to exchanging their own ministry for the new one, but also to renouncing higher theological studies. Father Bernardini wrote in his Chronicles that Father Prefect Calasanz claimed that “it was enough to have very little knowledge of theology and matters of conscience in order to devote oneself only to the needs of the boys.” He goes on to clarify that the inspirer of these ideas was the Carmelite Father John of Jesus Mary: “We believe that this opinion was adopted from Father John of Jesus Mary, a Discalced Carmelite, who in a report he wrote for the Pious Schools said, among other things, that it was enough for our Fathers to have very mediocre studies in matters of conscience and theology. This Father was indeed very pious and lived a holy life, but we believe that in this point he did not have the Spirit of God.”[2315]

2315 BERNARDINI, Cronache, PosCas, p.278-279.

In fact, Fr. John wrote his Project to convince the Lucchesi that they should concentrate only or preferably on the schools and forgo their pastoral ministries of preaching and confession, as well as aspirations to teach philosophy and theology in public, all of which required a clerical career of six or seven years and could hardly be reconciled with teaching children.[2316] But it was not only the Carmelite who advocated these ideas, but also Cardinal Giustiniani, who - as Father Erra writes - “told them insistently: no theology, no theology, and wished that all study would be concentrated on the minimal instruction of students.”[2317] In reality, we do not know whether it was Calasanz who instilled these ideas in the Cardinal and the Carmelite, or whether it was they who imposed them on him. Everything indicates that it was Calasanz. And indeed, later, when he had to legislate in his Constitutions and make demands in his letters, he essentially followed these ideas.

2316 “…ad haec ipsa onera oportebit religiosos, more aliarum religionum per sex aut septem annos in philosophiae et theologia Curriculo versari, quod cum pueritiae cultura vix aegre cohaeret” (PosCas, p.211). Cf. C. VILÁ, Fuentes inmediatas..., p.111-145.

2317 C. A. ERRA, Cronache, PosCas, p.1869. Calasanz must have known the Constituzioni della Congregatione de’Padri della Dottrina Christiana; ed. in Rome in 1604 by Fr. J. B. Serafini, given the relationship of this Congregation with the homonymous Confraternity to which Calasanz belonged. In them we read: “Let no one aspire to a greater Faculty (Philosophy and Theology), than to know, after the Grammar, conveniently Cases of conscience, which is enough to achieve the Congregation the goal which claims” (ibid., p.44v). Such Constitutions influence in this and other points those of Calasanz (cf. C. VILÁ, Fuentes inmediatas..., p.277).

The purpose or charism of the Order, which was practically centered on the service of the school, meant that in the preparation or formation of candidates - not only at the time of the Founder, but throughout the long history of the Order - more attention was paid to the scientific-literary-pedagogical aspect than to the religious-priestly one, even to a certain detriment to the latter. In the chapter of the Constitutions devoted to the studies of professed clerics, Calasanz summarizes them by saying that “no other subject should be taught except rhetoric and cases of conscience (moral theology), except for our religious.”[2318] These cases of conscience should above all be those that usually occur in children, as he states in the chapter dedicated to confessors and repeats in some of his letters.[2319] Of course, with these mere indications, he wants to set a limit to ordinary studies beyond which they should not go, but he does not explicitly indicate what they should study.

2318 CC, n.205. It is interesting to remember that the original text of the Founder said: “In qua (house of studies) ultra Rethoricam et casus conscientiae sine Generalis licentia in aliis scientiis non procedatur.” One of the censors underlined the words sine Generalis licentia in aliis scientiis and added: “Ergo de licentia Generalis poterunt, unde videatur ne obstet Instituto Jesuitarum et oriantur controversiae.” It was also crossed out and added by the hand of Calasanz, nisi pro nostris instead of sine Generalis licentia. This left the possibility of teaching to our own other higher sciences, but not to outsiders (cf. G. SÁNTHA, o.c., p.241, n.90-91, and C. VILÁ, Constituciones de la Congr. Paulina. Texto original de Narni: Archivum 17 [1985] 33), The censor mentioned was not Fr. Alagona (cf. C. VILÁ, o.c., p.52), nor probably another Jesuit. On the other hand, many of the ideas of this chapter were copied almost literally by Calasanz from the Constitutions of the Society. In this case, the text of St. Ignatius said: ”…et de scientiis superioribus non agatur, sed ad eas addiscendas ab iis Collegiis, ii qui in Humanioribus Litteris profecerint, ad Universitates Societatis mittantur” (Cons. S. J., IV, c.VII, B, cit. in C. VILÁ, o.c., p.228-229, n.10). Calasanz eliminated the reference to university studies.

2319 “Sint etiam eruditi in casibus, in quos ut plurimum adolescentes incurrere solent” (CC, n.317); “use great diligence in learning cases of conscience, especially those that are necessary for the confession of young people, and you should sometimes make a conference about all together” (C.106). Cf. C.557, 1493, etc.

In order to be ordained priests, clerics had to follow the Tridentine regulations and the subsequent ecclesiastical legislation and also take the examinations for sacred orders. And here is what was practically required in such exams in the Vicariate or diocesan area of Rome, as summarized by Sántha in an article on the subject:

“As regards the knowledge required for the priesthood, the candidate was examined in Rome to see whether he knew, could recite, and understand the Divine Office and the missal, whether he knew at least the Roman Catechism published by Pius V in 1566, and whether he knew what was essential with regard to the use, rite and administration of the sacraments. When it came to religious who were not dedicated to pastoral care - and these were the Piarists - these minimum requirements were not even demanded in full, but they were treated with greater leniency, i.e. they were only tested as to whether they could read the breviary and the missal and at least understand the grammar of what they had read. In order to obtain the ability to celebrate in Rome, they had to present a certificate from a master of ceremonies attesting to sufficient knowledge of the respective rites and rubrics. And, of course, they demanded more and with greater rigor in matters of moral theology from those who requested permission to confess in Rome. This was more or less the general state and level of ecclesiastical studies required in Rome at the time of our Holy Father.”[2320]

2320 G. SÁNTHA, Probatio ac institutio juniorum nostrorum..., p.207.

In the letters of the Founder there is no lack of explicit recommendations on these three minimum requirements for religious. We have already seen what refers to morality and specifically his interest in the study of cases and situations peculiar to the boys. He often insisted that they learn the ceremonies and the deep meaning of the Mass well, even without alluding to the public exams, especially when he wrote, for example, to those who were about to be ordained or to new priests: “As a new priest begins, so he usually continues. Therefore, it is better that he should first learn well not only the ceremonies, but also the great reverence with which he should approach so high a mystery.”[2321] And this instruction: “Before he celebrates Mass, he must come to Rome to be examined and confirmed by me. So let him come when he is well prepared with regard to the ceremonies and the necessary things.”[2322] In extreme cases, he is also concerned about the first requirement: “I do not want - he says - that he, who is so ignorant of Latin, should be ordained to holy orders by a favor or an opportunity.[2323]

2321 C.459. Cf. GINER, Ideas sobre el sacerdocio..., p.346-356.

2322 C.300.

2323 C.3775.

In order to be in harmony with himself and out of absolute fidelity to his founding idea, which he had tried to impose on the Lucchesi, he demanded in his own congregation: to center the pastoral areas in the school and to leave in second place the attention of adults in our churches. And for this he did not consider it necessary for his clerics to pursue higher studies in philosophy and theology, not only because of the years they would have had to spend in such studies, but also because of the fear that the higher ecclesiastical sciences might be an incentive to devote them to chairs and pulpits and to banish the humble and humiliating tasks of the elementary schools of the poor. He was content to observe the minimum required by canon law and sacrificed the superior culture of his religious in favor of his ministry and his total dedication to the needs of children, especially the poor.

However, not everyone agreed with these ideas, especially not Father Casani, who already in the Apostolic Visitation of 1625 demanded that the juniors should be properly instructed in philosophy and theology, especially in view of the possibility of founding Pious Schools in heretical countries.[2324] However, the Visitators were in favor of the Founder’s mentality. Things became more and more complicated over time, and after some interim solutions, the General Chapter of 1637 decided to found a juniorate in Rome of at least ten selected young men who were to pursue higher studies in philosophy and theology at Collegio Romano of the Jesuits or at that of the Dominicans of Minerva.

2324 Cf. PosCas, p.515.

However, all this problem was linked to the other, very serious problem of the so-called “cleric brothers” and “claimants”, which hampered the matter and which we will discuss later.[2325] The resolution of the Chapter of 1637 was not decisive either. The problem remained open in the provinces, some of which offered partial solutions, not without resistance and contradictions. But by this time the Founder himself was convinced, perhaps as early as 1637, of the desirability and even necessity of higher philosophical-theological studies and encouraged the initiatives of some provinces, such as those of Sardinia and Germania.[2326] However, the problems were only tackled with the utmost determination by Father General Charles John Pirroni (1677-1685). He not only urged the study of the major sciences in all Provinces, but also wrote the Order’s first Ratio Studiorum.[2327]

2325 On the subject of the philosophical-theological formation of the clergy and its multiple implications see the erudite studies, already cited, by Sántha and Vilá (G. SÁNTHA, Probatio et institutio... C. VILÁ, Fuentes inmediatas..., p.122-145 and 227-229.

2326 Cf. SÁNTHA, SJC, p.200-203, 216-219.

2327 Cf. ID., El P. Carlos Pirroni (Salamanca 1985), p.31-44.

Preparation of teachers

According to the regulations issued by Clement VIII concerning the formation and study of religious[2328], after completing the novitiate, the newly professed could remain in the same house to complete the second novitiate or “profesorio”, if there was a suitable place and facilities to accommodate them; otherwise, they could live in another convent, provided there was a place where they could live separately from the other religious. They were to remain in this juniorate until they were old enough to receive holy orders, or at least for a period of three years, during which they were to devote themselves to the study of the “letters” under the direction of a superior with similar qualities to the Master of the novices. The Clementine Decrees say nothing more about the content of these studies or the system of life of these young students.[2329]

2328 These Clementine Decrees, eight in all, promulgated from 1596 to 1603, concern the whole process of acceptance and formation of novices and clerics up to sacerdotal ordination. They were confirmed in 1624 by Urban VIII (cf. Bullarium Romanum. Turin, t.XIII, p.202-220).

2329 The Latin text says: “ibique permaneant, quousque ad aetatem sacris ordinibus suscipiendis sufficientem devenerint, vel saltem per triennium post professionem, quo etiam tempore poterunt quinimmo et debebunt litterarum studiis operam navare sub directione ac regimine superioris...” (Bullarium Romanum, t.XIII, p.219).

It is added, however, that the Religions whose novitiate lasts longer than the usual or prescribed time, which was one year, are exempt from these provisions, but they are permitted to adhere to these new regulations.[2330] Both the founding Bull of Paul V and the Constitutions themselves provided for a two-year novitiate,[2331] which was another reason for Calasanz to consider himself exempt from these provisions. And this was his idea: “Each house will keep at least two of our juniors for study, who can stand in for those who are prevented by illness or some other valid reason. This will continue until the Congregation has a house in each province that can provide the other houses in that Province with qualified educators.”[2332]

2330 The text remains very vague: “Ad hoc tamen illae religiones excipiuntur, quae suarum constitutionum seu institutorum vigore maioris temporis cursu novos professos intra novitiatum detinere consuescunt.” (ib.) Sántha summarizes: “Quod quidem stricte praeceptum erat iis qui annum tantum probationis in novitiatu transegerant, commendatum vero ceteris” (G. SÁNTHA, o.c., p.213).

2331 Cf. Bullarium Sch.P., p.19; CC, n.20.

2332 CC, n.204.

When the Clementine Decrees spoke of “the “study of the letters” to which the new professed were to devote themselves, they undoubtedly meant the subjects that Tridentine had intended for the seminaries, i.e. grammar, chant, church reckoning and similar subjects, Sacred Scripture, homiletics, administration of the sacraments, rites and ceremonies.[2333] However, Calasanz could not help but think primarily of a scientific-literary preparation of his juniors that would enable them to exercise their own ministry as teachers and educators, without neglecting the minimum requirements for ordination to the priesthood, as reflected in the official examinations of the dioceses.

2333 Con. Trid., ses. XXIII, ch. XVIII.

In order to reasonably justify his own idea of his clerics’ period of study, he returns to the central idea of the foundation:

“… the aim of our Congregation with the practice of the Pious Schools is to educate children in Christian piety and human science in order to help them attain eternal life. To accomplish this end, we have not only the indispensable example of a life after the Spirit, but also the necessary doctrine and the method of imparting it.”[2334]

2334 CC, n.203.

The teaching ranged from grammar and the humanities to rhetoric, arithmetic, calligraphy and Christian doctrine with practical moral in matters of conscience. Interestingly, he insists that they learn how to teach all these subjects, not just the subjects themselves[2335]; that is, they must learn the pedagogical methodology for each science. This makes us think spontaneously that these houses of study of these young Piarists were real “Normal Schools” or “Schools of Teachers”.

2335 “…doctrinam et modum eam tradendi”; “de fundamento litterarum et modo proponendi” (CC, n.203): teach them “non solum modum docendi Doctrinam Christianam, sed etiam modum perfecte litteras formandi et computa faciendi” (CC, n.207). The similarity with the Ignatian Constitutions is evident, since there too they speak of “doctrina et modus eam proponendi”, “de litterarum aedificio et modo eis utendi” (cf. C. VILÁ, Fuentes inmediatas ..., p.227).

Although the arrangement of the Constitutions seemed to be temporary, it was practically maintained during the Founder’s lifetime, that is, in addition to many houses that continued to receive some juniors, there was one in each province that, due to its greater concentration of students, became a sort of juniorate or provincial “profesorio”, without ever having an autonomous house dedicated exclusively to it, until 1660, when a juniorate was founded in Chieti for all the provinces of Italy.[2336] Thus, in addition to the juniorates or provincial studies of Rome, Naples, Genoa and Florence for Italy, Nikolsburg for Germania and Podolin for Poland, there were also the schools of Carcare, Narni, Nursia, Frascati, Moricone, Messina, Palermo, Caller, Strasnitz and Leitomischl, in each of which some students were also.[2337] This last practice was preferred by the Founder, as can be seen from the spontaneity of this complaint in a letter of December 1629: “If, as the Constitutions say, all houses had two religious studying the humanities, we would not now be so exhausted that we could not fulfill any of the wishes of our Institute.”[2338]

2336 Cf. L. PICANYOL, Le Scuole Pie e Galileo Galilei, p.179-181.

2337 Cf. SÁNTHA, SJC, p.150-151, n.24.

2338 C.1267.

The “insatiable greed” of the existing houses and the new foundations was, in fact, undoubtedly the main cause of the maintenance of an unstable formation system, without due rest and full dedication to studies, without the guarantee that they would be completed in peace and without sudden interruptions, and even with a shortage of suitable teachers. In a way, the urgent needs of the schools had the upper hand. But this was not a problem that affected only the Pious Schools, because the religious Orders with an active apostolate also made use of their young students and even novices to fill gaps or simply to provide help and collaboration.[2339]

2339 It has been written of St. Camillus de Lellis: “Desiring greatly to see a certain number of priests in the Congregation... he threw many young men with patrimony into studies. And it is true that the more he wished to see them priests, the more it seemed to him that they would never arrive. Particularly, because their studies were so interrupted and so crumbling because of their continuous occupations with the sick (in which the students had no privileges of exception on the part of Camillus) that they could hardly take advantage of their studies. They had to be almost continuously with the mantle on and to steal a little time; moreover, to take it away from sleep to see some book and to learn something” (P.S. CICATELLI, Vita manoscritta. cit. in A. PRONZATO, o.c., p.170). In 1567 Fr. Gil González Dávila, S. I., was appointed Visitator of the Jesuit Provinces of Aragon and Castile, and he noted that “although [the novitiate] had a separate house in Valencia, there were hardly any novices, because they were all taken to the College to serve as temporary coadjutors there” (P. ASTRAIN, Historia de la Compañía de Jesús en la Asistencia de España. II [Madrid 1905], p.261) And he said the same of the students: “And it will not be enough to have students and a good order of studies in our College if our Father does not order that the studies and courses not be interrupted and that they not be taxed by months; that has not been seen a complete person in this province....” (ibid., p.262) And Calasanz in 1627 writes: “even among Jesuits who have been founded for more than 80 years there are many youngsters of your age of 20 years who attend schools” (C.613).

The study system consisted of coordinating the duties in the school so that the juniors had some free hours. Here is what Calasanz says in January 1628 about what he is doing at San Pantaleo:

“As for sending help to these schools [in Naples], that is not possible now unless we interrupt the study of our clerics, which are going very well and I hope will soon be of great benefit. I am sorry that the clerics there do not have as much time to study as I would wish. If they could be freed up from accompanying [the children home] as I do here, they would have a little more time. Those who teach here have at least four hours every day to study, because I do not send them to accompany, and despite we are 56 at home, sometimes there is no one to send out because they are all busy studying, and there are 22 of them, or they have other occupations.”[2340]

2340 C.756.

It is undeniable that the Founder had a sincere desire to open and maintain these study houses[2341] and that he urged that they should study humanities and science rather than philosophy and theology.[2342] He complained that Fathers Casani and Castelli, in their zeal to promote philosophy and theology in their respective provinces of Naples and Genoa, needed humanists for the schools and turned to him to procure them: “The Father Provincial of Genoa and the Father Provincial there - he wrote to Naples in October 1629 - realize that by sending so many students before their time to study the major sciences, they have made them beggars for the humanities, because they do not have them for the schools and they would like me to provide for them, but I cannot. So, everyone has to prepare them in their own Province because since there is no [organized] study or opportunities here, it is not possible to help so many.”[2343] And a little later he repeated: “It seems to me that it was a temptation of the enemy to introduce the study of the major sciences so early.”[2344] And all this had an effect on the study house in Rome, with the serious consequences that the poor General laments: “I have often begun the study of the humanities here, and if they had not asked me so insistently for more individuals, I would now have many good ones available for many houses, but they have forced me to break up the houses in Rome in order to supply the houses outside”.[2345]

2341 In October 1626 from Naples, he writes to the rector of San Pantaleo: “order that all the clerics attend to the study.... for the space of two or two and a half hours... that then with the help of Our Lord we will set up a formed study which is supremely necessary for us” (C.549), “As for putting up a study of our own I have a great desire... this is a very principal and important negotiation for our institute” (C.606, dated April 10, 1627). “I hope to put in a study soon and to procure some intelligent of ours who can make major schools (C.613, dated May 7, 1627).

2342 “I am sorry that there (Naples) no one attends the study of humanities that matters so much to us...” (C. 1283, dated December 29, 1629). “I will be very pleased if Your Reverence (in Messina) cares to perfect in rhetoric as many of our students as possible” (C.4208, dated July 9, 1644). As for the going of Brother Giuseppe (Apa) of S. Nicola to theology, none of our students should be scandalized because he has already done the course of philosophy before entering among us... then, when we will have sufficient humanists, we will send some of them to major sciences... and if others now pretend to study logic and philosophy, I will mortify him as it should be done.” (C. 1513, dated October 18, 1630).

2343 C.1226 (October 4, 1629).

2344 C.1267 (December 1, 1629).

2345 C.1275 (October 15, 1629).

From what we have seen with the many personal judgments of the Founder, it seems most correct to conclude that it was his mentality that his teachers should be properly trained in the subjects they were to teach in the classroom, spending the greater part of the years of study in them. Finally, they were to prepare themselves for the reception of Holy Orders by fulfilling the minimum requirements for the obligatory examinations in the episcopal curiae and paying a little more attention to the cases of morals more suitable for the children. Then one could think of sending some of them to study philosophy and theology in depth. And that was not a crazy plan, considering the special ministry of the Order, to which everything else was to be subordinated. On the other hand, in the other religious Orders, in addition to the majority who were content with a very precarious study of theology - as can be seen from the requirements of the Vicariate of Rome for religious to be ordained priests - there were some better educated and specialized priests in each house.[2346]

2346 The aforementioned Jesuit Visitor, Fr. González Dávila, wrote in the quoted letter of August 5, 1567: “They tell me that Fr. Cordeses was of this opinion, that there was no need for literates among our people; medium confessors were enough. As if the ministries of the Society did not require a complete knowledge of sacred letters... and not to be necessary that in each college there be at least one, who without fear can give an opinion on anything and that under his protection the others are sheltered!” (A. ASTRAIN, o.c., p.262).

It is therefore probable that the ordinary level of theological culture among the priests of the Pious Schools corresponded to that of the other religious Orders or the secular clergy. In scientific and literary matters, however, Calasanz clearly sought to promote an atmosphere of constant improvement and perfection, even in the early years of preparation for the priesthood.

Illustrious teachers of teachers

The apparent lack of stability, regularity and systematization of studies, due to the urgencies and needs of the moment, could lead one to think that the level of the teachers of the Pious Schools was low, deficient and mediocre. But a brief enumeration of those who were directly or indirectly involved in the formation of these first generations of Piarists, and the relative wealth of the libraries that were created in the houses, give an idea of the cultural environment created thanks to the diligence and perseverance of this Old Saint who, in spite of his many years and responsibility, covered everything.

And if we want to mention the teachers of teachers, we must first of all mention this Old Saint who, if he had a predilection for the smallest of the small and the poorest of the poor,[2347] must have been an exceptional teacher of teachers. There are many who remember him with this special task. Let us hear some of them: “he very often instructed his religious to work better together for the good of the children”; “he instructed the teachers how they should behave in order to teach these children with love not only the letters but also Christian piety”; “it is certain that he first taught reading and then writing and then grammar, and for this and to this he exhorted the collaborators, whom he taught the way to teach the children”; “he visited the schools... examined the children and instructed the teachers in the simple way in which they should teach the children”; “I have seen that he gave warnings to the teachers who taught the children and pointed out ways in which they should teach them not only the letters but also the fear of God”; “he also instructed his collaborators in the way in which they should teach the children.”[2348] There is also the valuable testimony of Berro, a direct disciple of Calasanz:

2347 Eyewitness accounts of this double predilection of Calasanz abound. Let us look at some of them: “the Father taught the little children and among them he chose the most beggars and barefooted... and those who were better dressed he left to the other Fathers” (Br. Noberasco); “he taught the poor and in particular the poorest and the smallest” (id); “being General he did not miss a day without visit all the schools and particularly the most inferior and in them he chose the most miserable children” (Fr. Morelli); “he had particular affection for the poorest pupils” (Fr. Castelli); “in the classes he took particular care of the poor children” (Br. Stiso); “the poorest and worst dressed were helped by him with more charity” (Fr. Bottiglieri). (Quoted in S. GINER, El carisma de S. José de Calasanz según los testigos del Proceso de Beatificación, p. 208-209).

2348 These are the testimonies of Scassellati, Cocchetti, Noberasco, Ferrari, Salazar-Maldonado (Cf. ibid., p.203).

“Not a day went by that he did not visit all or a large part of the schools to see how the teachers were behaving; and he also taught himself, so that he taught the pupils and the teacher at the same time. In the afternoon, he wanted us young people to go to his room, where he taught us how to make ourselves understood by the students and explain grammar very simply, and we benefited greatly from him. He gave the brothers rules for good writing and bookkeeping and kept us all in practice; the only thing missing was time.”[2349]

2349 BERRO I, p.138. Referring to the time of the palace Vestri (1602-1605) Berro remembers that already then Calasanz was master of the masters: “toiling more than any other, the day in teaching the children and at night in teaching the same Teachers” (ib., p.79).

The founder himself confesses: “I was always busy with many things and I learned to write perfectly so that I could teach it to our confreres.”[2350] His way of forming the young clerics and brothers was particularly pedagogical, that is, he taught them how to teach, both in theory, in the long hours in which he gathered them,[2351] and in practice, when he went to the classes and taught them there. But he was also their teacher in subjects such as calligraphy, mathematics and, above all, Latin. Even from a distance, he asked the students to send him Latin compositions in verse and prose every month, and he gave them topics to compose and called on them to go to San Pantaleo to give a lecture on a classical author in front of the whole community.[2352]

2350 C.3673. In 1641 Fr. Salazar Maldonado wrote to Calasanz: “If Y. P. did not write, being those characters of a man of 84 years of age, without glasses and with a bad pen, it was difficult to believe that this was your hand” (EHI, p..1860).

2351 As an experienced teacher, he had to communicate to them the kind of “practical recipes” that each one applies in his teaching tasks to make things easier. One of them wrote: “I do not cease to practice what Y. P. taught me there in Rome, but I am sorry I do not remember well the way you used to correct Latin, because I have 45 students and in the morning, I rack my brains to correct the exercises of all of them.” (EHI, n.189). And another one tells, “I have already taught the brethren the way that Your Paternity writes to me, of teaching the children with which one makes great profit.” (EHI, p.701).

2352 Cf. Texts quoted in SÁNTHA, SJC, p.168-169.

For each of these subjects, he found excellent teachers to instruct the student clerics and even the other religious, who already had years of experience and teaching expertise. For calligraphy, he retained from the beginning the famous calligrapher Ventura Sarafellini, to whose hand we owe the huge letters of the inscription Tu es Petrus... which adorns the inner ring of the base of the Vatican dome.[2353] He was actually the teacher of calligraphy for the children, but it is certain that he also taught it to the religious, starting with the Founder, who wanted to ensure his constant service to the Pious Schools and his salary until his death with an employment contract signed in 1618, which shows the deep esteem he felt for him.[2354]

2353 News from Caputi, cit. en SÁNTHA, o.c., p.144, n.17. Checked in Arch. della Fabrica di S. Pietro (cf. S. GINER, El proceso de Beatificación..., p.70, n.62).

2354 See the most relevant sentences: “I Giuseppe della Madre di Dio... make agreement with Mr. Ventura Sarafellini of Imola, writer in Rome, that he should serve in giving writing lessons for all the time of his life in the schools of our Congregation the day after lunch in the beginning of the schools until the end without taking for such exercise anything from the students who come to our schools... and it should give him for his provision and payment thirty escudos of usual currency a year... and that our brothers keep him as one of them, and that he be a participant in all the works and merits of the Congregation... because he has served this place from the beginning that this blessed work of the Pious Schools was begun with great perseverance and love” (cit. en SANTHA, SJC, p.144, n.17). Caputi adds “he died in the year 1664 and he always had school in San Pantaleo with great example for Fathers and students” (ib.).

As teacher of humanities, rhetoric, Latin and Greek, he appointed the Portuguese priest Andrew Bayano, a famous philologist and a very learned and admired man in the educated circles of Rome, professor of the Greek and Salviati Colleges, who lived in San Pantaleon from 1630, where he died in 1639 at the age of seventy-three.[2355] Before him, the venerable old man Dragonetti, who died in 1628, had been an excellent Latin teacher for young and old. The famous philologist Gaspar Scioppio (Schoppe), a Protestant who converted to Catholicism in 1597, advisor to Emperor Ferdinand and his son, the King of Bohemia, enjoyed great fame. On a trip to Spain in 1613, he became acquainted with the famous Latin grammar of Francis Sánchez, the Brocense, and became the disseminator of his new methodology in Italy. in 1629, Calasanz sent three of his clerics to Milan, where he lived, so that he could initiate them into the new grammar. From then on, close relations were maintained between Scioppio and the Piarists.[2356]

2355 Cf. L. PICANYOL, Le Scuole Pie e Galileo Galilei, p.31-32; SÁNTHA, SJC, p.166 y n.9.

2356 Cf. L. PICANYOL, o.c., p.32-33; SÁNTHA, SJC, p.175-178.

A great fruit of the Founder’s concern to train excellent Latinists is the group of Piarists who distinguished themselves as prose writers, poets and grammarians. Some of them left behind published works and socialized with the humanists of the time, while at the same time teaching the young Piarists who followed them. Among them, in addition to the Founder himself, who wrote elegant Latin prose, Fathers John Francis Apa, Joseph Valuta, Francis Baldi, Camillus Scassellati and the most important of them, Father Charles Mazzei, should be mentioned, both for his works and for the select circle of Latinist friends with whom he maintained a lively correspondence, including Mgr. Fabio Chigi, later Alexander VII.[2357]

2357 Cf. SÁNTHA, SJC, p.193-197, with all their works and correspondent bibliography.

Calasanz promoted direct contact with Galileo Galilei, not only for his clerics, but rather for the young Fathers and Brothers of the province of Tuscany, who formed a cenacle of the “Galileian Piarists” in Florence, whose physical-mathematical culture went far beyond the requirements of children’s schools. They included the Fathers Francis Michelini, Clement Settimi and Angel Morelli,[2358] followed by the Fathers Francis Castelli, Ambrose Ambrosi, Salvatore Grise and also Fathers Charles Conti, John Dominic Romani, John B. de Ferrari, John B. Costantini and Dominic Rosa.[2359]

2358 Michelini wrote to Galileo from Rome (12 October, 1634): “Our Fr. General gives me only two young people for the Studio, because the scarcity of food and place in Florence. I am sorry that I cannot send 6 or 8 of them who are not of ordinary expectancy. He tells me that it would be necessary to make this Study in Rome; but to me the closeness of Y. L. is more important than any other thing... Our Father General knows that he is very much obliged to you for the favours that you do to me and to our other Fathers” (L. PICANYOL, o.c., p.52-53). Fr. General wrote to the rector of Florence (16 April, 1639): “And if, by chance, Mr. Galileo should ask that Father Clement [Settimi] remain there some night, may Your Reverence allow him to do so, and may God grant that he may be able to obtain the profit that he should have.” (3074) That time Fr. Settimi was the trusted secretary of Galileo, already blind. On 7 January, 1612 Galileo wrote to professor Baliani: “The most grateful letter from Y. L. was given me yesterday, together with your book about motion by M. R. Fr. Clement of St Charles of the Pious Schools, companion of R. Fr. Francis [Michelini] of St. Joseph, and because my accident of being totally blind for about two years does not allow me to see neither the sun nor such minor and lightless objects, such as writings and geometrical figures, I obtained this day that the above-mentioned Fr. Clement came to stay with me for many hours, in which time we had the opportunity to read your book...” (cit. en SÁNTHA, SJC, p.151, n.25). Fr. Morelli had a trascendental importance on keeping and fostering this galileian orientation when the juniorate of Chieti was open for the Italian Provinces in 1660. He was his rector until his death (1685) (cf. L. PICANYOL, o.c., p.100-106, 177-184).

2359 Cf. L. PICANYOL, o.c., p.107-I22.

While in Florence the circle of Galilean Piarists revolved around the great scientist of Arcetri, in other Italian cities other circles also formed around great disciples of the Tuscan master, such as in Genoa the Somascan Father Antonius Santini, in Naples John Camillus Gloriosi, in Rome the Benedictine Benedict Castelli and John Alfonso Borelli.[2360] It goes without saying that these Fathers, pupils and friends of Galileo and the most outstanding followers of the great scientist, were in turn teachers of the young Piarists, who worthily continued the scientific-mathematical tradition of Galileo, especially in the province of Tuscany.

2360 Cf. ib., p.36-38. Borelli (1608-1679), son of a Spanish father, was, after Galileo, the most representative figure of the Italian scientific renaissance of the 17th century. His brother Diego took the Piarist cassock in Rome on April 6, 1631, but left it in 1633 before professing. In 1677 Fr. General Pirroni welcomed Alphonse in San Pantaleo to teach mathematics in the recently inaugurated juniorate and he remained there until his death in 1679. (cf. L. PICANYOL, o.c., p.186-190; ID., Alfonso Borelli e il P. Carlo Pirroni delle Scuole Pie, Roma 1933).

Eloquent testimony to the high level of literary-scientific and catechetical-pedagogical culture is given above all by the lists of books that made up the libraries of the Pious Schools at the time of the Founder, in addition to the references found in the epistolary correspondence, i.e. the requests for books from one house to another or the requests from abroad.[2361] And the abundance, variety and richness of the works are all the more admirable when one thinks of the real poverty in which they lived. But obviously, he was free with it came to improving and raising the cultural standard of the houses.

2361 Books of calligraphy (cf. SÁNTHA, SJC, p.143-144); of Mathematics (cf. ib., P.146-149); of Catechesis (cf. ib., 160-161); of Greek and Latin clasical authors (cf. ib., p. 190-191, 199); of Philosophy and Theology (cf. ib., p.222-224); of Grammar and languages in vernacular (cf. ib., p.231-233).

The particular case of Campanella

Among the famous figures of the time who were called by Calasanz to teach his young religious, mention must be made of the Dominican Thomas Campanella, a strange and controversial figure who was always restless as a man, as a friar and as a thinker. He was imprisoned twice in the prisons of the Holy Office for heterodoxy (1594-1596, 1626-1628) and for twenty-six years in the prisons of the State of Naples for conspiracy and rebellion (1599- 1626). The theologian, philosopher and brilliant thinker was a friend of Scioppio and of Galileo and his circle, including the Galileian Piarists.[2362] Perhaps his friendship with Calasanz dates back to the end of the century when, after his release from the prison of the Holy Office, he spent a few years in the Dominican convent of Minerva, where Calasanz went to talk to his friend, the parish priest Father Philip Angelini.[2363]

2362 Michelini writes to Galileo (December 12, 1634) reminding him of some of these friends, whom we have already named: “I forgot to say that the Marquis Strozzi reveres you in the extreme, and the same is done by Fr. D. Benedetto (Castelli), Campanella, the Sig. Gio. Borrelli your disciple, Sig. Magiotti and many of our Fathers do the same.” (L. PICANYOL, o.c., p.53). Regarding Scioppio, cf. G. AUSENDA, L’umile presenza delle Scuole Pie nella vicenda umana di Tommaso Campanella: Ricerche 6 (1982) 153-158.

2363 Cf. ibid., p.150-151; L. PICANYOL, o.c., p.40-42.

When he was released for the second time from the Roman prison of the Holy Office, he returned to Minerva and established or perhaps resumed personal relations with the Founder of the Pious Schools. From his letters to the Rector of the school of Frascati[2364] we know that he spent the fall vacations of 1631 and 1632 there at Calasanz’s invitation. It is very likely that he was also there in 1630, 1633 and 1634; he left for France in that last year and never returned.[2365] In any case, it is interesting to note that during his stay in Frascati in October 1631, he gave some lectures or lessons to the juniors that the Holy Founder had sent to him from Rome.[2366] Given the encyclopedic culture of the famous Dominican, it is not known exactly what he spoke about in that October course. Caputi says vaguely “that he read the sciences to them” and that there were eleven juniors.[2367] The fact is that Campanella returned to Frascati the following year, 1632, and Calasanz spent a few days there to take advantage of the fall vacation, but he did not send the student clerics there again.[2368] There must have been an important reason for this. Perhaps he opened up new horizons of high philosophy and theology to some of them by cooling them down in their more menial tasks of daily teaching.[2369] And that is what Calasanz wanted to avoid at all costs.

2364 Cf. C.1694, 1695, 1697, 1699, 1878, 1894.

2365 Cf. G. AUSENDA, o.c., p.162.

2366 On October 17, 1631 Calasanz writes: “Tell me again how these students of ours who have come from Rome are attending their studies, and see to it that Father Tommaso Campanella is given every satisfaction.” (C.1699).

2367 Caputi writes that speaking with the Founder, he told referring to Fr. John B. Carleti, that when he was a cleric, he put him “under the direction of Andrea Baiano, important teacher of Rethoric, and then with ‘other ten’ under the discipline of Fr. Tomaso Campanella, who taught him the sciences” (quoted in G. AUSENDA, o.c., p.161, n.40). Of those eleven only the names of four are known, which were Fr. Juan B. Carletti, Fr. Carlos Conti, Fr. Angel Morelli and Cleric John F. Castiglia (ib., p.161-162).

2368 Calasanz wrote to the rector of Frascati (September 29, 1632): “in two or three days I will send there two of our good children, for some days of recreation and I believe that Father Campanella will see us like last year, but it will not be the same for the students” (C.1878). (C.1878) And then (October 4, 1632): “Fr. Campanelle will be there very soon to his room” (C.1886); “you will greet from my part Fr Tomaso saying that in person I will answer his letter “ (October 14, 1632, C.1894).

2369 This seems to be insinuated by the conduct of C. Conti in Germany, according to what some companions of community say of him writing to the General: “As for the schools, by the grace of the Lord they are doing well, except for the school of brother Carlo [Conti] from Rome, who focus in other things rather than the school. In the school he talks about philosophy, where he quotes Campanella many times” (EEC, p.640. Date: January 25, 1633). “He [Conti] often mentions the books of Fr. Campanella” (EEC, p.1212. Date: January 1, 1634). Conti was, certainly, very cultured and also a poet. Perhaps this made him to be envied, because in the same letter we read: “Some attribute to themselves the improving of his pupils and to him they give the zest” (ibid.). See also his letter to Calasanz in which he quotes Campanella together with Trismegistus, Plato, St. Augustine, Lactantius, Aristotle, etc. (cf. ibid., p. p.). (cf. ibid., p.150-151).

Campanella, for his part, thanked the Piarists of Frascati for the attention he had received and for the esteem and admiration shown to him by the Holy Founder by writing an Apologia of the Pious Schools.[2370] It seems correct that he wrote it in the fall of 1631 or in the first months of 1632[2371], so that if Calasanz had read it before the fall of 1632 - and it is very likely that it was so - reading it might have led him not to send the young people again to Frascati to hear Father Campanella, if he had not already been determined beforehand, knowing the ideas he had inculcated in them the previous fall. By this we mean that he did not agree with everything the Dominican had set out in his Apologia, as has sometimes been claimed.[2372]

2370 The Latin title - in whose language the work is written - is: Líber apologeticus contra impugnantes Institutum Scholarum Piarun. Although Campanella’s specialists knew the work by name, it had remained unpublished and disappeared until 1932, when L. Picanyol found a manuscript copy and published it first in installments in EphCal (1932) and then in a separate pamphlet the same year; he republished it as an appendix to his work Le scuole Píe e Galileo Galilei, in 1942 (p.229-239); he had an Italian translation in the appendix of L. VOLPICELLI, La controriforma (Firenze. 1960); another Spanish translation in SÁNTHA, SJC (p.721-739); another English translation in Achivum 15 (1984) 29-76. The latest Spanish reprint in V. FAUBELL, Antología Pedagógica Calasancia (Salamanca 1988) p.42-48.

2371 Cf. G. AUSENDA, o.c., p.164.

2372 “…in this [Apologia] we find, through the typical and strident argumentation of the Stilese [Campanella], the whole thought of St. Joseph Calasanz around his work and the universality and extension of his teaching” (L. PICANYOL, p.44).

It is very likely that Calasanz had long conversations with Campanella about the current situation of the Institute, the difficulties he encountered in its dissemination and the objections raised against its existence. By accepting the invitation, Campanella must have informed himself in detail about where the shots were coming from, what the objections and accusations were in detail, and what the founder thought about them. In fact, when reading the Apologia, one cannot help but be reminded of Calasanz’s long Memorandum to Cardinal Tonti. In both writings it is shown that the Institute of Pious Schools is not useless or superfluous, let alone harmful, both for society and for the Church.

The first part of the Apologia in particular is directed against those who deny the poor the right to culture. Calasanz must have read paragraphs like this with satisfaction: “Tyrants promote the ignorance of the people so that they can easily make of them what they want. Therefore, it is in the interest of the princes, the people and the whole republic to extend and spread the sciences, as the Pious Schools do... The Pious Schools call out above all to the poor: Come, eat my bread, drink my wine, which I have mixed for you (Prov. 9:5). This Institute is the Institute of the wisdom of God.”[2373] Calasanz could subscribe to everything that was said in this first part without hesitation.

2373 SÁNTHA, SJC, p.727-728.

In the second part, devoted to the religious, he specifically opposes the Jesuits, and the central point of their demands it is that the Piarists “should be compelled to be content with the grammar and go no further... Moreover, not only should they be forced to teach only grammar, but they should also be forbidden to study the major sciences, since they did not need to teach them.”[2374] The Jesuits wanted to maintain their monopoly on the teaching of the humanities in their schools and - as we will see later - they even wanted the Piarists to limit themselves to elementary education and take Latin or grammar away from them. As for instruction in the major sciences, it was not forbidden in the Order to learn them, but the children were not taught them, but contented themselves with grammar and rhetoric, that is, with what the Jesuits did in their schools. And Calasanz was the first to promote the study of sciences by approaching Galileo with his religious.

2374 Ibid., p.731.

He agreed with Campanella in general terms, as in these statements: “Those who forbid the study of science or consider it useless must be abhorred”; “there is no pretext or excuse that provides a reason for forbidding them [the Piarists] to study sciences.” But what Calasanz certainly did not admit at the time was that his religious - less if they were only clerics - were studying philosophy and theology according to a university plan, as we have seen in the previous pages. He must therefore have disliked such forceful and crude paragraphs as the following:

“He who teaches the lower sciences without knowing the higher will not teach them with sufficient clearness and perfection. If he is not trained in the higher wisdom, theology, he can teach errors, as Erasmus of Rotterdam, Lawrence Valla, Philip Melanchthon, and many other very learned scholars in languages and grammar...”; “the heretics spend more time on grammar and rhetoric than on philosophy...”; “if the teachers of the Pious Schools can employ elegant grammatical, rhetorical, and poetical forms,... we believe that they should know the higher sciences without excluding theology...”; “those who are nothing more than grammarians cannot be suitable doctors of the Christian people if they do not possess other sciences, especially theology.”[2375]

2375 Ibid., p.733-735. Fr. Vilá rightly discovered this opposition of ideas between Campanella and Calasanz, analyzing the Apologia at length in his article ¿Influencia de Campanella en la Pedagogía calasancia? RevCal Supplement I (1959) 23-44.

These ideas of the Dominican were in stark contrast to those of the Carmelite Father John of Jesus and Mary, which he had set out in his Proiectum and which were approved by Cardinal Giustiniani and fully accepted by Calasanz up to this point. Perhaps they disturbed him - we have said so - but perhaps they also made him think, until he gradually changed his position, decisively in the General Chapter of 1637. But... there was no second Campanella course in Frascati for the Piarist juniors.[2376]

2376 That Calasanz must not have liked Campanella’s Apologia for the ideas mentioned above is confirmed by the fact that it was not edited, nor should sufficient copies have been made, for in 1646 Fr. Costantini wrote to the Founder: “Fr. Francis [Castelli] of the Purification has already received from me Fr. Campanella’s Apologia in defense of our Institute, please ask him to give it to you.” (EHI, p.781-782 There was no other copy in St. Pantaleon than that one? It is, moreover, significant that - as Picanyol testifies - this is the only allusion to this Apología in all the letters of the General Archive (cf. L. PICANYOL, o.c., p.44-45). On the other hand, Vilá concludes his article by affirming: “The study of Campanella’s influence on Calasanctian Pedagogy has turned out to be almost totally negative” (C. VILÁ, o.c., p.44).

Despite the apparently negative experiences Campanella had with the intellectual training of the Piarist juniors, the admirable fact remains that Calasanz had no qualms about welcoming a man like Campanella, recently released from the prisons of the Roman Inquisition, expressing his esteem and placing him at the service of his teaching ministry. He will do the same with Galileo Galilei, who was tried and sentenced by the same court and banished to his Tuscan villa in Arcetri as penance. That is where the Piarists will go to serve him and hear him, on Calasanz’s express orders.

Certainly, neither Galileo nor Campanella were excommunicated, and therefore there was no prohibition against treating them. But one cannot help but recognize in this a clear shade of spiritual freedom bordering on recklessness, for these were not simply acts of charity and service to humiliated, persecuted people in need of attention, but of love and appreciation for their teaching ministry, without demanding precautions and guarantees for the orthodoxy of those who had been condemned for heterodoxy. Campanella’s teaching was short-lived and had no regrettable consequences, whereas Galileo’s did, as we shall see later.[2377]

2377 There was yet another similar case, of which we know few details. The only similarity lies in the appreciation and compassion that Calasanz shows for a French prelate, whom he describes as a “great man.” His name was Jean Dubois or Du Bois and in Italian the Abbé “del Bosco.” He had become notorious for his harsh criticism of the religious orders, particularly violent against the Jesuits, whom he accused of the death of King Henry IV. Through their influence at the French court before Maria de Medicis, the Jesuits succeeded in forcing him to recant, and he did. Nevertheless, he was sent to Rome in 1611, processed by the Inquisition and imprisoned in the castle of Sant’Angelo until his death, which occurred on August 28, 1626. On that day Calasanz wrote to Fr. Garcia: “This morning the Abbate del Bosco died, who was in the Castle; may the Lord bless him in paradise as one can believe of a great man, especially in the virtue of patience after so many years of prison.” (cf. A. RODENAS, ¿Un nuevo ejemplo de apertura mental de Calasanz? EphCal 11 - 12 [1975] 365-369).

The new Roman schools of Calasanz

When Don Joseph Calasanz first entered the parish of Santa Dorotea in Trastevere on April 9, 1997, as Visitator of the Fraternity of the Twelve Apostles, he found a functioning school that had been opened on the initiative of the parish priest Don Antony Brandini and was run by some confreres of the Christian Doctrine, although the school did not depend on the said Fraternity at all. Probably the parish priest, who was not satisfied with the atmosphere and the Christian doctrine taught in the neighborhood’s municipal school, wanted to make up for the shortcomings by opening a similar school on the parish premises. It was therefore a copy of the public elementary schools that existed in Rome, not only in terms of the teaching program, but also in terms of the economic aspect, i.e. that some of the students paid and others did not. But since they were not official, there were no subsidized teachers, as was the case with the schools that depended on the University - La Sapienza - and the Senate and the Capitoline councilors.

The first transcendental innovation that Calasanz introduced, when he managed to win the will of the parish priest and his assistants, was that the school was reserved only for poor children who could not pay. It thus became a free school for the poor children of Trastevere, who were soon joined by others from other parts of Rome.

Calasanz says that when he arrived, he met two or three confreres and that some went in the morning and others in the afternoon and that the parish priest gave them two small rooms to use as classrooms.[2378] They started the school in a single classroom, as was the case in the neighborhood schools, and divided the work between two or three. With the incorporation of Calasanz, there were at least four, and as the number of students increased, they opened another classroom so that they could have two in the morning and two in the afternoon. The school was a day school[2379], like the municipal schools in the neighborhoods, and not a Sunday school, like the ones run by the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine. The curriculum was also not like that of these schools, but like that of the official schools. The Confraternity schools focused on catechism, which was their goal, and added some reading and writing as an appendix.[2380]

2378 Cf. C.4185.

2379 M. A. Archangeli asks for help and protection from the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine on June 10, 1599 for the “daily school that he does in Santa Dorotea” (EphCal 6 [1958] 158, n.12).

2380 Cf. A. GARCÍA - DURÁN, Itinerario espiritual, p.87, n..465. The author is of the opinion that the school of Santa Dorotea “was an extension of the Sunday school of Christian Doctrine in terms of its curriculum (catechism, reading, writing and perhaps counting...).” In the Constitutions of the Congregation of the Fathers of Christian Doctrine (Agathists) it is spoken of “scuole quotidiane” and it is also read that “Even they are allowed to teach reading, writing and grammar, the first purpose is to teach them Christian Doctrine” (cf. C. VILÁ, Immediate Sources..., p.276). But it should be noted that such Constitutions were composed in 1603 by J. B. Serafini Doricetto, Provost General of the Agathists (cf. ibid., p.263), and therefore in later years they were able to convert their Sunday schools into cotidian ones and add grammar to reading and writing, after the example of the Pious Schools. This is the opinion of Sántha (cf. G. SÁNTHA, De S. Fund. N. in confraternitate doctrinae christianae urbis... p.155). For its part, the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, separated from the said Congregation of the Agathists in 1598 (cf. ch.12, n.14), continued to have their own Sunday schools, of which Calasanz was Visitor in 1600-1601. But the fact that they refused to accept as own the school of Calasanz in 1601 shows that it was something very different from their existing schools (cf. EphCal 6 [1958] 158-159, n.15, 17 and 18).

When Calasanz achieved that the schools were free and only for the poor, so many children flocked to Santa Dorotea that the two classrooms became too small and he had to acquire premises in a neighboring house, and he also looked for new teachers, paid by him, for the new classrooms.[2381] The increasing number of students, teachers and classrooms forced Calasanz to break with the traditional forms of neighborhood schools and create a new school system in which students were divided into groups according to subject or grade level and a teacher was responsible for each group. A new type of school was created, the graded elementary school, and a new didactic method that would later be called the simultaneous method. And all this in Santa Dorotea, as Berro notes: “He initially divided the schools in such an admirable order and manner that the children made considerable progress in a short time.”[2382]

2381 Berro, after alluding to the classrooms of the parish (“nelle proprie stanze della parrocchia”), adds that Calasanz solved the problem “renting a house near to those rooms in 30 scudos a year”, and “the number of pupils grew so great that the teachers could not satisfy all; therefore, he procured from his own resources more workers, and the more he saw the number of pupils increase, the more he procured teachers.” (BERRO I, p.73; we complete the deficient text with another copy of the original).

2382 Ib. “Another shared element of the didactic methodology was the passage from individual teaching, which lasted, especially at the primary school level, for a long time, to collective teaching, of which Calasanz and, in another context, J.A. Komensky (Comenius) was the promoter from the beginning. This method, called simultaneous, was certainly linked to the use of common texts” (B. BELLERATE - G. ROCA, Scuola: Dizionario degli Istituti di perfezione, ed. Paoline, VIII [Rome 1988] col. 1137). Cf. SÁNTHA. SJC. p.273-276.

The number of boys continued to grow spectacularly, and it was precisely this number that led to a change of premises when they became no longer sufficient. From Santa Dorotea he moved to the surroundings of Campo dei Fiori and in these two years (1600-1602) the number of children reached 500[2383]; in 1602, when they were already housed in Palazzo Vestri, it rose to 700[2384]; in the Mannini palace, a month before he left it, in September 1612, it was 800[2385]; in May 1614, when the Pious Schools were united with the Congregation of Lucca, they “already exceeded the number of 1200”[2386]; in 1617, when the Pauline Congregation was established, they reached the number of 1500[2387]. There are still people who raise the figure to 1600 without giving the date, but they certainly refer to the years around 1620.[2388]

2383 Cf. Report of Calasanz of 1623 (EGC II, p.170).

2384 Cf. letter of G. Ghellini (EC, p.1552).

2385 Cf. letter of Landriani (EC, p.1636).

2386 Cf. letter of Calasanz (EGC VIII, p.451).

2387 Cf. letter of Casani (EC, p.497).

2388 Cf. BERRO I, p.83. Perhaps the last two figures, given by Casani and Berro, are exaggerated, since the Apostolic Visitation of 1625 says that the number of students is “ultra num. 900” (more than 900) (cf. EphCal 4 [1959] 168). Bau is of the opinion that such millennial figures are unlikely, given the small number of rooms in the house, and that the maximum would be 700 (Bau, BC, p. 442). L. Picanyol rejects Bau’s limitations, sticking to the documents (cf. EGC VIII, p.452 and Rass XVI [1950] 69-70). Bau again insisted on his thesis (cf; RevCal 12 [1957] 383-384). But there are too many documents which give figures in excess of 700, making Bau’s thesis unacceptable. To those already cited, we can add the report of the Lucchesi who in October 1614 visited the classrooms of San Pantaleon and counted 1,015 students (cf. PosCas, p.172-173). And the testimony of Fr. Bernardini, who says: “when we had the schools, we had about 800 students, but... in a short time the number increased to 1200” (PosCas, p.265). The current distribution of space is not the same as it was then. Examining the plan of the first floor (cf. G. SPAGNESI, San Pantaleo [Rome 1967] p.20-21), made by G. A. De Rossi, the architect who transformed the old church into the present one (1680), we can see about ten rooms around the reduced yard, which could serve as classrooms. In addition, there were others on the second floor. When in 1640 Calasanz decided to build the present large dining room, he says that he had to occupy “le due scuole di terza e quarta” and the room that had been of Father Dragonetti’s (cf. c.3522). The building had a basement, first floor and second floor only. The rooms of the religious were on the second floor. About its narrowness and lack of confort spoke already A. Bernardini (cf. PosCas, p.265) and the Visitors of 1625 (cf. EphCal, 4 [1959] 168). Calasanz himself speaks of “la stretezza delle scuole” (the narrowness of the schools) and asks for permission to carry out reforms in 1626 (cf. EphCal, 9-10 [1962] 288, n.34).

This astonishing increase in the number of students is in stark contrast to the public schools that were scattered throughout the 14 districts of Rome, and the reason for this is undoubtedly the fact that they were free. Until 1617, only the poor with a certificate of poverty were admitted to the Pious Schools, albeit with some exceptions, it seems. From that year onwards, the obligation to require such a certificate ceased, but education continued to be completely free for all.

The public schools, provisionally subsidized by the Capitol authorities, began in the sixteenth century with one for each district, but although they were obliged to give free instruction to the poor, the uncertainty of salaries compelled them to reduce the grants to a minimum and to increase the number of paying pupils as much as possible. Gradually, however, the 14 subsidized schools in the 14 districts are being joined by other non-subsidized schools whose teachers meet the conditions imposed by La Sapienza (Rome University), on which all schools depend. These new, non-subsidized teachers had to be supported by the payment of the students, so that the free poor students became even fewer or disappeared completely. Schools multiplied everywhere, but the poor could not find enough space and continued to flock to the Pious Schools.[2389]

2389 Cf. G. PELLICCIA, La scuola primaria a Roma dal secolo XVI al XIX, p.51-59. Many of these new schools were opened by teachers who had already worked in the Pious Schools, as Calasanz points out: “many of them after had already learned well the way of teaching they went to do school for interests in other places” (EGC II, p.170). From this it follows that primary education in Rome was progressively adapting the methods used in the Pious Schools, as the aforementioned author Pelliccia abundantly points out, from the XVI to the XIX century.

Thus, according to reliable statistics, the 13 or 14 neighborhood schools of the 16th century became 73 in 1636, both subsidized and unsubsidized, 94 in 1645-1646, 55 in 1676, 70 in 1695, 75 in 1747, and 78 in 1761-1762.[2390] However, although the number of schools increased, the number of students remained similar in all schools, as they were served by a single teacher who sometimes had an assistant. From the above statistics it can be deduced that the average number of pupils per school varies between 25 and 30;[2391] and of the 186 schools whose pupil numbers are given, 48 have 20 students or less and 45 have more than 35.

2390 Cf. G. PELLICCIA, o.c., tables I, II, III, V, VII and VIII of the Appendix.

2391 In the above tables only four indicate the number of pupils per school (of a single classroom) and not all of them: of the 55 schools of 1676 the number of pupils is only indicated for 21, giving an average of 26 per school; of the 70 of 1695, the number of pupils is only known for 12, giving an average of 34 per school; the table of 1747 is complete and the average is 24.8 pupils per school; the table of 1761-62 is also complete, with an average of 27 children per school (cf. G. PELLICCIA, o.c., tables III, V, VII and VIII).

The enormous difference between the number of pupils in these schools and those of Calasanz necessarily required a different didactic organization. In the other schools, a single teacher had to teach reading, writing, arithmetic, Latin grammar and catechism to students of different ages, from the youngest to the oldest, in a single classroom. In a report dated April 10, 1636, it is said of one of these schools that “among the 28 students are those who “read the Holy Cross”; those who read books in the vulgar tongue; those who read the Latin Psalter; those who read and write; those who “read the Donatus”; those who “read the grammar”; those who practice Latin verbs in the active form.”[2392] Such a variety of simultaneous schoolwork in the same classroom can be observed in the ordinances of La Sapienza given to teachers in 1646, which specified what they should charge per subject in order to avoid abuses.[2393] However, given the date of both documents (1636 and 1646), it is likely that this precise differentiation of tasks or subjects was due to the influence of the methods of the Pious Schools, which were already using them at the beginning of the century.[2394]

2392 Ibid., p.273. “The table of the alphabet was called “Holy Cross” because the first sign placed before the A was precisely the graphic sign of the cross” (ibid., p.286). The Latin Psalter, of the Breviary or of the great choir books, was used to read in a continuous way and to divide the syllables, without understanding it; “the Donato was the first Latin grammar in dialogical form, composed in the 8th century based on the scholastic text Ars minor (seu de octo partibus orationis), by Elio Donatus (4th century), teacher of St. Jerome” (ibid., p.320).

2393 “Fee that the students must pay in advance to the Teachers for their merit. To read the alphabet and the Holy Cross every month (Giulii 15); To read by comparing and without stopping (20); To read and write simply (30); To decline and conjugate (40); To learn the alphabet in scripts (50); To read the Latin language, active verbs and of all the rules (50); To understand some readings of Cicero and other authors (60). (Cf. EphCal, 6 [1958] 160-161, n.27; G. PELLICIA, o.c., p.457-458).

2394 Relying on the aforementioned document, Sántha says that “haud pauca saltem germina continuisse illius methodi, quam postea et Scholae Piae et scholae Doctrinae Christianae feliciter adhibuere et perfecere”, and this specifically in the distinction of subjects (cf. G. SÁNTHA, o.c., p. 156). But this document of 1646 could hardly have had any influence on the methods of the Pious Schools, especially on this distinction, already adopted by them at the beginning of the century.

Indeed, Calasanz had to find a way to properly organize the many boys who came to his schools by the hundreds. The didactic system of the popular Roman schools was useless to him. The only center that could resemble it was Collegio Romano, which already had more than two thousand students around 1600.[2395] But it could not be of much help either, because it had no elementary school and its lower classes began exactly where the upper classes of the Pious Schools had to stop and where the neighborhood schools also ended. That is, studies at Collegio Romano, according to the Ratio Studiorum of the Society, began with a three-year course of Latin grammar, followed by a year of humanities and another year of rhetoric, which formed the five-year preparatory course for philosophy and theology, the major sciences that were the main interest and purpose of this university institution and also of the majority of the student body. In the lower Latin grammar or entrance class, called the 5th, were admitted “those who could read, write and recite by heart the Donato and the Christian doctrine,”[2396] or as Berro explicitly says: “They [the Jesuits] admitted no one to their schools who did not know the impersonal [verbs] well enough.”[2397] And this is the limit that Father Joseph Calasanz initially set for his schools.

2395 Cf. R. GARCIA-VILLOSLADA, Storia del Collegio Romano, p. 160.

2396 Ib, p.88 and 100.

2397 BERRO I, p.72.

The new cycle of primary studies

Fortunately, two very important documents have been preserved, already cited, which describe in detail the division of the classes that made up the entire cycle of primary and secondary studies of the Pious Schools: the first dates from 1604-1605[2398], the second from 1614.[2399] The identity of the number of classes and their contents makes us certain that the new system developed by Calasanz was mature and formed at least in 1604-1605, and it is likely that it was already in place in Santa Dorotea, as Berro indicates.[2400]

2398 It is the Breve relatione or Documentum princeps (cf. n.1629, 1633 and1676 of chapter 14).

2399 The report of the Lucchesi on visiting San Pantaleo (cf. PosCas, p.172-173).

2400 Cf. text corresponding to n.2382 above.

The classes or schools are nine and run in reverse order to today, i.e. from the highest to the lowest, as was customary at the time.[2401] The first or smallest (which was the ninth) was called “of the Holy Cross” or of the little ones: “In it are only those who learn to make the sign of the cross and the alphabet. And since the number of these children is usually 60 or 70, and one teacher alone would not be enough to make so many recite, a cardboard with the alphabet is hung on the wall, with large letters, and the teacher indicates the letters one by one with the pointer many times, so that the little ones repeat them many times and you soon realize who has a good mind. For those who start with the syllables, there is also another big poster with ‘ba, be, etc., ab, eb, etc.’ and some simple words, and when they start dividing the words by syllables, they move on to the next class”.[2402]

2401 In the Roman College the lowest class of the quinquennium is the 5th and the highest is that of rhetoric (cf. R. GARCÍA - VILLOSLADA, o.c., p.88-89). At the University of Valencia, for example, instead of a quinquenium there were 7 years of grammar and Latin, the 7th class being the initial one, in which the nominatives were learned, declined and conjugated; the 1st was that of rhetoric (cf. F. MIRALLES, Nuevos documentos para la historia de la Universidad: los desórdenes de 1580-1590: Saitabi 35 [1998] 113-114). In the 6th it was still declension and conjugation, dealing with the parts of speech, gender, number and cases and concordances. In the Roman College, however, the 5th or initial class began with the concordances, having already learned the previous topics.

2402 Doc. princeps. We prefer to translate it directly from the Italian original (cf. Archivum 3 [1938] 46-51), seeking greater literal precision. See translation in SÁNTHA, SJC, p.746-751; V. FAUBELL, o.c., p.62-66. In the report of the Lucchesi of 1614 it is said: “schola, quae parvulorum dicitur, continet pueros 104; docet prima elementa, eaque invicem combinare” (posCas, p.172).

According to eyewitnesses, this was Calasanz’s favorite class.[2403] And it is admirable that he expressed his love for his institute and his personal vocation so eloquently with this preference. He had founded the Pious Schools for children and especially for the poor, and until the end of his life he had a fondness for the smallest and poorest. For some, it was undoubtedly one of the most troublesome and even detestable classes, because they considered it humiliating to teach the youngest children, or because they thought it more appropriate to women.[2404]

2403 Cf. S. GINER, El carisma de S. José de Calasanz..., p.208-210.

2404 In 1643 Fr. Castelli asked to free the Institute “from what is totally womanish, as to teach children unable of true religious education “ (EC VI, p.2813). A Father refused to teach them “alleging that he could not and that it was not his honor to teach the school of the small children” (EC, p.1644). In 1625 Calasanz feared that one of the causes of a possible future relaxation was “not willing to accept the small children of the Holy Cross “ (EGC II, p.345).

In reality, the minimum age for the admission of these little ones “of the Holy Cross” was six years; the younger ones did not learn because they were incapable, nor did they allow the others to learn and they were more like an obstacle.[2405]

2405 In Dichiarationi alle Costitutioni the Founder says, commenting on n.4 of the Preamble: “It is declared that, in order to obtain the proper benefit for the children, those who are not six years old will not be accepted in the Pious Schools; as for the students thirteen years old or older, they will not be admitted if they are not of good morals” (AnCal 50 [1983] 570). In a letter of 1627, he writes: “do not allow to accept children four or five years old, nor in those schools neither in Porta Reale” (c.746). To the Visitors of 1625 he replies: “We receive for the first elements the poor children six or seven years old and not younger because they cannot learn and do not allow other to do” (cit. with other texts in SÁNTHA, SJC, p.64-65; n.33).

From the Holy Cross class, they went to the eighth, “in which they were taught to read the Psalter and in which there are usually about 60 students... As soon as the teacher enters after the prayer, which is customary in all classes, he makes all the students study for a quarter of an hour and then begins to make them read six or seven lines in succession, marking the end with a pencil so that they do not read the same lesson more than once. And if there is still time left at the end of the reading... in the morning, he has them divide some Latin words from the Psalter into syllables by heart, asks them how many syllables the word has and how they are divided, has some others correct them and rewards the most diligent with small religious pictures. And in the afternoon, when they have finished reciting, the principle of Christian doctrine and the necessary prayers are taught to them”.[2406]

2406 Doc. princeps, I.c., p,46-47. In the report of 1614 this class had 80 pupils (cf. PosCas, p.172). In 1638 sheets with such necessary prayers were printed in Rome, as recorded in letters 2835 and 3027. From another edition of 1641, the Italian text can be found in A. GARCÍA-DURÁN, Itinerario... p.108-109, n.551 and another prayer of “offering of works” in ibid. p.121.

So, in this class they learned the syllables and mechanical reading, and since it was not necessary to understand what was read, they resorted to the Latin Psalter and used the so-called Little Office of Our Lady, which the elders used to recite on Sunday mornings. In this way, they were able to save costs, because right at the beginning of the institute - as Calasanz repeats in his memoirs and informative summaries - the students were “provided with paper, pens, ink, lessons, psalteries and abbachini.”[2407] This went far beyond the simple free lessons.

2407 Memorial to Cardinal Montalto, 1602-1605 (EGC II, p.48). Cf. also C. VILÁ, Cuatro sumarios..., p.66. In a letter of September 29, 16l2 Landriani writes to Cardinal F. Borromeo, his uncle: “here they are given paper, pens, rosaries, Christian Doctrine, spiritual books for the love of God and Little Offices of Our Lady “ (EC, p.1636). More texts in SANTHA, SJC, p.387-389.

From the “Psalter class” they went on to the 7th grade, “where they are taught to read books in the vulgar language without interruption, such as the Book of Virgins, Christian Doctrine, and other spiritual books of good and clear impression. And as there are usually about 130 pupils, they are divided into two classes, so that the most gifted form the 6th class. In these two classes, when they have finished reading, they devote themselves to disgressions on some difficult words and some abbreviations, which helps them well when they move on to writing class.”[2408] Calasanz’s pedagogical sensitivity is evident in the details, as he wants the books to be well printed and their reading to be of intellectual benefit not only to the children, who are now beginning to understand what they are reading, but also to their parents, who can read the same books at home.[2409]

2408 Doc. princeps, l.c., p.47. Also in 1614, according to the report of the Lucchesi, these two writing classes were very numerous, each having 90 pupils (cf. PosCas, p.173).

2409 In the Constitutions he warns: “Erit ergo circa hoc quilibet localis Minister valde diligens, ut qui pueri legere discunt, iis libris utantur, qui non solum optimis characteribus insigniti sint, sed ex quorum lectione tam pueri, quam eorum parentes fructum percipere possint” (CC, n.213).

In these two classes where reading was done in the local language, as later in the second cycle of grammar, two groups were formed, “the opponents and the officers”, to compete with each other, and the one who read best in a book that the teacher opened at random was appointed Emperor and had the privilege of pardoning two or three times that week the children who deserved to be punished. Even later, a solemn coronation ceremony was held in some schools, as in San Pantaleo. In this case, it was no longer about a weekly emperor, but about the entire course, for which the best of the class was chosen.[2410]

2410 Doc princeps, l.c.; SÁNTHA, SJC, p.463-464. In November 1625 Calasanz writes to Frascati: “As for the crown and the scepter, they do very badly in that house and they do not deserve that anything more is lent to them, because they never return it and they keep it as their own thing and it is necessary to order that it be returned to the house of Rome” (c.356). And in 1632 he writes to Narni: “If last year the crown was lent to the Teacher of the second class to make the feast of his Emperor, this year the Teacher of the first class had to make it not only equal but with greater feast” (c.1936). This pedagogical resource of the emperor was taken by Calasanz from the Jesuits (cf SÁNTHA, SJC, p.464).

Once they had finished learning to read, they moved on to the 5th grade, which is a really brilliant idea on Calasanz’s part. This manifests his practical sense, his fundamental concern that his whole didactic system be at the service of the poor. Although he never said it explicitly, it can be said that his motto and that of his Institute was in fact - following that of the Jesuits and taking it for granted - “everything for the greater good of the poor children”[2411]

2411 The motto, with which the Constitutions end, is: “Ad Omnipotentis Dei gloriam et proximorum utilitatem.” In later times, however, the following was imposed as traditional: “Ad maius pietatis incrementum” (A.M.P.I.), which ends the prayer Postcommunio of the Mass of the Saint.

This original 5th grade was divided into three sections: the first, which everyone had to go through, was for those who were beginning to write; the second was that of the abacus or numbers, i.e. elementary arithmetic; the third was also called the middle or ‘the nominative’, i.e. the rudiments of Latin grammar. The first section of beginner writers was the largest of all the classes.[2412] In the morning they continued to practise reading and “memorising syllables”, while the 2nd section also read, recited the catechism and learned the abbacchino[2413], and the 3rd or Media learned declension and conjugation. In the afternoon, while the 1st section began to make downstrokes, the other two learned calligraphy under the masterful guidance of the excellent calligrapher Ventura Sarafellini, some of them reaching extreme perfection.[2414] Calasanz had also been a good calligrapher since his young days as secretary to the Chapter of Urgel, a quality he maintained and perfected in his Roman years, as can be seen from many of his magnificent signatures.[2415] And no doubt he often went down in the afternoons to walk around and help in the writing classrooms[2416], as he did in the Collegio Nazareno, “although he was General, Founder, old and with a trembling hand, back in 1631 or 1632”, a pupil of his recalled with emotion in 1690.[2417]

2412 In Doc. princeps it is said that it had 140 pupils (1.c., p.47) and in the report of 1614 it counts 150 and is said to be “schola omnium scholarum maxima”; the 2nd section, of abacus, has 80; the 3rd, ‘la Mezza’ (the Medium), has 106 (cf. PosCas, p.173).

2413 Abbaco or Abbacchino was a booklet containing the first elements of arithmetic, that is, the four operations and their corresponding tables (cf. G. PANCHETTI, Giuseppe Calasanzio [Padova 1977] p.74).

2414 The two relations complement each other in the description of this complicated 5th class. (cf. Doc. princeps, 1.c.; report of 1614, in PosCas, p.173). In the contract that Calasanz made with Sarafellini on July 15, 1617, he said: “that he should serve in giving the lesson of writing for all the time of his life in the schools of our Congregation during the day after lunch from the beginning of the schools until the end” (SÁNTHA, SJC, n.144, n.17). In the Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale Vittorio Emmanuele, Rome, ms. San Pantaleo n.63 (15), is preserved a code with 22 calligraphic plates of the students of the Pious Schools, dated 1625, two of whom expressly declare themselves disciples of Ventura Sarafellini (cf. A. PETRUCCI, Scrittura e popolo nella Roma barocca 1585-1721 [Roma 1982], p.20, n.40). See a plate reproduced in SANTHA, SJC, p.336-337.

2415 Throughout the volumes of his published Epistolario, the commentator Picanyol notes in very many letters: G bellissima, referring to the initial letter of his Italian name Giuseppe, in the signature. See some in CS, II, p.64-65 and DENES, II, p.124.

2416 In the report of 1614 it is said that among the three sections of the 5th class there were 336 children (150+80+106) and that there should be four teachers for the 1st, three for the 2nd and three for the 3rd class, thinking of the morning classes and the afternoon writing classes -for all 336 children- for which they had to prepare examples or models of writing, correct them one by one and “cut the feathers for all”, since goose feathers were then used and each type of letter required a special cut (cf. PosCas, p.173).

2417 It is worth reading the original text of this priest, don Jacinto Paracciani, who wrote in the process of beatification of Calasanz: “after I entered the Collegio Nazareno I had the good fortune that sometimes he taught me to write with all that he was already General, Founder, old - he was seventy-four or seventy-five years old - and with a trembling hand, and this it will have been in 1631 or 1632” (cf. S. GINER, El proceso de beatificación... p.169).

This diversity of sections was in keeping with Calasanz’ practical and social sense. Not all of his students could dream of going to university because they were too poor. What was urgently needed for many of them was a minimum of preparation to find a job and bring money to the family or to think about their own future. Others, on the other hand, although poor, were able to prolong their humanistic studies and then enter the Collegio Romano or university directly, or find a better-paid job that required knowledge of Latin. For this reason, after the first section of writing, which is the same and necessary for everyone, Calasanz presented two different possibilities in the other two alternative sections: “the 2nd - he says literally - of those who must leave to pursue a profession... and the 3rd of those who want to continue with the letters.”[2418] He later suggested a third option: opening a music school so that his students could find employment in one of the musical chapels serving the Roman basilicas.[2419]

2418 Doc. princeps, l.c.

2419 When in 1642 it was desmantled, he lamented saying: “here we lose the Scola of poor children who with music, if they have learned a little, they earned their bread.” (C.3999). Besides the class, all the children, learned many religious songs (Laudi spirituali), deserving that the composer Ludovico Grignani, oratoriano, dedicated one of his books (Cento laudi spirituali, ed. in 1624) “alli spirituali cantori, li scolari delle Scuole Pie” (cf. SÁNTHA, SJC, p.552, n.8). To his religious, however, Calasanz prohibited all kinds of instruments, except the cymbal (the bell?): “I know that Fr. Giuseppe... holds and plays the guitar in the Spanish style singing profane things, and in the Sicilian style... Your Reverence will order him on my behalf, that he immediately send out the guitar, and that there be no other instrument in the house, but the cymbal” (C.3400). “I have also heard that some of our people have instruments in their rooms; if it is not a great cymbal do not allow it.” (C.3074). The same aversion to singing in church functions: “that all our church functions be sung in the Capuchin manner, except for the litanies of Saturday evening and the vigil of the Our Lady and no other way of singing is used, neither figurative nor in ‘canto fermo’.” (C.2216). Cf. also c.2218.

Also noteworthy is the great interest Calasanz took in the school of the abacus or mathematics, not only because of his appreciation of the subject with a clear vision of the future[2420], but also because of the contrast with the general lack of interest in the elementary schools of the time, both in Rome itself and throughout Europe.[2421] Nor did he limit himself to teaching only the four basic operations, for which it was not necessary to promote so decisively and strongly the personal relationship of some of his religious with the ostracized Galileo Galilei.[2422]

2420 “Be diligent to perfect yourself as much as you can in mathematics that you see they are grateful to the world” (C.2358); “I have seen what Y. R. writes to me about the institution of the abacus, which in our Religion is of great merit.” (C.4135); “questa scienza (aritmetica) e l´essercizio è molto utile per li poveri che non hanno capitale da poter vivere senza faticare.” (C.3753).

2421 “From the information known to me about Roman schools it appears that in many of them that subject (arithmetic) was absent... But it is also true that the teaching of arithmetic was rare throughout Europe in the 16th century and where it was taught, it was reduced to the four operations.… Calasanz, who kept the school’s practical focus on the various work requirements of the people, made arithmetic, after the Christian doctrine, the predominant teaching, not contenting itself with the four operations” (G. PELLICIA, o.c., p.329-330). Cf. SANTHA, SJC, p .429, n.1. In 1651 G. A. BRUZZI, visiting the Roman schools by order of the Rector of La Sapienza, in 58 out of 69 visited, specifies the subjects taught and there is only one teacher who, besides reading and writing, teaches arithmetic (cf. G. PELLICIA, o.c., p.332).

2422 Among the papers of the Founder, a brief formula for adding fractions has been preserved, a clear testimony that he went beyond the four fundamental operations (cf. SÁNTHA, SJC, p.146, n.8).

The new cycle of intermediate studies

Calasanz was not inspired by the class system of Collegio Romano to organize the cycle of basic studies because the Jesuits did not have them. The distribution of Latin courses prescribed by the Jesuit Ratio, which was applied in this Collegio in the last years of the 16th century when Calasanz began organizing his schools, was not very helpful either. Since 1568, the Collegio Romano had five years of grammar, followed by a year of humanities and another year of rhetoric, in addition to the study of Greek and Hebrew. But even then, the lowest grammar class (the 5th) began with the syntactic concordance, provided that the Donato (Aelius Donatus) was already known.[2423]

2423 Cf. R. GARCÍA-VILLOSLADA, o.c., p.88.

In the Ratio Studiorum (1586-1599), the so-called “minor schools” are reduced to five, which - according to the universalized custom - are from the highest to the lowest: Rhetoric, the humanities and three of grammar, namely suprema, media and infima. The last one dealt with the “perfect knowledge of the rudiments and principles of syntax” and students had to memorize some of Cicero’s easier letters and practice direct and reverse translation from Latin.[2424] In other words, to be accepted into this infima class, they even had to know the impersonal verbs, according to Berro.[2425]

2424 Cf. ibid., p.98-101; A. PIGNATELLI, Il Collegio della Compagnia di Gesù e l’educazione in esso incentrata, in P. BRAIDO, Esperienze di pedagogia cristiana nella storia p.122-124.

2425 Cf. BERRO I, p.72.

Calasanz therefore had to compile this whole new grammatical-humanistic cycle himself and adapt it to the specific needs of his students. He also grouped it into five classes, which, however, did not correspond to the five classes of Collegio Romano, since in practice the grammatical cycle began with the nominatives and ended with the impersonals, i.e. it was a middle cycle between the elementary school and the higher Latin of Collegio Romano.

The lowest grammar class of the Pious Schools began, as we have seen, in the 5th grade with the nominatives, declensions and conjugations. From there they moved on to 4th grade, where they continued to decline simple and compound nouns, conjugate verbs and deal with concordances. In Year 3rd, they studied the rules of active and passive verbs “and if there was enough time before the exams, they continued with the neuter verbs.” In this class, exercises are done with Louis Vives’ Dialogs. And from there we move on to the 2nd class, “where all the rules of personal and impersonal verbs, local adverbs, etc. are explained, and every morning we practice with Cicero’s Family Letters.” Thus, as I said, he joined the 5th of the Collegio Romano, with the impersonals. And in fact, the Relazione we have just quoted says the following: “From this 2nd class they go to the Collegio Romano at the end of the course, and if there is an exam in the middle of the year, they go to 1st class”[2426]

2426 Doc Princeps I.c., p.47-48.

With the 1st grade, further options are offered that shorten the grammatical cycle of the Collegio Romano. In it, “gerunds, supines and participles and the rest of the grammar up to the humanities were explained, and Cicero’s De Officiis and Virgil were translated.” At the end of this course, there were several possibilities: “Some went to listen to logic, others became religious, still others went to study humanities in Collegio Romano, or to 1st or 2nd grade.” In other words, when they entered the Collegio Romano, they were examined and placed in the appropriate class, depending on the result of the examination.[2427]

2427 Cf. ibid.

Again, we see that this first class, the last of the middle cycle, was also an arrangement with a practical purpose, like the 5th in relation to the first cycle. There is a synthesis of the rest of Latin grammar, the humanities and rhetoric. On the other hand, it was a culmination of all the instruction received in the Pious Schools. It completed the Latin-humanistic education for those who could not pursue a university career, but with this baggage of knowledge could aspire to a more worthy placement; or they could gain time by enrolling in higher courses of grammar or the humanities at Collegio Romano without having to repeat subjects or start from the lowest level.

This “first school” was run for as long as possible by the ultra-centenarian Father Dragonetti (+1628), of whom there is a delicious anecdote about his lessons on Virgil. One day, as Urban VIII was passing in front of the church of San Pantaleo, he noticed the venerable figure of an old man with a long white beard surrounded by a cloud of boys. He asked who it was and received the answer: Father Gaspar Dragonetti, who, despite his hundred and many years, still teaches Latin to the boys of the Pious Schools, highlighting Virgil in particular, who is said to be a master specialist. The Pope, an outstanding humanist, sent for him and, after a brief conversation, asked him to come to the palace to demonstrate his knowledge in his presence. At the appointed time, the venerable old man appeared and began to address this unusual assembly - the Pope, the cardinals, the monsignors - as he did every day in front of his students: “Attention, boys!”[2428]

2428 The anecdote was preserved by Caputi in Notizie Historiche, I,3, ff.34-35, nn.135-138; Latin transl. in SÁNTHA, SJC, p.170-171, n.4.

In the four grammar classes, the students were divided into two groups, following the example of Collegio Romano, to contend in healthy competition. In Latin, these groups were called Romani et Carthaginienses (Romans and Carthaginians), Pars Pia et Pars Angelica (Pious and Angelic), Equites et Pedites (Cavalry and Infantry), Legio velox et Legio florens (Fast Legion and Blooming Legion). And as in the lower cycle, the first lesson of the morning in the four grammar classes consisted of reciting six or seven lines of the catechism by heart.

If we compare the grammatical cycle described in the Breve relazione or Documentum princeps from 1604-1605 with the Lucchesi report from 1614, we can see a remarkable change in the distribution of subjects, although the same number of classes with their respective names was retained. At the beginning, a cycle emerges that fits perfectly into the scheme of the Roman College and corresponds to it. With the exception of the last class (1st), which has its own purpose of crowning the studies, the other four (5th – 2nd) prepare and tie in with the 5th or lowest of the Jesuits, without breaking the continuity. In 1614, however, we can see that all the grammar is taught in these four classes, so that the 1st class is a synthesis of humanities and rhetoric and retains its character as the culmination of the whole cycle.[2429] The humanities and rhetoric classes appeared as independent subjects in 1629-1630 in the regulations of the recently founded Collegio Nazareno, perhaps even earlier[2430], although their introduction had already been announced since the time of the union with the Lucchesi.[2431] The entire pre-university period was therefore complete.

2429 In that report we read: (5th) “docet declinare et coniugare”; (4th) “docet concordantia et regulas latinorum usque ad verba passiva inclusive”; (3rd) “docet regulas latinorum usque ad adverbia localia inclusive”; (2nd) “docet omnes regulas latinorum.... epistolas Ciceronis et multa componit»; (1st) «explicat Ciceronem et Virgilium, docet etiam scandere versus» (PosCas, p. 173). In the Relatione, the 2nd deals with “tutte le regole delli verbi personali et impersonali et li adverbi locali”; the 1st teaches “li gerundi supini et participii et il resto della grammatica insino all’humanità et in questa si dichiara Cicerone D’officiis et Virgilio” (Doc. princeps, 1.c., p.48).

2430 “The stay in the College will last five years, during which will be read Grammar, Humanities and Rhetoric and Greek Language” (Reglamento del Collegio Nazareno [1629], in V. FAUBELL, Antología Pedagógica Calasancia, p.158). In a public Edict of Frascati, printed in 1620, it is said that in the local Pious Schools they teach “leggere et scrivere, far conti et insegnino anco Grammatica et Humanità” (Humanities) (cf. SÁNTHA, SJC, p.256, n.13). And in the Apostolic Visitation of 1625 one reads: “The teachers who will teach Humanities and Rhetoric will have heard Humanities before teaching it.” (cf. ibid., p.258, n.15.) It seems to be, however, that in both cases it is a question of the 1st class in which both were taught at the same time, and not of two independent classes, as will be those of the Nazareno (cf. P. VANNUCCI, Il Collegio Nazareno, p.126, n.l6). In fact, in Narni curriculum of 1624-1625 there appear four classes of grammar and another called “In classe humanitatis”, in which Cicero is taught in the morning and Horace and Ars metrica in the afternoon (cf. SÁNTHA, SJC, p.264, n.34).

2431 Around 1614 Bernardini wrote: “it is taught reading, writing and abbaco for those who want to go to different arts; to others, who want to learn Latin letters, it is taught the whole course of grammar and in short, the Lord willing, it will be taught humanities and rhetoric” (PosCas, p.265). It is curious to see this evolution in three reports: in a Memorial of Calasanz of 1602-1605 we read: “they teach... reading, writing, abbaco, grammar and christian doctrine” (EGC II, p.47-48); in a Spanish Sumario of Calasanz from the time of the Pauline Congregation (1617-1621) it says: “teaching them by charity with order and division of classes to read, write, count and all the Latin language and in particular the Christian doctrine.” (ib, p.56); and in the Narratione of Fr. Morandi (around 1634) it is said: “beginning to teach from the first elements how to read, write and abbaco, and to those of good intelligence grammar, humanities and rhetoric” (Archivum 15 [1984] 6).

On the other hand, this division of classes and subjects, which had become necessary due to the growing number of students, could logically not be fully maintained in the small towns, where the number of students was minor. In each school, therefore, a curriculum was drawn up according to the number of students and was sufficiently flexible, down to two individual classes, one for primary and one for intermediate or secondary.[2432]

2432 In a Libro delle Case et Religíosi che in esse sono circa annum 1624-1625, autograph of Calasanz (RegCal 11, VI), it is seen that the houses were eleven. Of these, only the number of classes and corresponding pupils of Nursia, Moricone and Savona is given expressly: in Nursia there were 320 boys divided into five classes, namely: 1st of grammar, 2nd of grammar, of writing and abacus (3rd), of reading without stopping (4th) and of reading by syllables (5th). In Moricone there were 48 pupils in two classes; 1st of concordance and grammar and 2nd of reading and writing. In Savona there were 390 pupils for 7 classes: 1st. and 2nd of grammar, 1st and 2nd of writing and abacus, 1st, 2nd and 3rd of reading without stopping and by syllables: See how Calasanz distributes by groups the pupils of the two classes of Moricone in letter of April 20, 1621 (cf. EGC X, C.911).

Perhaps it is not necessary to point out the enormous development that Calasanz made in the planning of primary and middle school or pre-university education, starting from the uncertain and confusing system of municipal public schools in Rome with a single classroom and a single teacher, because this would be too obvious. No less remarkable, however, is the difference between the curriculum of Collegio Romano and the Ratio in terms of pre-university studies on the one hand and the curriculum organized by Calasanz in his Pious Schools on the other. In Collegio Romano, not only is the elementary school dispensed with, but Latin grammar is not started with the beginning or the nominatives, but with the impersonal verbs and the concordances, assuming that the rudiments (the Donatus) are already known. Calasanz’ syllabus, on the other hand, begins with spelling and ends with rhetoric and divides the whole into nine courses with an admirable balance and symmetry: four classes for the elementary cycle and four for the higher cycle and in the middle the 5th class, where those of the first cycle are perfected and the basics of the second cycle begin. A masterpiece by a brilliant pedagogue.[2433]

2433 Unfortunately, not many have written about Calasanctian pedagogy, perhaps for lack of printed texts that could serve as a basis for serious studies. Among those worth remembering are the following: A. CANATA, L’Educatore Cattolico secondo lo spirito di S. Giuseppe Calasanzio (Savona 1848, Firenze 1887, 1894) translated into Spanish (Valencia 1886, Barcelona 1925, 1943); V. CABALLERO, Orientaciones pedagógicas según el espíritu de S. J. Calasanz (Barcelona 1921, Madrid 1945); A CAMPANELLA, La Pedagogía Calasanziana (Rome 1925); G. GIOVANOZZI, Il Calasancio e l’opera sua (Firenze 1930); A. SAPA, Teologia spirituale pedagogica di S. G. Calasanzio (Firenze 1951); G. SANTHA, SJC (Madrid 1956, 1984); C. VILÁ, Fuentes inmediatas de la Pedagogía Calasancia (Madrid 1960); G. AUSENDA, La pedagogia calasanziana, in P. BRAIDO, Esperienze di pedagogia crístiana nella storia (Roma 1981); ID, La escuela calasancia (Salamanca 1981); V. FAUBELL, Antología Pedagógica Calasancia (Salamanca 1988).

Supplementary questions

The first autograph document by Calasanz on the origin of the Pious Schools that has survived to this day is a detailed timetable that Calasanz’s collaborators had to adhere to around 1604. And in the very first two lines we hear the ringing of the bell of the Collegio Romano, to which the timetable of the Pious Schools must conform throughout the year, as well as that of all the schools in Rome.[2434] The document ends as follows: “And since the bell of the Collegio [Romano], to which the pupils are to be guided, will change the time, all the above-mentioned hours will be changed.” The strategic location of the grandiose Jesuit college, which was still half-built[2435], meant that its sonorous bell could be heard practically throughout Rome, which was still very small at the time, with mostly low houses and quiet streets, if we think of today’s traffic. And since the bell rang half an hour before classes began, boys from all parts of the city could arrive on time by leaving their houses as soon as the bell rang.

2434 Cf. the complete document in our chapter 14, n. 1599 and the explanation of the Roman timetable at that time in n. 1625 of the same chapter. There we give reason for the date 1604, which we think is more accurate than 1603, which appears in the document. In an ordinance of 1659 for the pontifical schools, it is said: “the school will begin and end in time, as is done at Collegio Romano, which can be known by the sound of the bell of that Collegio” (cf. G. PELLICCIA, o.c., p.465, n.13). And in another of 1782: “The schools in the morning will have to begin at the bell of Collegio Romano” (ibid., p.506 n.4) The lack of data prior to these dates prevents us from being sure if the custom was prior to the decision of Calasanz in 1604 or if it was adopted following the example of what was done in the Pious Schools.

2435 On October 28, 1584, the new school was solemnly inaugurated, with Gregory XIII in attendance, and on November 5, the school year began. Only the façade wing and the one facing the Minerva were built. The church of St. Ignatius and its corresponding wing were built later (1626-1683) and finally the eastern part, today the Biblioteca Nazionale Vittorio Emanuele (cf. R. GARCIA VILLOSLADA, o.c., p.152-153).

In the Constitutions (1622), Calasanz spoke of the need to follow a timetable and that the Superior should ensure that the ringing of the bell was changed at different times of the year.[2436] Later (1637), when writing his Declarations to the Constitutions, the Founder himself presented a very detailed concrete timetable[2437] in which he did not mention the bell of the Roman College because he was writing for the whole Order, but in reality, the only fixed point during the year, despite the changes, was the ringing of the Jesuit bell at 8am and the beginning of classes at 8:30am, by our present reckoning. Class time in 1637 remained the same as in 1604, i.e. two and a half hours in the morning and two and a half hours in the afternoon. But while classes continued to be held from 8:30 to 11 in the morning, in the afternoon, to avoid the excessive heat in the hot months, they changed as follows: from the beginning of the course in November to mid-April, from 2 to 4:30; from mid-April to mid-May, from 5 to 7:30; from mid-May to mid-August, from 5:30 to 8; from August 15 to September 15, from 5 to 7:30; and from September 15 to the fall vacations, again from 4 to 6:30.[2438]

2436 Cf. CC, n.195-196.

2437 Cf. SÁNTHA, SJC, p.331, n.3 (original Italian text); J. M. LECEA, Declaraciones de S. José de Calasanz a las Constituciones primeras de las Escuelas Pías: AnCal 50 (1983), p.595-597, n.107-113 (translated text). Note that in n.108 it says February 25 and should be 15; in n.112 it says “prayer at 8” and should be at 9, and “examination at 9 1/2” and should be at 15 ½. On the other hand, in n.51 it is clarified that the prayer was at 4 a.m. in our current computation and therefore they would get up at 3:30, which is totally absurd; it is also unacceptable what Moncallero says, commenting on the document of 1604, namely, that they got up at 4 a.m., because at that time it was 8 a.m. in the Roman computation (cf. CCP, p.75, n.2). The truth is that in both cases it is 5:30 in the morning, since 12 o’clock in November and 8 o’clock in May (of which both documents speak), correspond to 5:30 in our current computation (cf. R. GARCÍA-VILLOSLADA, o.c. p.85-86, and our n.1625 of chapter 14).

2438 This is the result of a detailed comparative study between the data provided by Villoslada (l.c) and the timetable proposed by Calaanz in his Declarations to the Constitutions (l.c). In Doc. princeps it is also expressly stated: “the exercise of teaching lasts, in this as in all the other classes, two and a half hours in the morning and the same in the afternoon” (V. FAUBELL, o.c., p.62).

At the beginning, the course was divided into three periods of four months each, with final exams in each period and a change of class if passed. Later it was reduced to two semesters, perhaps due to the demands of Collegio Romano, which divided its courses in this way, with which the students who came from the Pious Schools had to homologate theirs.[2439]

2439 In Doc. princeps (l.c.) we read: “every four months there is a general examination in all the schools; and the pupils who are found to have advanced go on to the next higher school” But in the Constitutions it is prescribed: “bis saltem in anno examen fiat, quo diligentes ad superiores scholas gradum faciant.” (CC, n.197) In the Roman College “you could be promoted to the next class at the end of each semester” (A. PIGNTELLI, o.c., p.126).

The school year began on November 3, as in Collegio Romano, but whereas in Collegio Romano, since 1582, the long vacation began on the last day of August, in the Pious Schools it began on October 15, so that there was only a half-month break between courses. However, the norms regarding dates were not so rigid, for here too the principle of usefulness and benefit to the poor children of the people prevailed. Thus, the fifteen days of vacation were granted in each place, taking into account the time of the grape harvest or the autumn harvest, so that the boys could help their parents with such tasks.[2440] The meager autumn vacations were compensated by a greater number of vacation days during the year, because compared to 194 days of normal classes, they had 116 days of complete vacation and 55 days when they had classes in the morning and vacation in the afternoon.[2441]

2440 “The school will have a vacation period of fifteen days before returning to school. These vacations will be assigned according to the quality of the particular places where we will be, because of the diversity of the chores and harvests and similar occupations for which the students do not come to school.” (Riti comuni SÁNTHA, SJC, P.٣٤٠, N.٣٠; cf. more texts ib.). Regarding the vacations in the Roman College see R. GARCÍA-VILLOSLADA, o.c., p.86-87.

2441 Cf. SÁNTHA, o.c., p.342. See the complete calendar of feasts of 1654 in ibid., p.337-338, n.24. Today, in most Western countries there are usually 150 days of vacations per year. The difference, then, is that today there are 21 more full school days than then; but then there were 55 half-day days. In other words, compared to the 150 full days of vacation in our time, there were then only 116, but they had in addition 55 days of vacation in the afternoons.

Father Dragonetti always used the grammar of the famous Nebrija in his Latin lessons, as he considered it to be the best of all.[2442] The other Latin teachers at the Pious Schools used the very elementary Donato and Emanuele, i.e. the grammar of the Portuguese Jesuit Emmanuel Alvarez.[2443] It is understandable that they made use of these two texts, since the Donato was what they practically required, as already known, to the students who entered the Collegio Romano, and the Emanuele was the text used in the grammar classes of the said College.[2444] However, as Calasanz had an obsessive interest in making things easier for his poor children, he was very keen to find a shorter Latin grammar.[2445] in 1629, he learned of Caspar Schoppe’s new abridged method, based on the writings of the Spaniard Francisco Sánchez el Brocense, and sent three of his clerics to Milan to learn it directly from the master. At the end of the same year, the Grammar Rudiments of the aforementioned author, which had recently been published in Milan, began to be used in the Pious Schools.[2446]

2442 “The grammar that he had always read and that he still reads (Dragonetti) to his students is that of Nebrija, which he approves as the best of all” (Letter of Pedro de la Valle, August 1, 1626, in G. SÁNTHA, P. Gaspar Dragonetti: EphCal 5 [1960] 171). Elio Antonio de Nebrija entitled his Latin grammar: Institutiones Grammaticae.

2443 In 1629 they write to Calasanz from Moricone: “I ask V.P. what grammar should we use, because here you can find nothing but Donato.” (EHI, p.1685) In 1616-1617, just founded the house of Frascati, Calasanz asks Rome to send him “an Emmanuele piccolo novo.” (a new small Emmanuele) (EGC, c.9) Alvarez’s grammar is entitled: De institutione grammatica libri tres. In 1588 Fr. Torsellini had made an abridged edition, to which Calasanz probably refers. For the Donato cf. n.2392 of this chapter.

2444 Cf. R. GARCÍA-VILLOSLADA, o.c., p.88 and 101.

2445 In 1642 he wrote: “because the great desire that I have had since the beginning to find a short and easy way as possible to teach the Latin language” (C.4021). And in 1619 D. Cipriano Martínez and Andrés Bayano, both guests at San Pantaleón, had this matter in hand, without reaching anything concrete.

2446 Rudimenta Grammaticae Philosophicae ad usum tironum. Mediolani 1629’. In a letter of November 9, 1629, Fr. Pietrangeli writes to Calasanz from Moricone: “if it seems good to you to introduce Scioppio, you will be able to do the charity of committing to someone the care of finding a booksheller there that has correspondence in Milan and make him to bring 50 of the said books, that is Rudimenti for scholars” (EHI, p.1685). And on December 1, 1629, from Genoa, Fr. Preterari writes to him: “he will bring with (to Rome) 40 Rudimenti del Scioppio which came a short while ago from Milan” (EHI, p.1714).

However, Schoppe’s grammar was still too cumbersome and, at Calasanz’s suggestion, Father Casani set about simplifying it, drawing on Schoppe’s own source, namely the grammar of Brocense.[2447] Casani did not carry out his project, but the young Father John Francis Apa did, who also took Brocense and Schoppe as his starting point. His work was divided into two parts: in 1643 he published the grammar for teachers, as usual in Latin, and in 1655 the grammar for students, with the important innovation that it was written in Italian.[2448] However, the decision to abandon Schoppe’s grammar was not only due to the desire to find a shorter and simpler grammar, but also to the unfortunate fact that in 1632 Schoppe launched a campaign against the Jesuits with numerous publications and became one of the Society’s staunchest opponents, so that the Holy See began to condemn his works from 1634. Prudence must have advised Calasanz and the Order in this case to abandon the grammar of the forbidden German. This was done at the General Chapter of 1637, in which it was prescribed that Alvarez’s grammar be re-adopted while they waited to have their own.[2449]

2447 On December 24, 1633 Calasanz writes: “The Grammar sanctiana (of Sánchez el Brocense) was there (in Naples); found it in every way because P. Peter (Casani) thinks to reduce that of Scioppio to some ease.” (c.2162).

2448 The title of the first is I principi della lingua latina, and that of the second, Teatro della latinità (cf. SÁNTHA, SJC, p.182, n.12. In this very long note a critical judgment is given specially of the second).

2449 “That generally in all our schools the grammar of Emmanuele be used, and that no other author or way of teaching be admitted even to particular persons without the permission of Fr. General” (cit. in SÁNTHA, SJC, p.181, n.10).

Social concern thus permeated Calasanz’s pedagogical mentality. He believed that his students were mainly poor and that they should soon leave the classroom to find work, earn a living and help their parents. They must not waste time at school. They must be taught what is essential, but with appropriate solidity and breadth. Hence the need for intuitive methods in all schools, where brevity, simplicity and clarity prevail, three totally anti-baroque qualities, in an age where the baroque is breathed and lived. All this did not prevent him from keeping his eyes open to grasp the advances of science, didactics and pedagogy with vision and sensitivity in order to apply them to his schools, refusing to limit himself to fixed methods, considered to be the best and therefore, forever.

With brilliant precision, he summarized these ideas in this paragraph of his Constitutions, which is completely original, that is, independent of the texts of the Constitutions of other Orders, which served as a guide for his own: “In the teaching of grammar, and in every other subject, it is of great benefit to the students if all teachers adopt a simple, effective method that is as brief as possible. Every effort should therefore be made to select the best method among those recommended by the most learned and experts in the field.”[2450] He does not leave each teacher the freedom to choose the method or text he considers best, but explicitly calls for uniformity of methods throughout the Order: “Not only - he writes - must all our houses observe the same order in domestic observance... but all Superiors must be careful to ensure that the same doctrine is taught and the same didactic methods are used in all our schools.” And specifically with regard to Latin: “Those who begin to learn the rudiments of grammar should follow the same rules in all schools, unless in a distant province, with the permission of the General, another method seems more appropriate.”[2451] In this way, the progress of science and the updating of methods were reconciled with uniformity and stability.

2450 CC, n.216; F. CUBELLS; Explorando las fuentes de las Constituciones de S. José de Calasanz, p.561.

2451 CC, n.212 and 215.

The regulations with their instructions for teachers and instructions for students were a necessary addition to the smooth running of the schools. The first appear in the so-called Documentum princeps or Breve relazione of 1604, in which the first two sections not only describe “what concerns the letters” and “what concerns piety”, but also give 15 short instructions for the pupils, followed by another 10 for the teachers. The importance of this first document lies in the fact that it forms the basis for all the other regulations that later appeared when new houses were founded, after the founding of the Pauline Congregation and then the Order of Pious Schools.[2452] They were all largely written or approved by the Founder, starting from the basic document of 1604. But neither the latter nor the former were entirely original, but were based almost entirely on those that governed the Jesuit schools.[2453] We will discuss the content of these regulations and orders later, since their aim is education in the faith and in good morals.

2452 The following have been preserved. Regulations of the colleges of Frascati, Narni, Campi, Florence, Naples and Leitomischel, all very similar, and that of Collegio Nazareno (Rome), very different from the previous ones for its length and above all for its content, since it is the only one that refers to a boarding school. All these regulations have been republished in Spanish translation in V. FAUBELL, Antología pedagógica Calasancia, p.147-175.

2453 The basic regulation of the Jesuits is undoubtedly the Regulae externorum alumnorum societatis Jesu (cf. C. VILÁ, Fuentes inmediatas p.256-257, n.86). Comparing its XV points with the 15 of the Doc. princeps (cf. FAUBELL, o.c., p.65), one notices that only in four of them there is no appreciable dependence. This dependence is even more evident in the Rule of the college of Leitomischel (Bohemia), since it is in Latin, like the Regulae, and literally copies entire paragraphs (cf. C. VILÁ, o.c., p.255-257; SÁNTHA, SIC, p.343-350).

The holy fear of God

Berro tells us that one day the Bishop of Lucca, Msgr. Alessandro Guidiccioni[2454], was walking through the orchard of his Roman residence when the gardener climbed a tree to pick fruit to give to the bishop. Suddenly a branch broke off and the poor man got stuck with one foot, head down, helpless and in great danger of falling. “His young son, eight or nine years old, was at the foot of the tree and as he could not help his father to pull him out of danger because of his young age, he began to speak to him in a loud voice: “Father, tell me with all your heart: ‘My Lord Jesus Christ, I repent of all my sins...’”, continuing with the Act of contriction. When the monsignor and his companions, who had heard him, approached out of curiosity and saw the poor gardener in this situation, they helped him out of the impending danger. They admired the boy’s piety and bravery and asked him who had taught him this prayer: “I attend the Pious Schools and my teacher told me to perform the act of contrition in this way when I am in danger.”[2455]

2454 The imprecision of data does not allow us to know if we are dealing with the old or the young bishop of Lucca, both with the same name and surname and both closely related to the Lucca Fathers.

2455 BERRO I, p.85-86.

In the Constitutions, Calasanz had written: “The aim of our Congregation with the practice of Pious Schools is the education of children in Christian piety and in the human sciences, so that they may thus be educated to attain eternal life.”[2456] And in his letters, he never tires of repeating this a thousand times: “See to it that the students are well trained in the holy fear of God and in the way of attending the sacraments.” “Put all your diligence into it, because our Institute is not only the school of letters, but the most important thing is the holy fear of God.” “I will not stop asking the Lord to give you the grace and the opportunity to teach the students the holy fear of God together with the letters.” “Put all your care into making the students learn the holy fear of God with the letters, which is the purpose of our Institute.” “We shall do no small thing if we give attention to the boys and teach them the fear of God according to their ability.” “See to it that the students are pious, that is the main thing of our Institute.”[2457]

2456 CC, p.203.

2457 C.3808, 4176, 4221, 2223, 2269, 2092.

From the very beginning, two complementary aspects were taken into account in the Christian education of children: methodical catechetical instruction and the practices of piety, as later codified in the Constitutions with a succinct formulation.[2458] Regarding the first aspect, the Constitutions also state that students must memorize the catechism, which is explained by the teachers once a week.[2459] In summary, the subject matter they had to memorize included the mysteries of the Holy Trinity, the Incarnation, the Passion of Christ, the Last Judgement, paradise, hell, original sin and actual sin, how to pray and prepare to receive the sacraments of confession and communion; also the basic prayers such as the Our Father, the Hail Mary, the Creed, the Decalogue, the Angelus, concrete acts of faith, hope, charity and repentance, starting with learning “the sign of the cross”, which gave its name to the first class of the little ones, Calasanz’s favorite.[2460]

2458 “Erit ergo instituti nostri... pietatem praecipue et doctrinam christianam pueros docere.” (CC, n.5).

2459 “Libellus doctrinae Christianae in scholis a discipulis ediscatur, et aliquam illius partem aliquo die designato cuiusque hebdomadae declarabunt Magistri” (CC, n.200).

2460 Cf. Riti comuni and Declarationes Constitutionum, cit. in SANTHA, SJC, p.437, n.12.

The texts used were the catechisms of Cardinal Bellarmine[2461] and also that of St. Peter Canisius in Central Europe. Calasanz also wrote a very short catechism for the youngest children, which went through several editions.[2462] The experienced catechist Glicerio Landriani had also written a catechism for his students, but it remained unpublished.[2463]

2461 Bellarmine published two catechisms: a brief one for the use of children and an extensive one for teachers. Both of them and that of Canisio are mentioned in the correspondence of Calasanz and his religious (cf. SANTHA, SJC, p.437-438).

2462 He entitled it Alcuni misteri della vita e passione di Cristo Signor nostro, da insegnarsi alli scolari dell’infime classi delle Scuole Pie. Of its editions we know those of 1625, 1632, 1691, 1695 (cf. ibid., p.156, n.7). The 1691 edition was reprinted by Picanyol in Parva Bibliotheca Calasanctíana. n.2 Tria Pia exercítia a S. Josepho Calasanctío concinnata (Roma 1933); again, in original version and Spanish translation it was published by A. GARCÍA-DURÁN, Un catecismo infantil calasancio; AnCal 50 (1983) 547-560. Bartlik believes the first edition was in 1599 (cf. EphCal [1932] 148), and the same is repeated by Talenti (RegCal, 13,15, p.4), Bau (BC, p.430), García-Durán (l.c., p. 547) and Vilá (EphCal 11 [1981] 402). Picanyol states that it was composed during the period of Santa Dorotea. Bau, moreover, read 1601 instead of 1691 in the only copy preserved in the General Archive, concluding that it would be the second edition. But it seems to us that the first edition could not have been before March 27, 1601, since on that date, in the secret session of the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, Marco Antonio Arcangeli still speaks of “la scuola a Sto. Andrea della Valle”, which “si chiamaria opera della Dottrina Cristiana” if accepted by the said Confraternity (cf. EphCal 6 [1958] 159, n.18). It did not yet bear the name of “Pious Schools”, as it already appears in the title of this catechism.

2463 L. PICANYOL, Il Ven. Glicerio Landriani, Apostolo della Dottrina Cristiana in Roma: Rass 3 (1938) 3-17; C. VILÁ, Glicerio Landriani catequista: EphCal 11 (1981) 389-434. Vilá found a large part of the original manuscript, which was thought to be missing, and published it in the appendix of the article.

All children had to learn a little part of the catechism by heart every day, as had been customary since the earliest times. The Documentum princeps states that in the primary school classes, while they were learning to read, “the principle of Christian doctrine and the necessary prayers” are taught aloud every afternoon”.[2464] Calasanz had written his catechism for these classes. In the second cycle, when they could already read perfectly, i.e. “in the four grammar classes, the first lesson they recite by heart every morning is from Christian doctrine, six or seven lines each time.”[2465] In later ordinances, the traditional practice is confirmed, giving a sense of continuity and homogeneity between the long period before and after the founding of the Order.[2466]

2464 Cf. Doc. Princeps, p.47.

2465 Ibid., p.48.

2466 In various Orders for Teachers (1616 and 1630) we read that the first lesson, in all classes, should be Christian Doctrine every morning (cf. V. FAUBELL, Ant. Pedagógica Cal, p.164, 165, 167). In a program of 1624-25 it says: “Cunctis diebus christianae doctrinae capita nonnulla memoriter pronunciabunt” (cit. in SÁNTHA, SJC, p.435, n.5). The General Chapter of 1637 says: “Let the teachers of the first school teach Christian doctrine as it was used in the past, and then grammar. “ (ibid.).

To this daily task of learning on the part of the students was added the teacher’s systematic explanation once a week and a quarter of an hour or so every day at the end of class, of which Calasanz speaks in these words: “Try to have a little time left at the end of class to use in teaching them the holy fear of God, the terrible judgment and pains of hell, so that they may abhor all kinds of sins”; “if you have some time left, give some instruction in practicing the virtues or avoiding vices and bad habits, and if it were with an example, it would be more vividly impressed on the minds of the students.”[2467]

2467 Cf. Dichiarazioni alle Costitutzioni e Riti Comuni, cit. in SANTHA, SJC, p.334 n.13.

This recourse to good examples meant that the feasts of the holy martyrs Justus and Pastor of Alcalá de Henares and of Alfio, Filadelfio and Cirino, also children and martyrs of Leontino (Sicily), the hometown of the elder Dragonetti, who had them venerated in the Pious Schools, were celebrated with special solemnity. For this pastoral purpose, Father John Francis Apa wrote a work whose long title gives a perfect idea of its content: One hundred remarkable examples of some children and youths, divided into ten sections, according to the order of the ten Commandments of the Law of God, collected from various and serious authors.[2468]

2468 It was later published in Naples in 1649. He composed another similar one, entitled Sagri Trofei de’fanciulli (Rome 1660).

The practices of piety were daily, weekly and monthly. The first were as follows: Mass and the Litany of Our Lady were first held before the morning classes began; but then Mass was moved to the end of the morning and was not to last more than half an hour.[2469] The litanies at the end of afternoon classes were usually recited, except on Saturdays and on the eves of Marian feasts, when they were sung.[2470] When this change of Mass was made, the morning would begin with specific prayers for the offering of the works of the day[2471], an invocation to the Holy Spirit, a Salve or Marian antiphon of the season, and a prayer to the Guardian Angel[2472], all kneeling in the classroom, all together.

2469 See different Regulations in V. FAUBELL, o.c., p.64,68, 164-175. Calasanz to Fr. Garcia: “Tell Fr. Joseph (Rocca) that if the Mass lasts more than half an hour he will be punished severely; observe the clock and the first time the wine will be taken away and if he does not mend his ways the punishment will be increased, since he must conform to an honest average so that the seminarians and the students can hear his Mass” (c.1286).

2470 Cf. SANTHA, SJC, p.335. Although he had commanded that in the functions of the Church they should sing “in the manner of the Capuchins”, he excepted the litanies of Our Lady: “except for the littanies of the Saturday afternoon and vigils of Our Lady” (C.2216).

2471 This prayer can be found published in Italian and Spanish in AnCal 50 (1983) 558-559.

2472 Cf. Riti comuni, in SÁNTHA, SJC, p.333, n.11.

On Sundays and feast days, the “oratory” was celebrated, which consisted of the Sunday or feast mass in the church, celebrated all together. Beforehand, however, there was a spiritual reading with a suitable recitation for everyone; then they were divided into two groups: the older ones sang the Little Office of Our Lady in the oratory, and the younger ones prayed the rosary in another oratory or in another place. This practice already appears in the Documentum princeps, which also stipulates that “on Tuesday and Saturday afternoons, after school, there is half an hour of spiritual admonition in the oratory for all the older students and in another oratory or room for the younger ones, each group according to their abilities.”[2473] Later, the half hour on Tuesdays was canceled.

2473 Cf. Doc. Princeps, p.49; V. FAUBELL, o.c., p.64.

The above-mentioned document also states that “all students go to confession once a month and are taught and reviewed how to do it properly the day before confession. Those who go to communion receive communion every first Sunday of the month and the most pious every Sunday, the others every fifteen days. All are taught equally how to receive communion fruitfully.[2474] In addition to these preparatory exhortations, the students had at hand some devotional books expressly dedicated to the two sacraments.[2475]

2474 Ib.

2475 The most usual were that of the Dominican Fr. Philip Angelini, whose second edition he dedicated to the students of the Pious Schools and of which Calasanz was in charge of making other editions (cf. n.28 of ch. 13 of this work; SÁNTHA, SJC, p.929, n,63), and those of the Lucchese Fr. Cesare Franciotti, Il Giovane Christiano (Venice 1611) (cf. SÁNTHA, SJC, p.160-161, 243-245).

Calasanz preferred the little ones of the Holy Cross, but he recognized that the most important classes of the whole cycle were those of the Abacus or Fifth and the First, that is, the Superior or the Last, because in both classes the boys finished their formation in the Pious Schools. We have already seen that the fifth grade was divided into two groups: those who began with Latin grammar with the nominatives and intended to continue learning, and those who learned the abacus or elementary mathematics because they would later have to learn a trade. Calasanz focused his attention on this last group to intensify their Christian education, just as he did in the last class, from which they moved on to Collegio Romano, University or the practice of a trade. With great bravery, the saint writes: “[The class of writing and the abacus] is the most important of all, except the first of grammar [the fifth], and it requires a subject that teaches writing, the abacus, and also the holy fear of God at the same time, because from this class they go into the world to learn a trade, and it is very important that they go well trained in the holy fear of God.” “The abacus school needs a subject who is spiritual and worthy to be revered by the students, because usually in the abacus class there are mostly older students, and I would like to have a priest there.”[2476]

2476 C.2742 and 3692.

A characteristic practice of the Pious Schools, the so-called continuous prayer, deserves special attention, which already appears in the years of Vestri Palace (1602-1605), presided over by that holy man who was Father Gelio Ghellini.[2477] In the Documentum princeps it is described as follows: “Every day, from the beginning to the end of the lesson, nine students, with the help of a learned priest who teaches the boys to pray, perform a Continuous Prayer lasting half an hour; then another nine take turns. Prayers are said for the exaltation of the Holy Roman Church, for the eradication of heresies, for the union of Catholic princes and especially for the ordinary benefactors of this place. And to this prayer all the students go in turn, from the first to the last class.”[2478]

2477 Ghellini wrote to his brother on July 20, 1602: “He [Calasanz] wrote in the memorandum that a Priest of mature age, of letters and great spirit, is present at the continuous devotions and prayers; and because it was about me, I wanted him to change, but he did not want to” (EC, p.1552). And Calasanz testifies on March 18, 1606: “il Rdo. P. Gellio Ghellini Priest from Vicenza is one of the brothers of the Congregation of the Pious Schools in Rome, assistant to the continuous prayer that is done in the oratory of the said Schools.” (ibid., p.1556, n.8).

2478 Doc princeps, p.49.

This devotion was codified in the Constitutions, but instead of nine children the number had been increased to ten or twelve, as the number of students had also risen from about six hundred to twelve hundred, more or less.[2479] From some loose sheets published in Italian and Latin in the years 1693-1698, we can see how this pious exercise was actually carried out: kneeling before the altar of the Blessed Sacrament, they prayed, according to a fixed formula, some acts of faith, hope, charity, contrition, self-surrender to the Lord and the Blessed Mother, and a prayer to the Most Holy Trinity, in which they prayed for the Pope, the Church, the Christian princes, etc. Interwoven with these prayers were the usual prayers such as the Creed, Our Father, Hail Mary, Glory Be, Confiteor and Salve Regina. An interpolation adds that after the prayer to the Most Holy Trinity, the Crown of the Twelve Stars, the Rosary or the Small Office of the Virgin or the Seven Penitential Psalms or Graduals or the Litanies of Our Lady or the Saints could be recited. The act ended with some fervent prayers, without alluding to the exhortation of the priest, although it is probable that the primitive custom was still continued.[2480]

2479 The text is almost identical: “There will be another priest, if possible, who will preside the Continuous Prayer, which is done in turns of ten or twelve pupils, morning and evening, during classes, for the exaltation of the Holy Roman Church, extirpation of heresies, concord among the Catholic Princes and good government and increase of our Congregation. The said Father will teach the little ones how to be prepared for the Sacrament of Penance, and the older ones for the Eucharist, and likewise, a simple method of prayer or other subjects adapted to their capacity” (CC, n.194).

2480 Cf. both forms, Latin and Italian, in Parva Bibliotheca Calasanctiana. 2. Tria pia exercitia a S. Josepho Calasanctio concinnata (Rome 1933), p.14-20. With a certain perspective of accommodation to the new times, wrote G. SÁNTHA, La oración continua según S. José de Calasanz: RevCal 12 (1957) 649-663.

We have highlighted the Crown of twelve stars because it is one of the possible options in this practice of continuous prayer. It is one of the most beautiful prayers composed by St. Joseph Calasanz, and it is still revered today, although it is little used. The Saint said of this prayer: “I wish this devotion to Our Lady to be said every day by our students...”[2481] It can therefore be assumed that it has been recited by the children as part of the Continuous Prayer since 1623, when it was supposedly composed.[2482] It can even be assumed that he composed it to be recited precisely as part of the Continous Prayer, since the final prayer “for the holy Catholic Church, the propagation of the faith, peace among Christian princes and the eradication of heresies” is consistent with the intentions intended for the Continous Prayer. It should be added, however, that such intentions were very common at the time, especially as a condition for obtaining plenary indulgence.[2483] Moreover, the concept of continous prayer probably found some resonance in the religiosity of the time, even if its content was different.[2484]

2481 EGC III, p.206.

2482 See what is said in our chapter 11, n.1291-1293 and the text to which they refer.

2483 A significant example is the Bull of Gregory XIII, of 1581, in which he granted certain plenary indulgences to the Confraternity of Our Lady of Valldeflors, of Tremp, to which Calasanz belonged: he demanded that they pray “pro pace inter christianos principes conservanda ac Sanctae Matris Ecclesiae exaltatione” (cf. M. LLEDÓS y MIR, Historia de la antigua Villa, hoy Ciudad de Tremp, p. 581).

2484 Again, we return to Tremp, suspecting that Calasanz must have heard about the complicated organism instituted by Father Caspar Estevan O. P., in the first half of the 16th century, in the Dominican Convent outside the walls of Tremp, which he called Schola Christi (cf. n.924 of our chapter 8). The imaginative friar wanted the friary to have a total of 120 people, “which is the number of those of the beginning of the Church on whom the Holy Spirit descended. And because it is written that they were all persevering with uniformity in prayer... the blessed friar wanted that... they should have continuous prayer before the Blessed Sacrament so for the peace of the Church and of the Pontiff, as for the benefactors of the convent...” (F. DIAGO, Historia de la provincia de Aragón de la Orden de Predicadores [Barcelona 1599] f.286). As can be seen, here too the intentions were the same. Nevertheless, during the stay of Calasanz in Tremp (1589-1591), of that numerous and strange ‘Schola Christi’ only the memory would remain, since, as Fr. Diago adds: “as from him and from his pulpit [of Fr. Caspar Estevan] hung all of it [the luck of the convent], in failing him he lacked everything and did not take a step forward until King Don Felipe, the second of good memory gave him the Priory of Manlleu for ever.” (l.c.). The Bull of concession of this priory, of Clement VIII, dated August 22, 1592 -Calasanz was in Rome-. see in M. LLEDÓS Y MIR. o.c. p.584-586. In a memorial of 1613, attributable to Fr. F. Diago, it is said of the convent of Tremp: “It can support 7 friars; it has them today, namely: 6 priests and a brother. There is a lector of Arts for laymen and two friars” (A. COLLELL, O. P., Ayer de la Provincia dominicana de Aragón; Analecta Sac. Tarrac. 39 [1966] 228). It was, therefore, very far from the 120 persons of the “Schola Christi” dreamed of by Fr. Estevan.

It will always be just and true to recognize the merits of this “friend of the people” - as Pastor called him[2485] - because he promoted the culture of the poor and lifted them out of their state of indigence by opening up paths of progress and dignified work for them. But it would be a mutilation of his image if we were to portray him only as a philanthropist, forgetting that Calasanz, as a man of God, did his utmost to instill the holy fear of God in his children.

2485 Cf. PASTOR, o.c., vol. 25, p. 218.

Human education and the “preventive system”

From the various surviving Rules or Ordinances to be followed by the pupils of the Pious Schools, beginning with the Documentum princeps from the early days of the Vestri Palace (1604-1605), it is clear that Calasanz already had the idea that his schools would not only teach elementary and intermediate culture, from spelling to the Latin poetry of the classics; nor was he content with teaching the catechism and instilling the fear of God; but these incipient Pious Schools were also centers of education in the broadest sense of the word. These boys from the common people were taught politeness and had to show good manners, respect for their parents, teachers and elders, discipline, punctuality, work, order, silence and cleanliness. They were forbidden to attend public performances in the neighborhoods, comedies, street charlatans and the like that were not characterized by clean language, ideas and insinuations. They were also forbidden to participate in games of chance such as cards, dice, knuckles, etc. They were required to return home after the Angelus at dusk. They were not to bring weapons, knives, penknives, dangerous objects to school. They were to avoid quarrels, slaps, foul language, insults and vulgarities in their dealings with each other. They were not to soil or mark the walls, benches, windows, doors, etc.[2486]

2486 Cf. various regulations in V. FAUBELL, o.c., p.64-65, 147-175.

All this means that education is not limited to the time and place of school, but concerns every day, every time and every place. Calasanz thinks about education at school, at home and on the street. When the practice of escorting children home in rows after school was introduced around 1615, a new safeguard was added against potential - and proven - dangers on the street. Long before this innovation in escorting, the 1604-1605 document stated that “special care is taken to ensure honesty and all occasions are very carefully avoided. And with this care and with the frequency of the sacraments, the boys are kept in great purity by the grace of God, and very many of them, when they come of age, take the habit in various Religions.”[2487]

2487 Doc. princeps, p.49.

To educate is to prevent. With subtle wisdom, Peter Braido writes that “education as prevention comes before the idea of prevention in education”[2488] This distinction is all the more valuable as it introduces the theme of the “preventive system”, especially in relation to Don Bosco’s pedagogy. It is interesting to note, among a number of nineteenth-century Italian writers quoted by the above-mentioned author, the conviction that the education of the poor, precisely because of its preventive character, is the most effective means of freeing society from the most oppressive scourges, both in the economic and social order and in the penal system.[2489] And this reminds us spontaneously of Calasanz’ insistence that the good education of children is the most important and irreplaceable means for the reform of society and for a happy future for each of them. In particular, he reminds us of the valuable joint memorandum by Calasanz and Dragonetti from 1626, which asks for alms for the Pious Schools, because “to help these poor boys is to free them from the gallows and from the galleys, where they usually end up when they are older, those who are brought up at a young age with such vices.”[2490]

2488 “Education as prevention, anterior to the discourse of prevention in education” (P. BRAIDO, L’esperienza pedagogica preventiva nel sec. XIX, Don Bosco, in P. BRAIDO, Esperienze di pedagogia cristiana nella storia, IIl, p.277).

2489 “The problem of prevention also extends to the economy, to legislation and similar sectors. It finds particular resonance in the penal field, in which the concepts of punishment and penalty and of correction are joined with increasing rigor by the preventive idea of education and re-education. Among others, De Gérando, Petitti di Roreto and C. Cattaneo intervene with different angles, but sensitive to the new ideas spread in Europe after Beccaria and Howard by an extended publicity.” (P. BRAIDO, o.c., p.276) See some quotations from such authors: “Of all the kinds of beneficence, the one that prevents misery in its beginnings, is the most fertile and the most salutary. Now, preventive beneficence cannot be exercised more safely and more usefully than by the education of the poor” (DE GERANDO, Della pubblica beneficenza [Firenze 1842-1846], vol. II, p.246 ); among the indirect measures that better contribute to put an end to public begging, the following is placed first: “To promote and foster elementary education in small populations” (C. I. PETITTI DI RORETO, Saggio sul buon governo della mendicità, degli instituti di beneficenza e delle carceri [Torino 1837], vol. I, p.40 ); to solve the problem of begging “the education of the poor appears to be undoubtedly beneficial.” (F. CATTANEO, Della beneficenza pubblica: Opere edite ed inedite [Firenze 1888], vol. II, p.305). These and other similar quotations in P. BRAIDO, o.c., p.274-278.

2490 Cf. n.2224 of this same chapter.

Education in itself is therefore a preventive measure against the possible future evils of society and the individual. But if this education is based on religion, on the fear of God, the educational system itself cannot be more than preventive, since its aim is the correct formation of the Christian conscience, which works through free conviction and moral principles and not through the violent suppression of delinquents. With an equanimity that honors him, the aforementioned Salesian Braido says: “It is a widespread idea that Don Bosco has appeared to many contemporaries and even later as an exceptional educator and outstanding representative of the preventive system in the education of young people, without diminishing the enriching and original contribution of other past and present educators.”[2491] And elsewhere he confirms the same idea: “Reason, religion and love (or, if you like, goodness, mercy, gentleness) define above all the content of Don Bosco’s pastoral, spiritual, educational message, which is common to so many Christian educators of all times.[2492]

2491 P. BRAIDO, o.c., p.294-295.

2492 Ibid., p.358. In contrast to this equanimity of judgment, there are passionate affirmations such as these: “Don Bosco and Christian education form an equation that is resolved in unity. In this is the historical and conceptual greatness of Don Bosco in the life of the Church: that he gave the defining formulation of Christian pedagogy, the pedagogy developed by the Church.... There is only one creator and divine saint of the Christian educational system, and that is Don Bosco.” (A. CAVIGLIA, La pedagogia di Don Bosco, in Il sopranaturale nell’educazione [Roma 1934] p.105 e 108. Cit. in P. BRAIDO, o.c., p.295, n.1). Such praises are acceptable only in a closed family environment, but in public they are ‘piis auribus offensivi’, like that similar one -and this time among admirers of Calasanz- who among peals of bells proclaim him “the holiest of pedagogues and the most pedagogical of saints.”

It is probably true that those who attributed - and still attribute - the “preventive system” to Don Bosco as his own creation, because it remained at the level of Genus without reaching the level of Species, have done Don Bosco a disservice. And there is no doubt that this Species has existed from the beginning, although Don Bosco himself, despite having written so much, never specified or defined his own pedagogical system.[2493] His method or system of education is essentially preventive, as proposed by the great Founders of religious institutions of Catholic education, whether they are called Calasanz, La Salle, Champagnat or Chaminade, to name only the most important. Here, in fact, is a luminous letter from Don Bosco in which he attempts to describe his preventive pedagogy and which could be attributed to any of the above-mentioned Founders:

2493 “Don Bosco, even though he published a lot, did not assign to any of his writings in particular the systematic exposition of his pedagogical conception or at least of the fundamental principles of his educational practice” (P. BRAIDO, o.c., p.299). Among the top specialists who have expounded the peculiar preventive system of Don Bosco is P. BRAIDO, whose principal work is precisely entitled Il sistema preventivo di Don Bosco (Zürich 1964, 2).

“Your Excellency knows that there are two systems of education: one is called the repressive system, the other the preventive system. The first aims to educate man by force, repressing and punishing him when he has broken the law, when he has committed a crime. The second aims to educate him with gentleness and therefore helps him to obey the same law gently, and provides him with the most appropriate and effective means for this purpose. And this is precisely the system we have in place. Here we seek above all to instill in the children the holy fear of God; we instill in them the love of virtue and the abhorrence of vice with the catechism and the corresponding moral instructions; we guide them and keep them in the path of goodness with timely and benevolent exhortations, and above all with the practices of piety and religion. Moreover, they are surrounded as far as possible with affectionate support in recreation, instruction, and labor; they are encouraged with kind words, and as soon as they show signs of forgetting their own duties, they are reminded of them with good manners, and sound advice is reinforced. In a word, all the means suggested by Christian charity are employed to induce them to do good and shun evil, according to the principle of conscience enlightened and strengthened by Religion.”[2494]

2494 Letter of Don Bosco to Urbano Ratazzi, Minister of Grace and Justice, April 1854 (quoted in P. BRAIDO, o.c., p.314-315).

So, instead of defining the Salesian system by its preventive character, one should resort to other typical elements that are more individual to give it its own name, such as kindness or affectivity, joy or festivity, which do not appear so accentuated in other systems or educators. Nor is the presence of punishments among the means of education decisive for the affirmation or denial of the preventive character of the system, but rather their evaluation and their consistent application. On the other hand, it would not be fair to place the historical situation in which Calasanz operated and that which surrounded Don Bosco almost three centuries later on the same level with regard to the use of punishments. Neither Calasanz nor Don Bosco absolutely abolished punishments[2495], which are still not abolished today. Both endeavored to reduce them to a minimum, to replace them with other measures, to sweeten them. But Calasanz’s task was much more arduous because he swam against the current to find unusual means, following the pedagogical line shaped by the great educators of his time, the Jesuits, and their supreme model, the Collegio Romano.[2496]

2495 Regarding Don Bosco, cf. P. BRAIDO, o.c., p.378-384; regarding Calasanz, cf. SÁNTHA, SJC, p.313-315, 538-545).

2496 See some texts in which recourse to corporal punishment is permitted and advised, while requiring moderation, in the norms of the Tridentine Council, of St. Charles Borromeo, of Jesuits, Barnabites and Somascans, and of the great pedagogue Cardinal Silvio Antoniano, in SÁNTHA. SJC. p.538-539.

More than many explanations and quibbles, this page can give us a precise idea of Calasanz’ attitude to punishment. In it, he attempts to abolish the customs, to correct them, to soften the severity, while recalling in broad strokes the common practices in the schools of his time, from which it was not so easy to free oneself:

“If the pupil’s fault deserves further punishment, let them inform the School Prefect, who, in applying the necessary punishment, will never strike the pupils on their naked flesh, but will have them put on suitable underpants if he has to give them a mule”[2497]; “let everyone refrain from striking them in the face or on the body with their hands, much less with splints or paddles or any other instrument, and if he strikes them on the legs or elsewhere, let him do so in such a way that no bruises are left. Do not pull their hair or make their noses or ears bleed, which can easily happen because they are often damaged, as are their bodies. In short, avoid anything that contradicts the gentleness of Christ, whose faithful imitators they should be. Do not invent new methods to punish the young, as this is hardly compatible with the religious profession and would cause scandal among the laity.”[2498]

2497 The punishment “dei cavalli” or “delle mule” in Italy consisted in whipping on the naked buttocks of the boy, mounted “on horseback” of an older companion. See a realistic scene, painted by Benozzo Gozzoli (1420-1498), in BAU, BC, p.455.

2498 Riti comuni, cit. in SÁNTHA, SJC, p. 313, n.2.

These last recommendations reflect the authentic spirit of paternity and gentleness of the old saint, who never tires of repeating them in his letters of all times, of which these quotations suffice to show:

“I want punishment always to be administered with so much mercy and prudence that the boys themselves realize that they deserve much more... Our punishment must be carried out with great mercy, for that is what the name and charity we profess demand”; “I want punishment to be carried out with kindness and mercy, for if the boys recognize in the teacher the love of a father, they do not feel the punishment so much”; “Show them all much fatherly love and teach them with such affection that the boys see that he loves their welfare”; “Try to win the students over more by showing yourself as a father and not as a strict judge”; “You know that the students like to come to school when they see the teacher’s fatherly love and concern for their welfare”; “I would like you to remind everyone to be very discreet about punishment.”; “It’s good to be very gentle with the boys.”[2499]

2499 C.224, 893, 354, 1618, 2148, 566.

Father Berro summarizes this whole issue by stating that Calasanz “about neglects in the school, he asked the teacher to be gentle and find initiatives to get them to study without lashes.”[2500]

2500 BERRO, p.154. See all of this ch.20.

To all these exhortations and attitudes is added the frequent idea that, instead of punishment, confession is the most effective means of bringing about the boys’ improvement. See some quotes:

“They will order that no teacher shall give more punishment than two strokes or five lashes on the clothes. If anyone deserves more punishment, send him to Your Reverence and then order the punishment, which in principle should be lenient, but if he falls, increase the punishment. Above all, let him confess frequently, for that bears much better fruit”; “As for the punishment of disciples, let the confessor see to it that someone is forgiven if he asks forgiveness for confession, for the sacrament bears better fruit than flogging”; “it is better to make disciples attend the sacraments even if they should be punished than to give them the lash.”[2501]

2501 C.1429, 1441, 1427.

However, there are things that elude any preventive system and that can neither be forbidden in regulations, nor foreseen, nor punished when they have occurred. And they happen wherever there are children. And so, it happened one day in the schools of San Pantaleo. Fortunately, a saint, Father Joseph, was in the middle of it. Berro tells the story and confirms that he heard it from an eyewitness, whose name, office and address he gives. He also locates the scene: in the fifth class, the writing class “which is at the end of the stairs in front of the oratory.” It is a moment before the start of class, when the teacher was not yet there. Some boys found some broomsticks and started swinging them like swordsmen. Since the teacher was late, they began to encourage in the game and sudently one of them hit the eye of the other with the tip of the stick and pulled it out of the eye socket so that it hung bloody from his cheek. In response to the screaming and crying of the injured boy, other adults came from neighboring classrooms and “saw the eye being torn out of its socket and the boy screaming in pain. Father Founder came, saw the evil and immediately put the eye back in place. He held his hand over the eye and stayed there for a while, as if praying. The boy stopped crying and soon after he ordered him to say a prayer to Our Lady. Everyone saw that the eye was in place, without any defect, and the boy was calm and happy because he was no longer in pain. The older students who had come and admired him like a saint thought this was a great miracle, and one of those who had seen it told me the same thing.”[2502]

2502 BERRO, p.154-155; cf. TALENTI, o.c., p.170; BAU, BC, p.536-537.

One may wonder whether this was the work of a saint or an improvised doctor. Too often such things happen in the lives of saints who have never boasted themselves as doctors.

Chapter 18

A place in history

Rome made him a Roman. And that’s how he felt inside and out, as he said in 1632: “Aragonese by nation, but Roman by feelings and customs, since I have been in Rome for forty years now and have completely forgotten my homeland.”[2503] And Rome made him a universalist. in 1948, on the three hundredth anniversary of his death, Pope Pius XII declared “St. Joseph Calasanz the heavenly Patron Saint of all Christian elementary schools in the world.”[2504] And he justified this appointment with these words: “It is proven by solid and unquestionable documents that the same Calasanz opened the first public school in Europe in this Alma Urbe, in the church of Santa Dorotea, on the other side of the Sistine Bridge, in 1597, to educate the poor and abandoned children of the people, free of charge.”[2505] And a month earlier, in an apostolic letter to the General of the Piarists, he said: “Joseph of Calasanz, a zealous and vigilant interpreter and servant of the Church, with a certain divine inspiration and not without the distrust and opposition of many, was the first to open free schools for the abandoned children of the people.”[2506]

2503 C. 1849.

2504 Brief Providentissimus Deus (EphCal 4-5 [1948] 107).

2505 “Gravissimis enim et indubiis probatum est documentis ipsum Calasanctium, hac Alma in Urbe primam in Europa scholam publicam pueris e populo egenis et derelictis gratuito instituendis aperuisse” (ibid., p.105).

2506 “Josephus Calasanctius, sedulus vigilque Ecclesiae interpres ac minister, divino quodam afflatu omnium primus, non sine controversia inter plures diffidentes et etiam repugnantes homines, scholas neglectis proletariorum filiolis gratuito aperuit” (Letter Proximo augusto: EphCal, 1.c., p.102). In this same letter he also says: “Illud profecto, quod felici ausu S. Calasanctius perfecit, ut primum, exhibuerit exemplum christianae-popularis eruditionis universae, dignum sane est memoratu suavissimo et longe maius opus, quam ullis laudibus exaequetur” (ibid., p.101). And Benedict XV, dated February 10, 1917, addressed an apostolic letter to the General of the Order, in which he said: “Is primus omnium (Calasanz) hanc quoque viam christianae caritati munivit, ut quo tempore elementa pueris fere tradebantur, filios pauperculorum, ne prae inopia prorsus litteris carerent, gratuito docendos susceperint” (AAS 9 [1917] 105).

The recognition of this primacy is of course not an ex-cathedra definition, but neither is it a simple assertion made lightly. It could at least be supported by the authority of the greatest historian of the Roman pontificate, Ludwig von Pastor, who wrote the following in his monumental work: “In November 1597, after some members of the Society of Christian Doctrine had pledged their cooperation, the first free public elementary school [in Europe] could be founded there [in Santa Dorotea].[2507]

2507 PASTOR, o.c., vol. 24, p.67-68. It is unfortunate that neither the Spanish nor the Italian translator has been faithful in this paragraph. The German original reads: “Nachdem einige Mitglieder der Gesechellschaft der Christliechen Lehre ihre Mitwirkung zugesagt hatten, dort (in St. Dorotea) die erste öffentliche unentgeltliche Volkschule Europas entstehen” (PASTOR, “Geschichte der Päpste”, XI [Freiburg 1927] p.433). The Italian translator translated: “Dopo che alcuni membri della Societá del Divino Amore ebbero promesso la loro collaborazione, potè ivi nascere la prima scuola popolare gratuita d’Europa” (PASTOR, Storia dei Papi, XI, p.439-440). The Spanish translator, whose text we have quoted, omitted “of Europe”; the Italian omitted “public”, and confused the “Society of Divine Love” with the “Confraternity of Christian Doctrine”.

But was the great German historian right, or should this initiative be attributed to other individuals or institutions in the Catholic camp, or even to Luther and his Protestant collaborators or followers? Without claiming to cover the subject exhaustively or to draw directly on the sources, we will content ourselves with presenting the opinions of some of today’s most sought-after historians of pedagogy in relation to ideas, initiatives and historical achievements, particularly in Protestant countries. It is not our intention to defend or excuse Calasanz and his work, but rather to provide an overview of the facts that leads us to the conclusion that the above-mentioned statements by Pius XII and Baron von Pastor seem to correspond most closely to the historical truth.

An unfortunate oversight

If today Joseph Calasanz has not yet taken the place he deserves in the history of education and pedagogy, this is primarily due to the negligence of his own sons, the Piarists, who over the centuries have been more preoccupied with their own educational task than with writing and disseminating their own history, their fame and legitimate merits and, above all, the vision of their Founder’s personality as an educator and pedagogue worthy of being among the first in European history. They were more eager to write his biography and glorify his virtues and miracles. They were more concerned with portraying the saint than the pedagogue.

It is true that since the middle of our century, as a result of the centenary celebrations of his death (1648) and his beatification (1748), there has been a renewed interest in researching and revealing the various aspects of his historical figure, whether biographical, religious or pedagogical, but the first steps with regard to the pedagogical aspects had hardly been taken.[2508] It is therefore not surprising that in the relatively modern historical-pedagogical literature, the name Joseph Calasanz hardly appears, more as one of many promoters of “charitable initiatives” for the benefit of the poor than as a pedagogical ideologue and practical implementer of an educational institution that is still in existence. And above all, the historical fact that he was, in a sense, the initiator of the modern elementary school is hardly ever mentioned.

2508 Cf. n.210 of chapter 17.

It is therefore paradoxical that educators devote more attention and more pages to the “utopias” of José de Calasanz’s time - which were little more than unrealizable “utopias” - than to the ideological and institutional creation of this man who contributed with more or less vigor to the establishment and organization of public primary education in some European nations. And when he is mentioned, his pedagogical merits are almost never mentioned and, moreover, the biographical information with which he is presented is usually not very accurate.[2509]

2509 As an example of this is the review of J. BOWEN, in his work History of Western Education in 3 volumes, t. III. Modern West. Europe and the New World: 17th - 20th Centuries (Herder, Barcelona 1985). It is undoubtedly one of the best current works of its kind, and for this reason we will use it extensively in this chapter. But it is regrettable that in the twenty-six lines dedicated to Calasanz there are some fourteen or fifteen errors (cf. ibid., p.156-157).

In addition to this unjust marginalization and confusion of data, we have to add, as a consequence, the wrongly attribution to others, very worthy historical figures, the ideas, initiatives, pedagogical methods or future perspectives that already appear in the ideology and practical implementation of the Founder of the Pious Schools. Among these inappropriate attributions - at least in terms of chronological precedence - we sometimes find the one that refers to the first modern free elementary school, which we will deal with in this chapter.

The compulsory and free elementary school of the State

It may seem unbelievable, but it is true: It is barely a century since there is compulsory and free state primary education in the countries of European civilization. It was barely a century ago that Western countries saw it as their own social duty to open compulsory and free public elementary school for all. And the fact that after a century there are European nations with a considerable illiteracy rate means that the laws have not been fully implemented or that there is insufficient public funding to implement them. But what has been achieved is already irreversible. And if Joseph Calasanz were to raise his head from the grave, he would be satisfied. What he embarked on in Santa Dorotea in 1597 could have remained a “utopia”, like so many of his contemporaries. But it was not. It was a challenge to history: Free primary education for all, especially for the poor who could not afford it.

In the simplicity of the idea lies the absurdity of the program, for it was absolutely unrealizable for him personally and for his institution. Never, neither in his century nor in future centuries, would he be able to meet the needs of “all children” This would have required hundreds of thousands of teachers and schools. But the transcendent thing was to set an organism in motion, an institution that embodied an historical idea as real. And if the universal civilization eventually embraced this idea, no one can deny the foresight of this man who began the adventure with so few resources and people, and even against the feelings of the “right-thinkers” of his time.

The idea would have been equally brilliant even if the last proponents and final creators of compulsory and free primary education in civilized nations had completely ignored the name of Calasanz. The mere coincidence of achievement was enough. But it was not only that. By the time European nations decided to take the final step and the States grant full free primary education for all classes of society, especially for the poor who could not pay, there were already numerous religious schools across Europe - especially in the predominantly Catholic nations - that provided free primary - and even secondary - education to all children, especially those from the lower classes. And this reality could not be, and indeed was not, ignored by the authorities. And despite the prevailing anti-clericalism, the governments that carried out the secularization of church properties and the suppression of religious - especially in France and Spain - respected the existence of the free educational establishments of the religious, at least until the state itself took responsibility for free public education.

In Spain in particular, the sectarian laws of the last century, that suppressed all kinds of religious, exempted the Piarists in whole or in part from the provisions, leaving their free schools open “until Congress decides on the plans for public education,” according to the law of October 1, 1820[2510]; and the one of 1836 states: “For the time being and where it deems it necessary, until education is ensured by other means, [the government] maintains some Piarist houses.”[2511] Twenty more years had to pass before the famous “Moyano Law” of September 9, 1857 was passed, which stipulated that “public elementary education shall be free for those who cannot pay for it and compulsory for all.” And it is extremely curious that when specifying this section, Article 9 states: “The first elementary education shall be given free of charge in the public schools to children whose parents, guardians or caregivers cannot pay for it, with a certificate from the respective parish priest, approved by the mayor of the city.”[2512] Two things were still missing for Spanish legislation to finally sanction the “modern elementary school”: the abolition of the certificate of poverty and the free admission of those who could pay. Calasanz had already done both of these things in his Roman schools in 1617, at the historic time when his work officially became the Pauline Congregation of Pious Schools, after twenty years of more or less exclusively admitting poor children and demanding the certificate of poverty from them with varying degrees of severity.

2510 Cf. C. RABAZA, Historia de las Escuelas Pías en España (Valencia 1917), t.III p.214 (full text of the law on p.212-215).

2511 Cf. ibid., p.258. It was a draft law, and, even though it was an exemption, it seemed to some Deputies to be a deliberate suppression of the Pious Schools, and they came to its defence. The famous Pascual Madoz, a disciple of the Piarists, said, for example: “I have taken the floor against art. 3º that is being discussed, because in it I see the complete and immediate suppression of the Institute of the Pious Schools and because I cannot look with indifference that more than 25,000 young people, generally of the needy class, who are educated in the Pious Schools today, are condemned to ignorance. The spirit of reform that dominates this century should not lead us, gentlemen, to the extreme of condemning the poor to ignorance; this would produce a very serious evil on any occasion, but more especially in the present circumstances (ibid., p.259). The law was passed on July 29, 1837, without modification (cf. ibid., p.280). See other exemptions of 1845, 1879, 1915, in V. F. ASCARZA, Diccionario de Legislación de Primera Enseñanza (Madrid 1924, 3), p.493.

2512 Cf. RABAZA, o.c., t.IV, p.354 and 356; MINISTERIO DE EDUCACIÓN, Historia de la Educación en España. Texts and documents, II (Madrid 1979), p.242 and 246. In the law of June 2, 1868, it is still repeated: “a certificate from the Parish Priest, approved by the Mayor, will give the right to free education” (ibid., p.311).

It is therefore very plausible that the slow implementation of public and free primary education for all in Spain had something to do with the old idea or institution of Calasanz, which had remained intact until then as a model and desirable goal. The same Spanish Cortes (Congress) that with one hand protected and provisionally preserved the Pious Schools, with the other hand projected, introduced and officially sanctioned the establishment of the modern state elementary school.

At the same time, the same path was taken in France, earlier and faster than in Spain. The decrees of November 17, 1794 and October 25, 1795 established elementary schools in the cities, some of which were paid for by the state and some by the students.[2513] A further decree of February 19, 1816 demanded that “all municipalities provide primary education to all children of the inhabitants, which will be free of charge in the case of the poor.” To this end, the state provided a fund of 50,000 francs, which was not enough for all, so the parishes “left their elementary school to the Brothers of the Christian Schools, the Ursulines and other congregations.”[2514] Something similar was introduced with the “Guizot Law” of June 28, 1833, which “obliged each parish to set up an elementary school to which needy children were to be admitted free of charge. It was this last provision that placed these schools mainly under the control of the parishes. For the next forty years, nothing more was done for the elementary education of children: they depended entirely on the basic religious program and literacy offered by the parish and on the ability of their parents to pay.”[2515] And indeed, we must wait until the “Ferry Law” of 1881, which “provided for “free primary education throughout France, and the second “Ferry Law” in 1882, which made this education compulsory.”[2516]

2513 Cf. J. BOWEN, o.c., t.III, p.324-325.

2514 Ibid., p.383-384.

2515 Ibid., p.403.

2516 Ibid., p.568-569.

France and Spain are eloquent examples of how free primary education was created and maintained in the hands of religious. Following their example, the states set up public schools, which gradually became completely free and compulsory by law. There was no lack of intermediate solutions, in both Catholic and Protestant environments, but what is certain is that they were all overcome or discarded until all civilized nations accepted the common formula in its entirety: elementary school - and then higher school - free and compulsory for all. And it was “coincidentally” (?) the same formula that Joseph Calasanz proposed almost three centuries earlier.

In this race to make elementary school fully free, most European nations achieved the goal in the following order: in 1869, free but non-compulsory elementary school was introduced in Austria and in all the countries of the Austro-Hungarian Empire: Austria, Hungary, Bohemia, Moravia, Slovenia, Croatia and Dalmatia[2517]; free and compulsory in France in 1881-82[2518];completely free in Prussia in 1888[2519];compulsory in England in 1880, but not free until 1891[2520]; free and compulsory in Ireland in 1892[2521]; compulsory and free in Russia in 1908.[2522]

2517 Ibid., p.573 and 578.

2518 Ibid., p.569.

2519 Ibid., p.411.

2520 Ibid., p.399-400.

2521 Ibid., p.564.

2522 Ibid., p.620.

Certainly, it is one thing to enact laws and another to ensure compliance with them, even by the State itself. The process of “European literacy” is long and costly and varies considerably from country to country. But the common cause is always the lack of public funds. The desirable budget for education exceeds the availability of State coffers. All this is also reflected in Spanish legislation. The Moyano Law of 1857 had proclaimed that “public primary education will be free for those who cannot pay for it and compulsory for all.” And half a century later, the Royal Decree of October 26, 1901 still proclaimed: “Primary education will be provided free of charge in public schools for children whose parents, guardians or caregivers cannot pay for it; it will be compulsory for all Spaniards in primary or higher grades.”[2523] The “certificate of poverty” signed by the parish priest and the mayor had already disappeared, but free education was still not absolute for everyone.

2523 MINISTERIO DE EDUCACION, o.c., vol.III, p.163-164; La Ley Moyano in ibid, vol. II, p.242.

In the half century that followed the Moyano law, things had slowly changed. The “certificate of poverty” was replaced by the royal decree of October 5, 1883, which stated in Article 10: “Those children whose parents are classified as poor by the city council for the purpose of free medical care are considered poor.”[2524] The funding of teachers and elementary school continued to depend on the municipalities, which were supported by public funds from the Province and the State, and on the children’s so-called “levies”(retribuciones), which they could pay. But the complicated legal disputes triggered by the collection of these “levies”, the ever-tight municipal coffers and the delays in the payment of teachers’ salaries led to the final solution of the above-mentioned royal decree of October 26, 1901, by which primary school teachers received their salaries directly from the state at the expense of the budget of the Ministry of Public Education.

2524 Cf. V. ASCARZA, o.c., p.584.

However, the “levies” continued to be paid to the State until the decrees of 1910, 1911 and 1913 established the teachers’ salary scale and the “levies” were abolished with the increase in salaries. “With the successive salary increases from 1918 onwards, we have achieved the complete abolition of levies,” it said in 1924. Primary education in the national schools is completely free for parents and children, whether rich or poor, and perhaps one of the greatest advantages is precisely the equality achieved; no one has to be asked whether they are poor or not, whether they pay or not, which avoids many annoyances and disturbances; the gratuity is complete.”[2525]

2525 Ibid., p.584 (gratuity) and 957 (retributions).

The Catholic Church and the elementary school

This is not the place to outline or summarize the long history of elementary education, that in the Middle Ages passed into the care of the Church along with the upper school and the university. The more or less extensive, attended and frequented monastery, parish and cathedral schools are the only free public centers where elementary education is taught: Reading, writing, arithmetic and Christian doctrine. In a way, they are the people’s school. But in those centuries, the population of the city did not care about literary culture, which was almost exclusively in the hands of the clergy. And it is normal that schools are opened in monasteries, parishes and cathedrals to receive and teach those who want to become monks, friars or clerics. All children have access to these schools, including the poor, because they are usually completely free. However, this dedication, which was even demanded by the ecumenical Councils[2526] and even by the schools themselves, began to disappear at the end of the Middle Ages.

2526 The Third Lateran Council, in 1179, said in its canon 18: “…ne pauperibus, qui parentum opibus iuvari non possunt, legendi et proficiendi opportunitas subtrahatur, per unamquamque ecclesiam cathedralem, magistro, qui clericos eiusdem ecclesiae, et scholares pauperes gratis doceat, competens aliquod beneficium assignetur, quo docentis necessitas sublevetur, et discentibus via pateat ad doctrinam” (Concíliorum Oecumenicorum Decreta [Herder, Fribourg 1962] p. 196). Note that the prescription is directed only to the cathedrals, where they had to prepare the future diocesan clergy, since there were no seminaries. The same is repeated in Con. Later. IV of 1215, c.11 (cf. ibid., p.216).

Paradoxically, “it is an undeniable fact that humanism in Rome, as elsewhere, instead of leading to progress, led to a delay in the field of public education, at least as far as practical achievements were concerned. While the pedagogical literature of the Italian sixteenth century is full of healthy and fruitful practical ideas - even the need for popular education was suggested more than once - public education is increasingly neglected in the practical field.”[2527] Indeed, the ecclesiastical schools of the Middle Ages, which were free and in a sense public, are now being replaced by the municipal schools administered by the councils or town halls, which are public but certainly not free, even if they sometimes admit a small number of poor people without payment. There is a break between the medieval primary school system and that of the modern era. This new renaissance produces more culture and there is more money, but the practical criterion is that everyone who wants culture has to pay for it. And the poor are marginalized and can not go to school because they can not pay for it.

2527 SANTHA, SJC, p.35. The same could be said in general terms, if one thinks of the great “theoreticians” of the time: Erasmus, Vives and Thomas More.

On repeated occasions, it will again be the Church that offers the new free elementary school. In this case, the secondary school came first: the grammar school with the Jesuits. And behind it, as a necessary complement, the elementary school, which is linked to the secondary school: these are the Pious Schools. Calasanz’s unsuccessful attempts to find an institution in Rome - the Roman Senate, religious orders and congregations and confraternities - that wanted to offer poor children a free primary education obviously showed that it did not exist. And so, his school was something completely new.

Half a century later, in a 1645 memorandum in its own defense, inspired by Calasanz himself, it says “Now we see that the same Religions which were founded by saints and blessed ones who are in heaven, for a ministry outside these matters, have in time changed their minds and now devote themselves ex profeso to teaching.” “Many Religions that do not have teaching as their institute have opened public schools, as is seen in the Dominicans, Benedictines, Barnabites, and Theatines, who teach in many places without this being their institute.”[2528] This was true. And over time, more and more schools were established throughout Europe, run by such religious.

2528 Cf. SÁNTHA, SJC, p.714-715. Modern authors warn the same thing: “Looking at the history of the religious orders and congregations in modern and contemporary times, it may be surprising to note the fact that not many of those today, especially important for their scholastic commitment, did not propose it among the main purposes to be achieved. This is valid for the Somaschi as well as for the Barnabiti and for the Gesuiti, as well as for the Benedictine and Cistercian…, just to mention the most celebrated religious institutions of the masses. But it also applies to the also famous Ursulines, and also other institutes that arose in the following centuries” (B. BELLERATE -G. ROCCA, Scuola, in Dizionario degli Istituti di perfezione, ed. Paoline, VIII [Roma 1988] col.1133).

Especially in France - where there was no foundation of Pious Schools until 1957 (sic) - a new institution explicitly dedicated to primary education emerged in the last quarter of the 17th century, the Brothers of the Christian Schools, which would later be followed - also in France - by other similar congregations of brothers or priests with the same aim. The essential formula or specific ministry was the same as Calasanz’s: primary education - and then higher education - completely free of charge for all, especially the poor.

Whether they knew Calasanz and his work or not, the new Founders only confirmed the goodness and necessity of their old idea. Europe was too big and there was room for everyone. Christian schools, in particular, were to play a prominent role in France until the stabilization of compulsory and free public primary school, as we saw earlier. And it is interesting to note that its founder, St. John Baptist de La Salle, had sent Brother Gabriel Drolin to Rome at the beginning of the new 18th century to found a house, and in a letter dated February 11, 1705, he asked him: “I beg you to tell me exactly what the Institute of the Fathers of the Pious Schools is all about; what rules they have, how they live and govern themselves; whether they have spread out, whether they have a General, what their powers are; whether they are all priests, whether they receive money. Find out as much as you can about this matter and give me all the details you can find.”[2529] Drolin’s reply has not reached our days, but the French Saint’s many questions and keen interest in the work of the Spanish Saint reveal something more than the curiosity of a Founder whose institute is dedicated to the same ministry for which the Pious Schools were born a century earlier.[2530]

2529 FÉLIX PAÚL, Las cartas de S. Juan B. de la Salle (Madrid 1962) c.16, p.123.

2530 Cf. L. NOGREDA, Influencia Calasancia en la Salle y Don Bosco: Atenas 222-223 (1952) 208-209. It is therefore not accurate - except for France alone - the following paragraph: “The French Revolution claims to be the first to have opened the schools to the people, and in this, as in other things, it lied. If we have seen the heirs of its spirit oppress the teaching of the Congregation as soon as they have had power in their hands, it is because they cannot forget that a priest, in the reign of Louis XIV, was the first educator of the poor and the humble (R. CLUNY, Bajo el sayal [Studium, Madrid 1956] p.211). And this other, speaking of the same personage: “Ferdinand Buisson, who was not his friend, had to recognize that John Baptist de La Salle was the true legislator of modern primary education” (ibid., p.213).

Alongside the growing proliferation of the De La Salle schools, the Marists, the Marianists and other similar congregations in France, which open their free schools to the children of the people, there are in parallel the so-called petites écoles of the parishes, which continue the traditional medieval line.[2531] They are popular schools, but not free, and bear a certain resemblance to the municipal schools that Joseph Calasanz found in Rome. In fact, writes Bowen, “only in the cities where there was a university was a complete education possible; in the other cities, elementary education was available only on a vague basis, in the petites écoles, one-room schools run by the parish churches. These were nominally open to all boys and girls, but in practice their clientele was limited to the merchant class, as they were not funded by the State or the Church and therefore had to charge school fees.[2532]

2531 Speaking of the “persistence of the medieval educational tradition” in France, Bowen writes: “The lack of documentary evidence about the foundations of schools in the Middle Ages continued throughout the 15th and 16th centuries (and in some cases in the 17th century), so that we must often be satisfied with very general information. The diocese continued to be the basis for the provision and administration of education. In all the important towns and large cities, the Church ran elementary schools (petites écoles) which accepted boys and girls, teaching them the rudiments of reading and writing in the vernacular, and perhaps, to the best students, some Latin. There were also grammar schools (grandes écoles), for boys only, which continued elementary instruction and prepared the pupils for university entrance” (J. BOWEN, o.c., t.III, p.56-57).

2532 Ibid., p.152.

Without free education, one could not speak of a genuine popular school, as the majority of the people were the poor who could not pay. And those who offered free schools were the religious congregations who proposed the ultimate goal that the State had to achieve in order to establish the “modern elementary school”. Bowen rightly writes: “Wealthy families had their children taught at home by tutors; the working class as a whole could only rely on charity, and this was indeed the next step in the spread of education in France (and most of Europe), with the appearance of a new phenomenon in the world of education: the teaching congregations of the Catholic Church.”[2533]

2533 Ib.

This “new phenomenon” will stubbornly remain true to itself. Other initiatives emerged everywhere, encouraged by the new ideas of the Enlightenment that dominated the cultural movement, especially in France. But despite their achievements, the new schools differed from those of the teaching congregations in at least two respects: in their secularism and de-Christianizing orientation, and in their paid, rather than unpaid, character.[2534]

2534 “A veritable frenzy of school foundations marks the Siécle des Lumiéres. Everything is happening as if the belief in health through education was leading to a new millenianism. And religion is not always excluded from the adventure. Here, it is the place “where school is done” that is clearly defined. Elsewhere, the multiple responsibilities of the school teacher are specified, as well as the fees to be charged to families, generally ranging from simple to double, depending on whether the child is learning to read or to read and write.” (VARIOUS, Histoire mondiale de l’éducation [Presse Universitaire de France, Paris 1981] vol. II, p.339-340).

The third of the great saintly founders of Institutes for popular education and free education is Don Bosco. His pedagogical work in its various facets emerged and took shape in the second half of the nineteenth century, at the same time as laws were being passed throughout Europe prescribing compulsory schooling and free education, both officially prescribed but only gradually applied well into the twentieth century, as evidenced by the illiteracy rate in all nations.

The works of Don Bosco and his Salesian Society therefore also adopt the formula or idea common to all teaching congregations: schools open to all, free schools created precisely to serve first and foremost the poor and abandoned. There were no Piarists in Turin, where they were founded, but there were Piarists in all regions of Italy. Don Bosco knew them, first by name, and then he wanted to deal with them explicitly. He visited the Collegio Nazareno at least three times during his trips to Rome in 1867 and 1869 and was deeply impressed by the warm welcome he received from the fathers and students. And it seems that he was not content with mere courtesy visits, but used them to take an interest in the ideology and the rules written by Calasanz himself and to admire the achievements and successes of the Collegio Nazareno in the present and in its long historical development. It is worth reading a few paragraphs from a long letter he wrote from Turin on September 26, 1867, to the rector of the Nazareno, Father Alexander Checcucci, after cholera had struck the town of Albano, where the Nazareno maintained a summer residence for its students, leading to fears that the Collegio Nazareno would have to close:

“I do not know how to tell you, my friend - writes Don Bosco - how much this unhappy news has hurt my heart, especially as I foresaw that because of the necessity in which you found yourself to close the school, how many fruits of virtue and science would unfortunately have been lost! However, after recovering a little from my dejection, I had more than sufficient reason to console myself as I reflected on the beautiful institutions and excellent discipline which govern your school, as well as on its glorious traditions and the wise and benevolent laws which govern it both educationally and academically. And fear was followed by hope for a happier future, so that in your boarding school I seemed to lack for nothing in the holy and zealous attempt to mould the hearts and minds of the boys in piety and letters.

And what shall I say of the splendid, spacious and airy rooms? But this would be little if, during my visits to Nazareno, I had not admired above all the naive and modest, but carefree and festive nature of your students, who clearly showed in their faces the benevolent and affectionate feelings of a sincere good soul, without tinsel or fiction. And the heart I discovered in all these young people, with unmistakable traits of sincere simplicity and tender kindness, convinced me once more how gentle the practise of virtue is when it is not imposed with severity, but implied with gentleness.

The other requirements of civic and moral education also seemed to me to be perfectly ordered. And to show how satisfied I was, here are the various conversations I had with many Roman personalities and with the Holy Father himself [Pius IX], who was very pleased because, as I know, he has a great affection for your school.[2535] I would also like to say that teaching is not the least of the Nazareno’s glories, because I have found good methods and noble suggestions and, most importantly, very competent men whom I have enjoyed getting to know. And I say nothing of the lasting and well-deserved reputation that the Nazareno enjoys to this day, and the large number of students who come from all parts of Italy, and the great men he has moulded...”[2536]

2535 Pius IX, a student of the Piarist college of Volterra, was confessor to the students of Nazareno during the years 1826 and 1827. As Pope he visited the college in 1860, 1863 and 1868. In October 1846, four months after his election, he visited the summer villa of Nazareno, in Albano, of which Don Bosco speaks (cf. P. VANNUCCI, Il Collegio Nazareno, p.175-178).

2536 Cf. R. FIERRO, Biografia y escritos de S. Juan Bosco (BAC, Madrid 1955) p.943-944. Italian text in P. VANNUCCI, o.c., p.199-200, n.48 and in C, VILÁ, S. Juan Bosco y el Colegio Nazareno: Archivum 24 (1988) 273-275. We have retouched Fierro’s translation, too free at times.

Perhaps the great pedagogue and saintly Founder of the Salesians learned something in this friendly and serene contact with the Piarists, examining and admiring Nazareno’s institutions and discipline, methods and precepts, piety and letters. But even if this was not the case, the description of what he saw and his positive evaluation of the pedagogical measures show the identity of the pedagogical criteria and the spiritual harmony between Don Bosco and Joseph Calasanz.[2537]

2537 Here is how Don Bosco defined his work: “The aim of the Salesian Society with its school-workshops is to educate and form its pupils so that, when they leave our houses after having finished their apprenticeship, they will know a trade with which to earn their bread honestly, be well instructed in religion and possess the scientific knowledge appropriate to their condition” (R. FIERRO, o.c., p.29). Reading this paragraph, one cannot but evoke the criteria that also moved Calasanz to institute his work, particularly what he said about the fifth class, mathematics, calligraphy, and the music class. The coincidence of spirits is admirable. Let the same be said of this phrase of Don Bosco: “for the Christian education and instruction, especially of the poor and abandoned youth” (Letter of Don Bosco to the Archbishop of Quito, December 6, 1887). Quoting it Braido says: “Don Bosco expressed the essence of his mission with this characteristic formula” (cf. VARIOS, San Juan Bosco. Obras fundamentales [BAC, Madrid 1978] p.XIII). It is also a formula very often repeated by Calasanz in his writings. See as an example one of the famous Summaries, written in Spanish by himself: “they (the Piarists) have for their proper or particular institute the good scholarship and pious education of children of every state, especially of the poor” (A. GARCÍA-DURÁN, Itinerario, p.190, n.828). Cf. many other similar texts in VARIOS, Juicio histórico-crítico sobre la Positio..., p.173-200. See also L. NOGREDA, o.c., p.209-214.

The elementary school conceived and established by Calasanz retains its historical primacy among the initiatives that emerged in the Catholic - and also non-Catholic - sphere, not only because of the fundamental fact that it was free for all children of the people, especially for the poor who could not pay fees, but also because of other complementary and no less important data for the definitive design of the modern elementary school. These are, above all, the programming of the contents and the consequent gradation of classes and subjects;[2538] the harmonious and progressive organization of the primary school cycle with the middle and higher cycles as a complete preparation for university studies; in parallel, the organization of the primary school cycle as a unified and complete didactic structure, expressly conceived as an indispensable cultural baggage for those who did not aspire to or could not continue higher studies because they were poor. Perhaps this last aspect, together with the concept of gratuity for all, is the one that best defines the modern concept of the elementary school. With it, States want to drive out illiteracy with a minimum of knowledge sufficient for the popular class to participate in the values of culture, to be self-sufficient and to leave the door open for possible personal progress.

2538 In Spain, for example, it was not until 1910 that the State began to legislate on the obligatory nature of graduate schools. The Royal Decree of June 8, 1910, in its art. 2 says: “Public schools will be graded in every town or group of towns with at least 2,000 inhabitants”, but it goes on to say that this obligation would be put into practice as economic possibilities permitted. In the Decree of February 28, 1911, it is indicated how the unitary schools were to become graded (cf. E. BERNAD, La instrucción primaria del s. XX, Zaragoza 1898-1914 [Zaragoza 1984], p.143).

Other popular school initiatives, whether Catholic or not, either subordinated primary education to excessively religious purposes (learning to read in order to be able to read the Bible or the catechism) or were much more concerned with ethical-religious education than with scientific-literary instruction, gradually expanding the content.[2539]

2539 “There was a strong convergence, in the 16th-17th centuries and for a good part of the 18th century, at the level of both primary and secondary schools, from the point of view of didactic content. In the first case, however, (primary school), it did not obtain consensus, even in places where was known the Comenian conception of the school organized on the principle of cyclicity, which demanded to proceed by successive gradual deepening. The popular catholic schools, with the exception of that of the Piarist, from the beginning, did not provide very articulated programs in content, but were centered on teaching reading, writing and arithmetic and, in particular, as we have already pointed out, on a desire for ethical-religious formation. It was therefore education rather than instruction that was the center of interest, and this choice remained in force, in principle, until the last century, when the primary or elementary school acquired its own more defined physiognomy.” (B. BELLERATE-G. ROCCA, Scuola, l.c., col. 1137).

Elementary school for girls

in 1655, the same year of Alexander VII’s election, perhaps at the beginning of the new school year 1655-56, free public primary schools for poor girls were established in Rome at the express wish of the Pope. These new Roman schools were called Pontifical Schools, Papal Schools or, more precisely, Pious Schools of the Pope.[2540] Neither the name nor the institution were coincidental, but were, according to clear evidence, deliberately related to the Pious Schools of Calasanz. The first of these links was the old friendship that the Pope had cultivated with the Piarist priest Carlo Mazzei, even before Fabio Chigi was nuncio in Cologne.[2541] Both were refined Latinists.

2540 “…the new pontifical schools will be called the Pious Schools of the Pope” (G. PELLICCIA, O.c., p.40l). The author is not quite sure of the year, since at least twice he says “around 1655” (ibid., p.60 and 77).

2541 During his nunciature Fabio Chigi edited at his own expense the first Latin work on epigrams of the Piarist: De Arte epigrammatis rite conficiendi libellus (Cologne 1650). Cf. DENES, II, p.367.

Therefore, the name of the Pious Schools had long been familiar to Pope Chigi. The second, more significant indication is related to the benevolent attitude that Alexander VII had adopted since his election in favor of the Pious Schools, which had been demoted to a congregation without vows by his predecessor Innocent X in 1646, as the final consequence of an unfortunate Apostolic Visitation that we will examine later.

When Chigi was appointed Secretary of State in November 1651 and later named Cardinal, Father Mazzei and other Piarists turned to him, confident that they would obtain from Pope Pamfili the repeal of the reduction Decree. But all in vain. The Pope remained intransigent until his death. Cardinal Chigi, however, gave them hope that he would help them effectively when the time came. And the time came when he was elected pope. On January 24, 1656, with the Brief Dudum felicis, he re-established the Pious Schools as a Congregation of Simple Vows, as an intermediate step towards their complete re-establishment as an Order of Solemn Vows.[2542]

2542 Cf. G. SÁNTHA, P. Joannes Garzía de Castillo: EphCal 30 (1961) 49-77, 90-117, 129-148. Spanish translation: La fidelidad a Calasanz. Ed. Calasancias (Salamanca 1982).

From April 1655, when he was elected, until January 1656, Alexander VII was committed to rehabilitating the Pious Schools. He received letters and missives from the courts of the King of Poland and the Grand Duke of Tuscany, as well as personal petitions from cardinals of the Curia, all of whom championed the Pious Schools and praised their merits and the enormous esteem in which they were held in all kingdoms. Although Pope Chigi knew the Pious Schools in Rome well, he must have been very moved by the praise and entreaties he received from so many people in their favor. And it was precisely during these months that he decided to found the Pontifical Schools for Girls in Rome. It would undoubtedly be absurd to separate the two events without seeing in the latter a dependence on the former, as the fruit of feelings of admiration and appreciation for the work of Calasanz, which Pope Chigi revived, as it were, after ten years of enforced lethargy.[2543]

2543 “Perhaps the coincidence [of the creation of the Pious Schools of the Pope] with the reconstitution of the Institute of the Pious Schools made by the Pope at the beginning of his pontificate with the Bull of 24 Jan, 1656 is not fortuitous. The nine traditional classes still flourishing in 1656 in San Pantaleo were a reality that could not escape the eye of Pope Chigi, particularly sensitive to the problem of free schools” (G. PELLICIA, o.c., p.401).

Initially, 40 schools were opened at once, but in 1659 they were reduced to 30, “so distributed throughout the districts of Rome that the many poor girls could enjoy this benefit.”[2544] Each school could have no more than 30 girls. However, there must have been more than enough, because in 1664 the number of schools was reduced to 24, as they were considered sufficient for “all poor girls”[2545]

2544 See the complete ordinance of 1659, point 1, which we have quoted, in G. PELLICIA, o.c., p.463-466.

2545 Cf. ibid., p.403.

The parallel with the Pious Schools of Calasanz is that both are free; they are not orphaned, abandoned or begging girls, but simply daughters of poor families in the city who cannot go to neighborhood schools or other fee-paying schools[2546]; the social purpose is also identical, since in both institutions the aim is to impart a minimum of knowledge so that they can find employment and earn a living through work. See this introductory paragraph of the ordinances of 1659: “Moved by paternal and holy zeal, His Holiness, desiring to care for the poor girls of this Alma city, most of whom are wandering about the streets at great risk to their health, and others lounging at home in great misery, claiming not to know what to do, has founded a pious work of schools to educate them well and teach them various trades by which they may earn their living.”[2547]

2546 “That the quality of the girls be of honourable condition, of such poverty that they do not have posibility of paying the teacher. And if the teacher or the Visitor discovers that there is a possibility of paying, or that they first go to school where they pay, they must immediately give her leave and send her away.” (Ordinances of 1659, cf. G. PELLICCIA, o.c., p.464). This exclusivity was no longer given in the Pious Schools of Calasanz, at least from 1617, if not before. Those who could pay were also admitted, but free of charge.

2547 Ibid., p.463.

These lines spontaneously bring to mind the similar situation of the children that motivated Calasanz to found his institute. However, there is a big difference between the Pious Schools of Calasanz and those of the Pope, because while the former are opened to teach reading, writing, arithmetic, grammar and Christian doctrine, the latter only teach how to spin wool, reel silk, sew and knit.[2548] And while they work, they have to do these spiritual exercises from morning to afternoon: the rosary, “the crown of the Lord”, an hour of silence, the litany of the Blessed Virgin, pious songs, Christian doctrine and, three days a week, the litany of the saints; on Sundays, the catechism in the parish church.[2549]

2548 “These schools should be for wool spinning, sock making, sewing and silk weaving. When the girls have learned enough to spin wool, to make hosiery and to sew, send them away from the schools and let others take their place. The same should be done with those who learn to spin silk. (ib., p.464).

2549 Cf. ibid., p.465. The female teachers received their salary each month from the Pope’s Steward, at the rate of a certain amount per pupil.

Before the Pope’s Pious Schools, there were neighborhood schools, like those for boys, all of which were fee-paying. Neither taught reading, at least initially, still less writing, and even in later times they needed a special license to do so.[2550] The elementary schools for women were therefore primarily, though not exclusively, schools for women’s work. These Roman schools retained their form until the end of the Papal States (1870), when they practically merged with the public schools of the Italian State.[2551]

2550 The “women’s schools in the districts of Rome... are fee-paying schools... schools more for introduction to work than for instruction... They were mostly occupied by poor women, who knew how to teach Christian doctrine and some common manual or artisan work, not always able or available to teach reading, less so writing” (ibid., p.395 -396 and n.1); “not all of them were authorized to teach reading and writing. In any case, the popular female schools were mainly, if not exclusively, preparatory schools for work.” (ib., p.413).

2551 Cf. ibid., p.405-406.

In the same Rome and in other parts of Europe, other institutions for the education and teaching of girls emerged, but all generally adhered to the same teaching scheme that we have just seen, i.e. the main task consisted of the typically female work with nuances corresponding to the social rank of the pupils. Reading, writing, and sometimes counting, are almost always added. Literary and scientific culture was considered a male domain. Until the second half of the 19th or the beginning of the 20th century, the doors of the university were closed to women.[2552] They therefore did not need the preparation that boys received in primary, middle and secondary school.

2552 Women “were not allowed to receive degrees (from the University) of London until 1878.” At this time “more colleges were founded in Cambridge, Oxford and London, but it was not until the twentieth century that Oxford and Cambridge allowed women to receive degrees” (J. BOWEN, o.c., vol III, p.402). Women continued to be (at the end of the 19th century) the object of total discrimination and the German feeling still prevailed that girls had to be prepared for the three K’s: Kirche, Kinder, Kuche (church, children, kitchen...)”. The first German universities to admit women were Heidelberg and Freiburg, in the state of Baden, in 1901; the Prussian universities did not follow this initiative until 1908” (ibid., p.416). “In the last two decades (of the 19th century) some (U. S. A.) universities gave in and admitted women. Serious university education for women would have to wait until the 20th century” (ibid., p.453-454). It is said that the first woman to enter Spanish university classrooms was Concepción Arenal, but disguised as a man and without obtaining degrees, perhaps in the 1842-45 academic year (cf. M. CAMPO ALANGE, Concepción Arenal, 1820-1893 [ed. Rev. de Occid., Madrid 1973] p.58-64).

So, when we talk about the modern elementary school, we have to distinguish between the historical development of boys’ and girls’ schools. While the boys’ school is considered from the beginning partly as the first cycle of a long career that ends at university, the girls’ school only includes this perspective when women gain access to university classes. Moreover, even after modern states have declared elementary school for girls compulsory and free, like that for boys, it will continue to be anarchic and different from boys’ schools for a long time to come, retaining as its central and characteristic core the teaching of women’s work.

An eloquent example of this diversity is the “Plan and Regulations for Elementary schools of February 16, 1825”, which was issued in Spain when these public schools were neither free nor compulsory:[2553]

2553 When speaking of teachers’ salaries (Title XV), it says, in effect, that where local public funds do not reach, “the parents of the children will pay, to whom (the Town Councils) by whatever means their prudence suggests, will admonish them to send them to school” (L. LUZURIAGA, Documentos para la Historia Escolar de España II [Madrid 1917] p.219-220).

“All the schools of the Kingdom - it states - are divided into four classes, according to whether the teaching is more or less broad. In all the schools of the Kingdom, and even in those of the smallest village, the children are taught Christian doctrine, correct reading and writing, spelling, the four rules of integral numbers counting and rules of denominate numbers at least. In the schools of the first and second class, the instruction will be more comprehensive and complete, both in Christian doctrine and morals, reading, writing and arithmetic, as well as in the rudiments of Castilian grammar and spelling, more precise rules of manners, lessons in callography (sic) and others that will be discussed.”[2554]

2554 Ibid., p.191 and 193.

This defines the minimum and maximum required in primary school. And it is precisely the Pious Schools that are cited as a higher level: “The free schools of Frs. Esculapios (sic), (Piarists), wherever they are established, in so far as their instruction is more comprehensive and complete, will be considered as first class, and this regulation will be observed in them in the purely literary part.”[2555]

2555 Ibid., p.192. Some of the textbooks of the Pious Schools, reading, calligraphy and arithmetic, are indicated as textbooks. “The days of St. Justus and Pastor, St. Cassian and St. Joséf Calasanz in the month of August” are declared holidays (ibid., p.201). There were no vacations in summer, but there were only classes in the morning on the “dog days” of mid-summer. It is interesting and significant what follows: “the Teachers, in agreement with the Board of Inspectors, will choose as patrons either the Immaculate Conception of Mary Most Holy, Patroness of Spain, or the Holy Children Justus and Pastor, or S. Joséf Calasanz, or St. Cassian, fathers of childhood” (ibid., p.225).

For girls, however, the following is prescribed:

“In order that girls may not lack a good education in the fundamentals of the Catholic faith, in the rules of good behavior, in the practice of virtues and in work appropriate to their sex, the boards of directors and town councils shall see to it that there are schools of the first, second, third and fourth grades, in which instruction shall be given according to the possibilities and the respective needs of the towns.

In the first-class schools, in addition to Christian teaching by the specified teachers, i.e. at least the reading of the catechism and daily writing, they are taught the work specific to their sex, namely: knitting, cutting and sewing the usual utility clothing, embroidery and lace-making or other work that is usually taught to girls. Lace is abolished in the second class schools and embroidery in third and fourth class schools. The very precise teaching in writing and counting is given either by the teacher herself or with the help of a teacher or assistant; the more extensive and careful teaching is reserved for the time being for home education and at the discretion of the girls’ parents or guardians.”[2556]

2556 Ibid., p.227-228.

This substantial difference in content between elementary school for boys and that for girls was also reflected - at least in some regions of Spain until the middle of the 20th century - in the usual nomenclature, because while boys “went to school”, girls “went to sewing”. The enormous socio-cultural changes of recent times, related to the equalization of women’s rights, professions and habits with those of men, have also led to a complete equalization of content in school, both in primary and high school and university.

All this leads us to the conclusion that the modern elementary school is the end of a historical process of slow transformation and progressive enrichment of primary schools for boys, together with which the girls’ school followed its own path, until almost today, when both schools are united, with the girls fully adopting the boys’ cultural program. So, it is not gratuitousness that is the defining element of the modern elementary school, neither for boys nor for girls.

The first teaching congregations for women. Mary Ward and Peter Fourier

Everything that has been said above applies fully to the countless women’s Congregations dedicated to the education of girls. And even if the content of their ministry is educational rather than instructional, they were undoubtedly the first to open free schools for poor girls. According to historical data, however, no such free schools for girls were opened in Europe before St. Joseph Calasanz opened his own school for boys at Santa Dorotea in Trastevere, Rome, in the fall of 1597.

In the summer of 1622, the Englishwoman Mary Ward opened the first free elementary school for poor girls in Rome with the verbal approval of the Cardinal Vicar Giovanni Garzia Millini. Curiously, this school was located very close to the church of Montserrat, probably on the corner of the street of the same name and “Via Montoro”, near the Pontifical English College, five minutes from San Pantaleo.

When she asked for a license for this foundation, the Congregation of Bishops and Regulars requested information about the didactic program of the future school. Mary Ward replied with two documents in July 1622 that have survived to this day: in the first she spoke of reading, writing and sewing, in the second she described instruction in general and named the aim of education as “all kinds of work, good behavior and manners suitable for the female sex”.[2557] This English lady had arrived in Rome the year before, to obtain canonical approval for her Institute, which was simply called “of the English Virgins” (“Virgines Anglicanae”), later “English Ladies”, with the claim to be freed from papal enclosure, a difficult obstacle to overcome at the time.

2557 Cf. M. I. WETTER, Maria Ward nella storia della pedagogia agli inizi del sc. XVII, in P. BRAIDO, Esperienze di pedagogia, I, p.506-507.

The first foundation took place in 1611 in Saint-Omer (Flanders) with the aim of accommodating, in a boarding school, English girls from Catholic families who had fled England. Another house was opened for the same purpose in Liège in 1617, where “outsiders”, i.e. girls from the village, were also admitted free of charge shortly afterwards. This new initiative also led to the opening of a popular school in Saint-Omer. From then on, wealthy girls in boarding schools or in the “upper class” and poor girls in the “lower class” were taken in with a variety of educational programs that were much more extensive and sophisticated for the former and simpler for the latter.[2558]

2558 In 1623 she founded in Naples and divided the teaching into primary schools and secondary schools, as she herself wrote to her friends on September 10, 1623: “Girls and young women from the working class are educated in the lower schools in catechism and elementary subjects. Girls from wealthier backgrounds flow into the upper schools to learn foreign languages, music and fine women’s crafts” (ibid., p.510). Among the languages, Latin is included, if the parents wish, “so that each girl can directly understand both the language and the Latin texts.”, reads a document of 1628 (cf. ibid., p.502).

In reality, the experience was too short to draw consequences, for the demand for enclosure was made in addition to other accusations that complicated the matter to such an extent that Urban VIII, in a letter dated January 13, 1631, dissolved the nascent Institute, which had ten houses. However, the one in Rome did not even last three years, as Cardinal Millini ordered its closure in 1625. It was attended by around 120-150 girls.

The proximity between this school and that of St. Pantaleon, the fact that it is almost opposite the church of Montserrat so frequently visited by Calasanz, the fact that it was the first free school for poor girls in Rome, and moreover the painful strokes of fate that affected the life and work of this energetic and venerable woman, lead us to believe that neither she nor her work were unknown to the founder of the Pious Schools and that neither he nor his schools went unnoticed by the English lady. There is no evidence, but it is plausible that they met more than once, especially considering that, despite the difficulties and failure, she maintained hope for a rebirth of her work and remained in Rome intermittently until 1637.[2559]

2559 The interference of the Holy Office in her life and work also makes her similar to Calasanz. Indeed, before the suppression of her institute, she was accused before the Inquisition and locked up for nine weeks in her foundation in Monaco. When she died in 1645 in Hewarth, near York, none of her houses remained open. Her companions managed to keep the idea and its precarious reality alive in fits and starts. In 1703 Clement XI approved the rules of the Institute, but not the Institute itself (?). In 1749 Benedict XIV admitted that they had a Superior General, but forbade Mary Ward to be considered the foundress of the English Ladies, but Pius X, in 1909, recognized her as such. In 1953, the three branches that had been formed from the Institute of the Blessed Virgin, or English Ladies, were united under a single Superior General.” (cf. ibid., p.493-514; Dizionario degli Istítuti di Perfezione, vol. V, col. 129-131; G. PELLICCIA, o.c., p.398-400).

Other institutions founded before Mary Ward, which had problems with enclosure, were more fortunate and had better protectors. One of the first to devote itself explicitly to the education of girls in free popular schools, in addition to boarding schools, was the Congregation of Notre Dame, founded by Alix Le Clerc, under the inspiration and protection of St. Peter Fourier, parish priest of Mattaincourt since June 1597. In this parish of Lorraine lived the pious young Alix, who wanted to consecrate herself to the Lord. As she prayed - as she herself wrote – “the need for a house for young people dedicated to all possible good” came to her mind. At Christmas in 1597, she and four other companions consecrated themselves to God, trusting that the specific purpose would become clear to them. No doubt priest Fourier had instilled in them the idea that “the most urgent need of the moment is the education of girls.” And on the night of January 19-20, 1598, during prayer, the saint was certain that the main purpose of the new house would be “to establish public schools for girls and to educate them free of charge.” The young girls agreed, but the novelty provoked opposition in Mattaincourt, and Alix moved with her companions to the neighboring village of Poussay, where the first free school for girls in Lorraine was opened in July 1598.”[2560]

2560 P. SAGOTT, L’esperienza pedagogica originaria della Congregazione di Nostra Signora, (Canonichesse di S. Agostino), in P. BRAIDO, o.c., vol. I, p.417-478.

A few months earlier, in the fall of 1597, Joseph Calasanz opened his free schools for boys in Santa Dorotea in Trastevere in Rome.

In the same year that Poussay was founded, the first draft of the Constitutions or Règlement provisionnel was written, defining the main objective of the nascent institute, namely: “to establish public schools in which girls should be taught free of charge to read, write and work with the needle, and to promote Christian instruction by trying to teach them catechism according to their and our abilities and to introduce them to piety and devotion.”[2561]

2561 Ibid., p.478.

The first ecclesiastical authorization was granted by Cardinal Charles of Lorraine in 1603, but when he founded the first house in France (Chàlons) in 1614, Fourier began the process of obtaining authorization from Rome, as the Cardinal’s authorization was only valid in Lorraine. As with Mary Ward, the difficulties began because the Roman Curia did not allow congregations of women without strict enclosure; moreover, it went so far as to “declare the teaching incompatible with enclosure and even with religious celibacy.”[2562] However, Fourier received Bulls of approval from Paul V, albeit with the surprise that in the first of 1615 there is no mention of free teaching of “outsiders” and in the second of 1616 it is only granted “temporarily”, as a favor, for the house of Nancy, which became a cloistered monastery in 1617. For this reason, a strict regulation had to be followed for the entry and exit of external students.

2562 So states J. ROGHIE, Histoire du Bienheureux Pierre Fourier (Verdun 1887), T.II, p.328.

The final regulation came with another bull of 1628, by which the “religious of Notre Dame” allied themselves with the Canons Regular of St. Augustine and adopted their rule, taking advantage of the fact that Peter Fourier had been charged with reforming the said Canons in Lorraine. This union or alliance made a better apostolic life possible and spared the final dedication to the school.

Fourier wrote the so-called Minor Constitutions in 1617 and the Major Constitutions in 1640. They state: “The religious of this congregation have consecrated themselves entirely to God… and devote themselves with all diligence to the education of girls, who, although they are still small, already form a not small and not negligible part of the Church of God… For this reason, it is altogether expedient and necessary that they should very soon be properly trained and very carefully instructed in the fear of God and, if possible, in other things which may help them to live and to live honestly…. and that the poor be received and treated in full equality with the rich, and that this be at no expense to anyone, and that with the teaching and pious duties of good Christianity everyone may learn to read and write and be trained in some of the manual trades necessary and suitable for earning a living and being useful in various ways in domestic life.”[2563]

2563 Les Vrayes Constitutions des religieuses de la Congr. de Notre-Dame. (Aosta 1649) p.III, preamble 2. Regarding this Congregation, cf. also Dizionario degli Ist di perf., vol. 6, col. 845.

Calasanz would have loved to read this page, in which there are so many concepts identical to his own: Devotion to instruction the little ones who must soon be educated in the fear of God to live honestly and to learn to read and write for free so that they can earn their bread honestly. All this he had already said and repeated many times, at least twenty, thirty and even forty years before Peter Fourier wrote it. And it is interesting to note that this saintly French Founder knew of the existence of the Pious Schools at least as early as April 1628, for on the first of that month, Father Nicolas Guinet, Canon of St. Augustine, wrote to him from Rome and told him about them.

Peter Fourier had sent him there to try to obtain the approval of Pope Urban VIII. for his teaching institute, and Guinet wrote to him that he did not see it as easy, as the idea had not found much favour and because “it is almost impossible to convince these people [of the Roman Curia], who have no experience, to approve the instruction of small boys and girls in Italy, to such an extent, that the Pious Schools of the Clerics Regular here are liked by few people, and yet (to say it in a word) they are the most religious men we know, and we believe with all confidence that we can give them this testimony, for among all we have yet seen, and even above all, they are characterised by the perfection of the strictest modesty of eyes.”[2564]

2564 EC VI, p.2909-2910. Fr. Guinet did not have very clear ideas, since neither the Pope nor the curia were against the instruction of children, but against the institutes of nuns without strict enclosure and dedicated to teaching. An example of the former was the constant and fervent support they had given to Collegio Romano and the Pious Schools; and of the latter, the recent suppression in 1625 of the girls’ school opened in Rome by Mary Ward and her English Ladies.

The praise of their modesty and piety suggests that the Augustinian Canon knew them well and considered them to be the only ones in Rome who devoted themselves to the gratuitous teaching of young children. Moreover, the fact that he briefly mentions “the Pious Schools of the Clerics Regular” without giving any further explanation of what they are, what they do, what similarity they bear to Peter Fourier’s institution, leads us to believe that he must have given such explanations in other letters and that they were therefore already known to his correspondent, who - like John Baptist de La Salle later on - was probably interested and asked for more detailed reports on this religious Order, which was so similar to the Institute he himself founded. Simple human logic and the prudence and modesty of the saints suggest these reports and their probable ideological influences.

Jeanne de Lestonnac, the Ursulines and Nicolas Barré

At the same time, another female teaching congregation was founded in Bordeaux. The founder was Jeanne de Lestonnac and her institute bore the names “Society of Mary”, “Order of Our Lady”, “Religious of the Education” and the like.[2565] The procedures for the official foundation proceeded exceptionally quickly. On March 6, 1606, Jeanne de Lestonnac and her first companions met with the Archbishop of Bordeaux, Cardinal François de Sourdis, and presented him with the Formula of the Institute or Abrégé and a summary of the Constitutions and Rules of the Jesuits, the first female adaptation made by Jeanne and Father John de Bordes, who, together with Father Francis Raymond, both of the Society, encouraged and collaborated with the foundress.[2566] On March 25, 1606, the Cardinal of Bordeaux approved the Institute and submitted it to Rome for approval, which Paul V granted in a letter on April 7, 1607. On May 1, 1608, the first donning of the habit of the foundress was celebrated with four female collaborators and a year later “the schools were opened to educate the external girls free of charge.”[2567]

2565 P. FOZ y FOZ, Génesis y evolución histórica del sistema pedagógico de la Compañía de María: 1607-1820, offprint of ID, La revolución pedagógica en Nueva España: 1754-1820 (CSIC, Madrid 1981) p.16, n.36.

2566 The profound influence exerted by the Jesuits on the religious-pedagogical ideology and structure of the Society of Mary is attested to by the foundress herself, who said that she wanted “an institute in everything similar to that of the Society of Jesus, as far as sex and enclosure permit” (I. DE AZCÁRATE, El origen de las Órdenes femeninas de Enseñanza y la Compañía de María [San Sebastián 1963] p.69). The influence exercised by the Jesuits in the founding of new congregations of women, particularly those dedicated to teaching, was enormous. In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries alone, there were some sixteen congregations commonly called Jesuitines, among them that of Jeanne de Lestonnac, that of Mary Ward or English Ladies and three branches of Ursulines. Even without calling themselves Jesuitines, fifteen others were inspired by the Constitutions of the Society of Jesus in the 19th-20th centuries (cf. J. BEYER, Der Einflus der Konstitutionen der Gesellschaft Jesu auf das moderne Ordensleben: Geist und Leben, 29 [1956] 440-454; 30 [1957] 47-59).

2567 I. DE AZCÁRATE, Compagnia di Maria Nostra Signora, in Dizionario degli Istituti di Perfezione, vol.II, col.1346:1349. Cf. P. FOZ and FOZ, o.c., p.18, n.58.

In the Formula of the Institute or Abrégé, which was submitted to Cardinal de Sourdis and then to the Holy See, the Foundress expressly proposed: “the vows of poverty, chastity, obedience and enclosure, to which they add the special vow to instruct the girls in virtue, piety and Christian doctrine” or to provide for their instruction.”[2568] The papal authorization, however, reduced these five vows to the traditional three vows of poverty, chastity and obedience and considered the enclosure and instruction as a simple matter of the Constitutions. As can be seen, the particular and even exclusive nuance of “instruction” refers to Christian education as it was originally understood in the Jesuit Formula of profession from which it is taken.[2569] In the aforementioned Abrégé of 1606, however, the Foundress spoke of teaching the girls “to read and write, sew, work, count and calculate properly”, but the Roman authorization reduced the formula of instruction to the simple elementary teaching of reading and writing.[2570]

2568 Cited in F. SOURY-LAVERGNE, La pedagogia di Jeanne de Lestonnac: P. BRAIDO, Esperienze di pedagogia, vol.I, p.442.

2569 “perpetuam paupertatem, castitatem et obedieritiam, et secundum eam peculiarem curam circa puerorum eruditionem, juxta formam vivendi in Litteris Apostolicis Societatis Jesu et in ejus Constitutionibus contentam” (Const. S. J., IV, c.III, 3). The Const. of the Society did not consider this apostille as a fourth vow, but as part of the general ministry, as they clarify in the following line: “The promise to teach children and rude persons, according to the Apostolic Letters and Const. does not oblige any more than the other spiritual exercises that help the neighbor, such as confessions and preaching. (ibid.). On the other hand, “erudition” refers to “catechetical instruction” and not profane, as expressly appears in the formula of profession used by St. Ignatius: “Rursus promitto me curaturum ut pueri erudiantur in rudimentis fidei juxta eandem bullam et Constitutiones” (cit. C. VILÁ, Fuentes inmediatas, p.206, n.140).

2570 The corrected formulas read: “primis legendi, scribendique rudimentis tradendis”, “tradent prima legendi et scribendi principia” (cf. FOZ Y FOZ, o.c., p.26-27).

Joseph Calasanz also included the explicit reference to instruction in the professed formula of his Constitutions, which he copied almost verbatim from the Jesuit Formula, and it was officially regarded as an expression of the fourth vow.[2571] But it went beyond the transmission of Christian doctrine, because, referring to the Constitutions, it defined the institutional framework, which is clearly expressed in No. 5, where it says: “It will therefore be the task of our Institute to educate boys in the fundamentals of reading, writing, arithmetic, the Latin language and, above all, piety and Christian doctrine, using the most effective and simple methods.”[2572] This made the Pious Schools the first congregation to be obliged by a fourth vow to impart both religious and secular education, starting with primary education.

2571 The formula reads: “paupertatem, castitatem et obedientiarn, et juxta eam peculiarem curam circa puerorum eruditionem secundum formam Brevis Pauli V in his Constitutionibus contentam” (CC, n.31). And the Founder himself clarified: “Concerning the phrase et juxta eam peculiarem curam circa puerorum eruditionem, it is declared that it is an essential vow, so that one who refuses to teach when ordered to do so by those in authority cannot be excused from mortal sin” (Declaraciones sobre nuestras Constituciones: AnCal 50 [1983] 574, n.15). Cf. also c.2110; SANTHA, SJC, p.110-111; Declaraciones y Decretos del Cap. Gen. Especial (1967-1969), n.44, 50, 54, 101, 102, 118, 119, 245-248, 356, 481, 542, 543, 757.

2572 CC, n.5.

Father Foz y Foz writes: “Jeanne de Lestonnac never claimed that she wanted to found “schools for the poor”, but free schools “for girls of all ages and situations.”[2573] In fact, once she had resolved the difficulties posed by the simple dedication to teaching for the nuns of the convent, she accepted middle-class girls in closed boarding schools and in “external” schools to those of the town, in any condition. But as far as the teaching program was concerned, they did not go beyond the elementary school level, as was the case in all girls’ schools of the time, in addition to the “work” adapted to the different social classes.[2574] The “graded classes” in the Jesuit schools or in the Pious Schools also bear little resemblance to those of the Society of Mary, which included “two classes and at most four, but generally three”, i.e. “the classes of reading, writing, sewing and housework.”[2575]

2573 P. FOZ Y FOZ, o.c., p.38.

2574 “It is difficult to imagine that, apart from religious formation, all instruction is reduced to reading and writing (ibid., p.33). But it is inadmissible to suppose an “adaptation of the Ratio Studiorum of the Jesuits to the education of women” and still less to attribute to Jeanne de Lestonnac, as Daniel Rops does, “the inauguration of women’s colleges, which would be for young girls the counterparts of those that the Jesuits opened for boys” (ibid., p.36). For such homologation we have to wait practically until the twentieth century. And if the cultural level did not go beyond elementary school, there could hardly be an “accommodation” of the Ratio, since the Jesuits did not have “inferior schools.”

2575 Ibid., p. 32.

Among the religious dedicated to the education of girls, there is perhaps no group that surpasses the Ursulines in historical fame. But the fact that the Society of the Virgins of St. Ursula was founded in 1535 through the work of St. Angela de Merici might lead one to believe that it is the first educational institution of the Church or of modern Congregations. The Ursuline movement, even more than the Order, was very unique and complicated. It did not originate as a congregation of nuns or religious, but simply as a society of charity with lay people living in their homes or meeting in centers of common life. And their aims are varied: to help the sick, to support women with bad habits, to convert sinners, to teach catechism to children and adults, etc. They are centers of irradiation of Christian life, and for this reason they are called in many parishes, which spread especially in the north of Italy and in France at the beginning.

Little by little they are characterized by their fact that they are dedicated to parish catechesis, which they transform into schools; but “the schools of Christian doctrine were not schools in the true sense of the word; they were catechism classes held on Sundays and feast days in the parishes after the religious celebration. But to make it easier for the children to use the catechism handbook and read a pious book, they were taught to read.”[2576]

2576 T. LEDOCHOWSKA; Orsoline: Dizionario Ist. Perf., vol. 6, col 849. Exactly the same thing happened with the “schools” that the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine had in Rome, of which Joseph Calasanz was Visitor many times, being a confrere. For example, on August 13, 1600 - the Minutes say - “the Sirs Gioseppe Calesans et Francesco Viglioslado were deputies for extraordinary visitors of the schools of the girls” (cf. G. SANTHA, De S. Fund. N. in Confratern. Doc. Christ, p.158, n.15, etc.). This Roman Confraternity came from northern Italy, where the Society of the Ursulines was born at the same time (cf. A. GARCÍA-DURÁN, o.c., p.79, n.443, and p.87, n.465).

The Ursuline houses were gradually transformed into monasteries, and the Ursulines became nuns with solemn vows and enclosure, overcoming the canonical difficulties to maintain their educational ministry despite the enclosure. The first papal Bull on the monastic transformation dates back to 1612 and refers to the House of Paris, founded in 1604. “The Merician apostolate, which was necessarily limited compared to what had been done before, became more specialized after the transformation and the monasteries became true houses of learning” and “the old Society became a religious Order” that adopted the Rule of Saint Augustine along with its own Constitutions.[2577] Within twenty years, all the Ursuline houses in France were centered around a monastery, forming eight autonomous congregations from 1604 (Paris) to 1623 (Avignon), and each house was “transformed” into monasteries” from 1612 (Paris) to 1637 (Avignon).[2578]

2577 T. LEDOCHOWSKA, o.c., col. 847.

2578 Ib., col. 848.

In the Ursuline monasteries, boarding schools were opened for wealthy girls from noble families and the nobility, and at the same time there were free schools for the poor of the surrounding area, with absolute differentiation of premises, classrooms and even educational programs. “The programs are not at all like those of our modern schools.” In fact, the free schools “are mainly concerned with religious and moral education and with manual work suitable for providing these girls with employment and an income. The teaching of reading and - in some schools - writing, is only intended as a function of catechism lessons or as a means of attraction.” Boarding school girls are also “taught “calligraphy, spelling and letter writing; in mathematics, only what is essential for future housewives to keep their accounts in order. They are also taught housework and fine arts, such as music, painting, dancing, manners, etc. In a word, “compared to our schools today, the education of girls in the convents and monasteries of the Ursulines is but elementary.”[2579]

2579 Ibid., col. 849-850. See also P. BRAIDO, Contributi educativi e pedagogici originari delle Orsoline, in ID., Esperienze di pedagogia cristiana, vol. I., p.195-267. In the Breve of 1616 for the transformation of the house of Toulouse, quoted by Braido, we read: “ad puellas et virgines dictae civitatis cum in doctrinae christianae et aliis pie vivendi praeceptis bonisque moribus, tum etiam manualibus femineum sexum decentibus exercitibus erudiendas et formandas…” “Deinde vero ut ad hanc institutionem alliciantur et ab haereticis impurisque scholis abducantur easdem virgines et puellas primis legendi scribendique documentis, deinde variis acu laborandi formis, omnibus demum artibus honestis quae ingenuam virginem decent, instruantur” (ib. , p.221 and 224).

One last name is Father Nicolas Barré (1621-1686), another contemporary of St. Joseph Calasanz, venerable initiator, inspirer or collaborator of Congregations of men and women for the education of boys and girls. He inspired and supported St. John Baptist de La Salle in the founding of Christian schools and founded, among others, the Congregation of the Sisters of the Child Jesus, which grew out of the Schools of charity movement initiated by Barré himself in 1660. These were popular free schools for girls. But at this point in the 17th century, after the institutions we have just mentioned in France itself, it is quite astonishing to read that the work of Father Barré “is to be emphasized even from a strictly scholastic point of view, because he was the first, or at least one of the first, to promote popular education and to impose very specific characteristics on his schools”, including the gratuitousness of education”[2580]

2580 Cf. Y. POULET, Scuola: Dizion. Ist. di Perf., vol. VIII, col. 1165.

The pre-eminence of the modern free elementary school can be wrongly attributed to Father Barré and other founders, but it is not necessary, since history can consider them all rightly as exemplary promoters of free elementary education for all children of the people. And that is fame enough. What seems certain, however, is that this primacy historically belongs to Joseph Calasanz, at least within the Catholic Church.

Luther and the popular elementary school in Germany

It is not without a certain intellectual shock that one can read paragraphs such as the following:

“To attribute the foundation of the modern elementary school to St. Joseph Calasanz and its consolidation and spread to Pious Schools seems to us the conclusion of a not very rigorous and scientific historical analysis. If we understand by the modern elementary school that institution responsible for providing universal, free and compulsory primary education, which tends to become a public service based on respect for civil law, it seems obvious that the “most decisive step on this path was taken in the 17th century (“sic”) by the Protestant reformers and especially by Luther, when he entrusted this responsibility to the civil power. The assumption of responsibility for the provision of education by the state in the 19th century would be the culmination of this process.”

The shock is partly due to the fact that the same author writes a few paragraphs above the quoted text:

“We must attribute to St. Joseph Calasanz the foundation of the first Catholic school for the education of poor children in Trastevere, Rome, in 1600, and to the Calasanctians the meritorious work of founding and maintaining a large number of centers for elementary and free education in Italy, Spain, and other European countries. The large number of schools created, the effort to give them a modern organization, their free and decidedly social character make him worthy of historical recognition as the founder of Catholic elementary education for the poor.”[2581]

2581 F. BELMONTE ROMERO, Reflexiones en el dia del maestro Comunidad escolar (December 1-7, 1986) 3.

Six of one, and half the dozen of the other. When comparing the two paragraphs, it is not easy to clarify the exact concept of the modern popular elementary school, nor to whom the initiative to have conceived it belongs: Luther or Calasanz. And by “conceived” we mean both the right idea, with all its essential elements, and above all its practical implementation. First of all, it does not seem to matter whether the term “catholic” given to the school of Calasanz is correct as opposite to universal, because Luther’s was of course Protestant and was explicitly at the service of the Reformation. The dedication to the poor, which is insisted upon, cannot be seen as contrary to universality, for it is known that Calasanz founded his schools for the poor who could not pay for them, but later left them open to all, continuing his preference for the poor. Nor can it be essential to consider only the school that depends on the civil power as public, because then it would be a tautology: the State public school can only be the one that depends on the State. The public and universal school seems to be the one that is open to all, without conditions. The compulsory character, if understood as legally obligatory, can only be imposed by the public authority and subject to sanctions. But it can also be understood in the way Calasanz has already understood it, namely as follows: for children to make proper use of school, they must go every day, and parents are responsible for this punctual attendance and must compel their children to go.[2582]

2582 “As for the schools, - Calasanz writes - if the students do not show interest in learning and are absent many times in school, Y. R. ask some student who attends school to write down in a booklet each day who is absent in the morning and in the afternoon, so that at the end of the month you can show his parents that if the students do not profit, it is not the fault of the teacher, but of the students who do not attend class” (C. 4147). He also called for recourse to civil authority to force children to go to school: “As for the boys who are idle, make it possible for them to go to work or to school, or else go to the bailiff to impose his authority” (C.471). Other texts on compulsory, in SÁNTHA, SJC, p.71,372-374, 598-599.

It seems that the author sees gratuity and obligatory nature as central, as both can be imposed by the State. And this is exactly what Luther and the Reformation would have done by entrusting both to State authority: “In the countries where the Reformation has triumphed, the aim is to establish a public school according to Lutheran guidelines, which is free and compulsory and dependent on state authority. It is Germany, the cradle of the Lutheran Reformation, where these centers were created and where legislation for the first time emphasized these features of free and compulsory elementary education.”[2583] And the ordinances of the Duchy of Weimar from 1619, the Duchy of Gotha from 1642, Brunswick from 1651, Hesse from 1656 and Magdeburg from 1658 are cited as proof. The first three speak of compulsory schooling and the last two of school organization. The five documents date from times after the establishment of the Pious Schools. None of them mention free education, and compulsory schooling would not come into force until the 20th century.

2583 F. BELMONTE ROMERO, l.c.

The historical reality is that compulsory public primary education in Prussia did not become completely free until 1888.[2584] And Prussia at that time was not simply the historical duchy of Luther’s time, but the German Empire of Bismark, which encompassed the whole of Germany. Until then, it had all been just words, ideas, intentions, attempts, but few realities. And it is worthwhile synthesizing all that historical past to see to what extent they were the true precursors of the modern elementary popular school.

2584 Cf. J. BOWEN, o.c., vol. III, p.411.

It is important to emphasize from the outset that the purpose of the schools and subsequent teaching proposed by Luther and his followers has nothing to do with the purpose of the modern elementary school, and in this it also differs radically from the mentality of Calasanz. Luther’s elementary school corresponds more to the supplementary schools that the confraternities or men’s and women’s institutions dedicated to catechization had: They taught reading to learn the catechism and to read other pious texts; they also taught writing and arithmetic as an incentive for children to attend catechism. Bowen writes: “It is important to note that neither here - in some sermons in 1540 - nor elsewhere does Luther concede any real autonomy to the educational process; it is always associated with an instrumental role in the preservation of religion and the Reformed Church. Two years later, in a 1542 lecture entitled Scholae, he wrote that “when the schools flourish, things go well and the church is safe… God has preserved the Church through the schools.” Clearly, in some extent, this puts limits to his concept of education, as it never leaves its exclusively instrumental role.[2585]

2585 Ibid., vol. II, p.506-507. Similar reservations must be made about the schools that were born in the century before Luther, in the sphere of the Hussite movement in Bohemia and Moravia, whether they were Taborites, Adamites or Moravian Brethren. They taught reading with the express purpose of being able to read the Bible; their forced marginalization as heretics forced them to create such schools only for themselves; it does not seem, therefore, that they were any different, in terms of gratuity, from what the schools of the time, continuators of the medieval ones, generally were (cf. ibid., p.377-383). It is true that Comenius (1592-1670) belonged to this movement, but the first of his pedagogical texts dates from 1631.

When one thinks of the basic Lutheran principle of “free examination” of the Holy Scriptures, the purpose of the school as a necessary instrument to enable everyone to read the Bible for themselves no longer seems so strange. And this idea would prevail in later centuries as an incentive for the opening of elementary schools in Reformed environments. Luther goes even further, however, and considers the elementary school to be the indispensable means of preparing new “preachers” or “ministers of worship”. “The Reformer understood very well - writes Villoslada - that his reformatory work, however great and resounding its outward triumphs, might not be sustained in the long run unless a youth was educated and raised in his Protestant congregations who could worthily replace the previous pastors and preachers. He could not do what Trent later did for the Catholics: create clerical seminaries; but he created or promoted the founding of schools.”[2586]

2586 R. GARCÍA-VILLOSLADA, Martín Lutero (BAC, Madrid 1973) II, p.131.

In one of his “pedagogical” writings, Luther himself “even cited statistics to back up his assertions: Without a more comprehensive school plan, the Reformed Church will be in great danger, as there are 1,800 congregations in Saxony alone, thus requiring 3,600 clergymen, at a rate of two per congregation, as is customary. As there are currently (1530) only 4,000 boys in the whole of Germany who go to school regularly, a great shortage of pastors is to be expected, especially as the schools and universities are “so empty here and there that the sight they present is pitiful” due to the disorder of the time”.[2587]

2587 J. BOWEN, o.c., II, p.502.

The complaints about the schools being empty are true, and it must be acknowledged that Luther was very concerned about the schooling of children. But it should also be remembered that it was Luther’s own followers who were responsible for the schools being deserted and parents not caring enough to send their children to school. They first caused the vacuum and then tried to fill it again. Therefore, “it is completely false that popular schooling began in any way after Luther’s rebellion. On the contrary, the religious revolution had a damaging influence for a long time and in many places, both on elementary schools and on higher educational institutions.”[2588]

2588 J. JANSSEN, La cultura alemana antes y después de Lutero (Barcelona 1925) vol. II, p.20.

The educational panorama in Germany when Luther began his Reformation is certainly a medieval legacy, but it stands above the general situation in Europe. Nevertheless, we cannot help but notice that in this movement of culturalization, the poor are practically marginalized, especially because all schools, from university to “popular” elementary schools, are fee-paying. There is no such thing as a free elementary school. Here is what the specialists actually write:

“There is little information about German elementary schools in the Middle Ages, but it is clear that they were generally established in cathedrals and some parishes in accordance with regulations emanating from the Church. In virtually all German schools of the Middle Ages, teachers were necessarily clerics, although lay teachers also appeared towards the end of the 15th century, probably because of the growing demand for elementary schools that could teach reading, writing and arithmetic. It has even been claimed – based in the amount of books transactions - that by the year 1500 all inhabitants of the towns, with the exception of the lower classes, could read and write. Despite the sparse documentation, it is clear that Germany at the beginning of the 16th century was far ahead of the bourgeois classes in terms of education, both in terms of learning the vernacular and Latin grammar; and it is also clear that the country already had the basic elements of an educational system. Nevertheless, it should be noted that the peasant classes did not enjoy the above-mentioned facilities. In rural Germany the working classes had no opportunity of attending school at all...”[2589]

2589 J. BOWEN, o.c., II, p.391-395.

Perhaps Bowen generalizes too much in the last sentence we quoted, for there is no lack of evidence of elementary schools in rural areas. What is certain, however, is that even in these documented cases, the schools were not free but fee-paying.

“As far as payment was concerned - says Janssen - the teachers had to come to a direct agreement with each individual parent. In the Middle Rhine region, there were whole areas where there was a two-hour school in every district until 1500; even rural villages with 500 or 600 inhabitants did not lack a school. In some places, even the girls’ schools were well attended. The teacher in the village of Weese in the county of Kleve received the following salary: 4 escudos from the municipality, 3 bushels of rye, 2 bushels of wheat, 2 bushels of oats and 60 bundles of straw; he also had a free house with an orchard, half an acre for vegetables and one and a half acres as pasture for his animals. Each schoolboy had to pay him 5 sous in winter and 3 sous in summer, a measure of grain and a wagonload of firewood if he had his own wagon. In Goch, the head teacher received a house, taxes and various gifts from the children from 1450… In Entville in the Rheingau, the teacher received 24 escudos a year and 3 ‘albo’ from each child...; the teacher in Seligenstadt am Main had freely the cost of wine and 2 bushels of wheat, and the children’s fees free as a salary.”[2590]

2590 J. JANSSEN, o.c., I, p.30-32.

In the towns, teachers’ salaries were logically different, but they also consisted of fixed allowances from the municipality and contributions agreed with the parents, “with the exception of the lower classes” - according to Bowen - who, because they could not pay, remained illiterate. However, there were some exceptions, as it seems that some free places were reserved, as is known from the city of Nuremberg, which “in 1485 had four schools, each run by a teacher and three assistants, covering all together 245 paying students and an unspecified number of free places.”[2591] It was a system identical to the one Calasanz found in Rome at the end of the 16th century: municipal schools in which children had to pay and in which some places were free.

2591 J. BOWEN, o.c., III, p.39.

Luther’s three programmatic documents

The general situation in Germany was therefore not deplorable and perhaps even better than in the rest of Europe. Luther’s Reformation, which was misunderstood by the common people and misrepresented by fanatics and enlightened preachers, had led, among other things, to the desolation of the schools. Luther felt compelled to raise his voice and exhort everyone - authorities, preachers, parents - to maintain and increase the number of schools, provide teachers and force children to attend school. Three of his writings on this subject are famous: the first, from 1524, is entitled To the princes of all the cities of Germany, to establish and maintain Christian schools; the second is a document called Articles of Visitation, from 1528, which is due to Melanchthon and Luther; the third is an exhortation by Luther from 1530, similar to the first, in the form of a sermon: To keep the children in school.

Undoubtedly, these are three historical documents that highlight Luther as one of the great promoters of schools, especially elementary schools in Germany.[2592] But if we want to be objective, we cannot ignore the fact that he tried to restore what he and his followers had destroyed with their invectives against everything that was the heritage of the Roman Church[2593]; that the elementary school he promoted was in fact the same as before in terms of subsidies for teachers and remuneration for pupils, and was therefore not free; that he tried to make it compulsory, “but at that time it was not possible to make it compulsory, so Luther was forced to resort to exhortations”[2594]; that his appeal to the civil authorities was not aimed at creating a state school, but was the logical consequence of the fact that he had placed the church itself in the hands of the state as the last and most important responsible party; that despite his efforts and the orders given by the princes, the free popular elementary school as a Lutheran creation is nowhere to be seen as established.

2592 Not without exaggeration writes Bowen: “[Luther’s] humanitarian interest in children and their education, which was now beginning to dawn, would in time become considered as one of the most relevant German contributions to Western education” (J. BOWEN, o.c., II, p.395).

2593 “Luther was not unaware that he had to overcome the general bourgeois distrust of all knowledge from books and study in general, which Protestant Germany easily identified with its Catholic history” (ibid., p.499).

2594 Ibid., p.501.

Here are some of Luther’s paragraphs from the 1524 document to the aldermen:

“We see today in the German lands how the schools are being ruined. The universities have been gutted, the monasteries are declining and no one sends their children to study because they say: “What are they to learn if they are not to become priests, monks or religious?” Dear Sirs, if we spend so much money on weapons, roads, bridges, dams and countless other things to keep the peace and homes of a city, why do not we spend as much or more on the poor youth so that every boy can have a qualified teacher or two? Every citizen should be moved to do so. Hitherto we have wasted so many goods and moneys on indulgences, masses, vigils, endowments, wills, anniversaries of the dead, mendicants friars, confraternities, pilgrimages, and the like, and now that by the grace of God we are freed from such robberies and levies, will we not wish to thank God by giving a part for schools in which the poor children are taught?”[2595]

2595 Cf. R. GARCÍA-VILLOSLADA, o.c., II, p.131-132.

In short: the state should spend part of its budget on education, but the citizens should also contribute their share, as had been customary until then. It should be noted, however, that both this and the other exhortations refer to school in general and not specifically to elementary school. It is about the entire intellectual training of boys before they enter universities.

This entire period of study was reorganized in the Articles of the visitation of 1528 and divided into three stages or classes: “one for beginners, the second for students of grammar and the third for those who had successfully completed the previous stage. The beginners, of course, formed the elementary or primary school, described by Bowen as follows: “The children who began in the first stage first used a manual in which they learned the alphabet, the Creed, and the Lord’s Prayer; as soon as they had memorized these things, they turned to the primers of Cato or Donato, which served as an introduction to the Latin language, and then they learned to read and write normally in that language, as well as to count. The conscientious study of the Latin language was in fact to form the core of the entire school education. In the introduction to the part specifically devoted to schools, Von Schulen, it is explicitly stated that “the teachers [of this first stage] should be careful to teach the children only in Latin, not in German, Greek or Hebrew” and this idea is repeated at the end: “The pupils are required to speak Latin. The teacher himself will speak only Latin to his pupils as soon as possible, so that they become accustomed to it and are encouraged to practice it.”[2596]

2596 Cf. J. BOWEN, o.c., II, p.497.

One wonders whether this idea of a Latin-dominated elementary school has anything to do with the modern popular elementary school, of which some say Luther was the initiator. However, when one thinks of Calasanz’s “graduation” of the first five grades of elementary school, in which reading, writing, arithmetic and Christian doctrine are taught, leaving Latin in the 5th grade for those who intend to study further, one can only conclude that this was the core content of the modern popular elementary school, to which was added the note of gratuity that Luther’s schools lacked.

In the third writing on education - Sermon on the obligation to bring the Children to School, 1530 - he repeats and reaffirms the same ideas as in the first writing. Note especially the contrast between the present situation and the previous one, implicitly recognizing that the Reformation has led to the abandonment of schools; that the purpose of education revolves around knowledge of the Scriptures; that the common people no longer want to pay for the education of their children and are taking them out of the schools; and that attempts are being made to persuade them to send their children to school and continue to pay, that civil authority has the responsibility to establish and maintain schools, and the duty to compel their subjects to keep their children in school by requiring them to pay for it…:

“It is one of the greatest evils of the accursed Satan to have thus confused and deceived vulgar people, who will not take their children to school nor have them taught, and to inspire them with these evil thoughts. Since there is no longer any hope of monasteries, nunneries and curates, as was formerly the case, we have no need of learned men, nor of great studies, but we must endeavor to earn our living and wealth. But if the Scriptures and the Arts perish, what will be left in Germany but a rude and savage rabble of Tartars or Turks, and perhaps even a pigsty and a herd of beasts? Dear friends! as I see vulgar people neglecting the support of the schools, and taking their children out of education altogether, and devoting themselves only to the care of subsistence and the belly…. I have proposed to address this exhortation to you, in case there are still some people who believe a little in a God in heaven and a hell for the unbelievers, and will be converted by this exhortation. When we were involved in the errors of the papacy, all the purses were open and there was no measure of giving to churches and schools; then it was possible to crowd and force the young people into monasteries, collegiate churches, churches and schools at intolerable expense; but now, when schools and good churches should really be founded, and not even to found them, but just to maintain the buildings, all the purses are empty with iron chains; no one wants to give and, above all, you take the children out and do not let them go to the schools...”[2597]

2597 Cf. J. JANSSEN, o.c., II, p.15.

Neither the first exhortation of 1524 nor that of 1530 was enough to convince people in town and country, whether burghers or commoners (vulgar people), to take the problem of schools seriously. It was precisely this Lutheran awareness of the reluctance of private individuals to take action that led him to state that the only effective means of achieving this was the imposition of taxes: just as taxes are levied to build bridges, roads and other structures necessary for the public good, so too should education, and therefore “it is the duty of the secular authorities to oblige their subjects to keep their children in school, especially those who show the most promise”.[2598]

2598 Cf. J. BOWEN, o.c., II, p.500-501.

This repeated appeal to public authority does not indicate an intention - ahead of its time - to create state schools and thus place the entire problem of education in the hands of the State. For Luther, schools remained the responsibility of the church, just like parishes and preaching. The Articles of the visitation deal equally with parishes and schools. In any case, the responsibility of the princes with regard to schools and parishes is identical as far as their establishment, maintenance and control are concerned. But what seems to interest him most is the economic question, the endowment of both, and as far as the schools are concerned, he relies not only on the State endowment but also on the payments made by the pupils. This obsession with “economic sustenance” suggests to us, perhaps subtly, that Luther’s concept of the compulsory nature of elementary schools does not refer directly to the children, who must be urged to attend day after day and year after year, but rather to the parents, who are reluctant to send their children to avoid paying. Parents must be forced to maintain the schools, even by imposing this obligation on them as one of their contributions. This would lead us to the conclusion that the compulsory character of the school that Luther advocated is not really the compulsory character of the modern elementary school, nor is it that advocated by Calasanz, where the obsession with parental retribution has no place at all because his schools are free. Had Luther proposed full gratuitousness, he would undoubtedly have had to change the sign of all his problems with the school without having to insist on its compulsory character. But he was far from proposing this.

Here is what Luther wrote to Prince John, Elector of Saxony, on November 22, 1526:

“Almost everywhere complaints come to us from the pastors. The peasants do not want to give anything, and this ungratefulness of the people for the Word of God is so great that we are undoubtedly threatened with a great punishment from the Lord. If I could do it with a clear conscience, I would see to it that they lack pastors and preachers and live like swine. But as it is the duty of us all, especially of the authorities, to take care first of all of the poor youth, and to educate them as they grow up in the fear of God and in good morals, we ought to have schools, preachers and pastors. Now that in your States the papal laws and ecclesiastical institutions have disappeared, and all monasteries and foundations have passed into your hands as supreme head, the duties and obligations of ordering these things have also passed to you collectively, a task which no one but you can or should undertake, therefore, having spoken with your Chancellor, Sir Nikolaus von Ende, I believe it necessary that Your Electoral Grace, who has been appointed by God to such an office, urgently order and command that four persons be commissioned to tour the country: two experts in matters of censuses and goods and two in matters of doctrines and people to establish schools and parishes on behalf of Your Electoral Grace and to see to their upkeep. Where towns or villages have the opportunity to do so, Your Electoral Grace has the power to compel them to maintain schools, pulpits and parishes.”[2599]

2599 Cf. R. GARCÍA-VILLOSLADA, o.c., II, p.275-276.

Given this brief analysis of Luther’s popular elementary school, it does not seem wrong to conclude that this school is far from resembling the modern school, especially because of the following characteristics: It was not a free school; it had a different purpose; it was not clearly differentiated from the middle school; it had a different programmatic content; it revolved entirely around Latin as the central axis; the concept of obligation was also different. All these characteristics must be discarded over time in order to arrive at the modern elementary school, whose essential characteristic is undoubtedly that it is completely free for all. And it will not be necessary to recall once again the features of the Calasanz school in order to recognize its primacy over the supposed merits of Martin Luther, apart from the gratuity for all.

The elementary school of the Reformation

Let us first listen to the statements of Luther’s contemporaries, who lament the deplorable state in which the schools found themselves due to the indiscriminate attacks against everything reminiscent of the Roman papacy and the fanatical preachers who went beyond Luther’s words and intentions:

“Many of the preachers of the new doctrine - writes Janssen - were to be held directly responsible for the ruin of the schools. They declared war on all scientific endeavors and exhorted the youth from their pulpits to give up their studies. Melanchthon demanded that the tongues of such preachers be cut out. There were very few schools, reported Anton Musa, one of the Electorate of Saxony’s visitors, in 1539. Not only there was a lack of teachers, but the greatest fault lies with the common people who wanted to train their children for a job rather than for school. Ignorant preachers have taught the people that the Latin language and the other classics, together with the liberal arts, are useless… “We do not like to hear - writes Margrave George of Ansbach in 1531 - that the people have so little desire for school; but we also hold certain preachers responsible for this, who have so often preached against schools and said that it is better to devote children to the mechanical arts…” Enoch Widmann says in his chronicle of the city of Hof: “Around the year 1525, the schools began to decay, so that hardly anyone wanted to send their children there or let them study, because they had learned from Luther’s writings that the priests and scholars had misled the people…” And Johannes Brenz, 1526: “Hitherto, many children have been sent to school, but since everything relating to the clergy has received a blow, everyone is withdrawing their children at home…” The three superintendents of Ansbach in 1531 said: “It is no longer ensured that the children learn properly, because it is believed that priests, doctors, teachers, bachelors and scholars are no longer needed in the ecclesiastical and secular government, because the papist monks are no longer needed, nor are the priests of the Mass. But this will result in a state of affairs so disorganized that in time there will be neither preachers nor lawyers unless measures are taken…” Wigand Lauze, chronicler of Hesse, wrote in 1527: “The youth has been so seduced that only a few study, and instead, devote themselves to manual labor. Thus, studies have declined and died out everywhere in the cities and in the countryside, and no one wants to send their children to school any more, and even the most necessary and profitable arts, together with the liberal arts, have become the object of great hatred and contempt for the common people.” The ordinances of the Protestant Church of Minden from 1530 also deplore the cursed vice that there is no longer anyone to teach their children anything. Oecolampadius (Johannes Heussgen) from Basel said in 1529: “Almost all schools have become despicable, and in those where there used to be many children, you hardly see any left, like in the time of an epidemic, and so the good and useful things have been despised along with the useless.” The Swiss Conrad Clauser wrote in 1554: “If the schools and academies, which have been so regrettably and inhumanely torn apart, wasted and destroyed, were re-established, then the ecclesiastical offices would also attain their natural dignity.”[2600]

2600 Cf. J. JANSSEN, o.c., II, p.16-18.

In view of this general clamor, it is explained that Luther launched his two famous proclamations in favor of the schools, with which he only repaired or tried to repair what other proclamations of his had provoked. And considering that his first exhortation to the rulers of the cities throughout Germany dates from 1524, it must be concluded that they did not pay much attention to it, for the testimonies quoted date from 1526 to 1554, followed by many others.

There is no lack of assertions that the purpose of schools was to be able to read and understand the Holy Scriptures, and that it was the duty of parents to send their children there and to pay the teachers appropriately; both ideas repeated several times by Luther. Read what the Bavarian historian Aventinus (Johan Georg Turmair) wrote about “those who call themselves Evangelical”: “They insist day and night on the German Bible and the Holy Scriptures, they imagine that they understand everything, they have no need of the Latin, Greek and Hebrew languages[2601]… they let the schools go to rack and ruin and do not make their children learn these languages and other arts which are necessary for a good understanding of the Holy Scriptures. The punishment for this will not fail to come, they will be wholly obsessed with the Scriptures if they do not change their way of thinking and let their children study, and if they do not remunerate the pious and learned persons who teach children and run schools.”[2602] in 1527, Adolph Clarenbach wrote to the Council of Lennep: “The devil observes and knows very well that the Holy Scriptures cannot be understood without knowledge of Latin, Greek and Hebrew, and for this reason he seeks to destroy the schools among the Christians, which he valued highly when they were useful and fruitful for him, in order to rule his world through his papists and keep them in his chains.”[2603]

2601 Luther proclaimed the necessity of these three languages in children’s schools, given their relation to the Bible: “He clearly anticipated the growing opposition of many to the study of Latin, Greek and Hebrew in schools for purely profane educational purposes. While recognizing that Greek and Hebrew belong to the highest level of culture, Luther maintains that they are nevertheless necessary, because God, in his inscrutable designs, has made these languages the vehicle of his truth. Children also need to know the useful arts, which according to him are the three biblical languages with German, history, singing, instrumental music and mathematics” (J. BOWEN, o.c., II, p.492-493).

2602 Cf. J. JANSSEN, o.c., II, p.17.

2603 Ibid., p.18.

The fact that the general complaints and laments were well-founded is proven by the specific numbers of Visitators for whom the famous Articles of Visitation were written in 1528. In that year, those who visited the district of Wittenberg - where Luther lived - found that there were only 24 schools in 145 urban and rural parishes with hundreds of branches; in Thuringia there were only 9 schools in 187 parishes; in Meissen and Voigtland there was only one school in 87 parishes and 238 associated places. As late as 1573, the visitators declared: “Among all the public evils that currently threaten the church and society with decadence and ruin, which are impossible to ignore, not the least is that in the cities the elementary schools are generally ruined.”[2604]

2604 Ibid., p.21.

Undoubtedly, there were territorial lords who issued orders to re-establish the abandoned schools in their dominions, but they did not go beyond that, and their decrees remained a dead letter. For example, in 1525, Counts Philip the Elder and Philip the Younger of Waldeck decreed “that, since in our time children’s schools have declined so completely and been suppressed, we want the mayors and councils of our towns and villages, where there were once schools, to ensure that the suppressed ones are re-established and provided with pious and learned teachers.” And Janssen comments: “The commandment remained on paper; only in Wildungen was an attempt made to establish a catechetical school in 1533. Waldeck’s church Ordinance of 1556 provided for municipal Latin schools, but said nothing about elementary schools.”[2605] In 1540, a decree of the Brandenburg church stated: “Because the schools have long fallen into visible disrepair, we want them to be reestablished and reformed in all cities and towns, improved and supplied and supported as required.” This decree apparently had little success, as it was promulgated again in 1572.[2606] The Elector of Brandenburg complained: “The lords care neither little nor much about the schools; just as they have plundered the churches and parishes, they have taken the schoolmasters’ houses and outbuildings when they had them.” And Cyriac Spangenberg says in his Spiegel der Adligen: “Many lords have let the schools, which were well built by their predecessors and by other people, fall into disrepair. When do you hear today that one of the nobles gives ten scudos, not even five, for the support of the church and the school?[2607]

2605 Ibid., p.25.

2606 Ibid., p.22.

2607 Ibid., p.22-23.

Further testimonies and data collected by Janssen follow: In 1602, Anton Praetorius wrote: “I know counts and lords who have no school in their entire territory.” in 1526, the synod of Homberg in Hesse decreed: “There should be schools in all large and small towns and also in the villages”; but thirty years later, during a visitation of 1556 in the whole of Lower Hesse, sexton schools were only found in seven villages; in the county of Catzenelnbogen and in the lordship of Epstein there were only six schools, but urban ones; in Upper Hesse, Landgrave George I made serious efforts to establish country schools, and in 1579 a girls’ school was founded in Grünberg. No village schools are mentioned in the ordination of churches and schools in Pomerania in 1563, and during the entire century only two schools can be reported, and these date from the Catholic period. in 1574, the Superintendent of Hesse, Georg Nigrinus, wrote about the Protestant authorities: “Undoubtedly there would be church property and fiefdoms for the schools, but these are said to serve the devil and many of them are misused. What are your own masters doing in the schools? They spend more money on a buffoon or scoundrel, and even on dogs and dog-catchers, than on children. And the masters are imitated by all the states and cities. Nothing is of less interest than the schools and the poor schoolchildren.” in 1556, decrees were issued in Waldeck about the Latin town schools, but nothing about the elementary schools. In 1571, decrees are issued for the village schools in the counties of Lippe, Spigelberg and Pyrmont, and it is stated that: “in almost all villages and towns the children grow up without any discipline or honesty and like irrational cattle, and almost no one knows of God or faith.” In the county of Schaumburg there were still no elementary schools in 1641, and in the county of Nassau it was not until 1582 that it was discussed whether elementary schools should be founded alongside the Latin schools, and there were only two such schools in two towns.[2608]

2608 Ibid., p.20-30.

This was certainly not a rosy picture. However, it was probably not very different from what could be observed in the rest of Europe. And to be fair, it must be said that neither Luther’s proclamations and exhortations nor the sporadic regulations of princes, synods and other authorities did much good; not even the restoration of the elementary and secondary schools that existed before the Reformation.

Free and compulsory education

Perhaps this overwhelming cataract of data and concurring voices is exaggerated, and more has been done than might be supposed. But what did not change completely, of course, was the medieval system of funding primary education. Pupils - or rather, their parents - still have to pay in cash or in kind to make up for the meager allowances that teachers receive from the authorities and municipalities. Free public school still does not exist. Here are some testimonials:

“In general,” Janssen writes, “teachers, even in the cities, had no fixed salary and were only fobbed off with pensions, which were often absent or very slow in coming. In Augsburg, every pupil had to pay their teacher three batzen every quarter and two creuzer once a year for heating the school. It was not until 1603 that the quarterly payment was increased to 15 and 4 creuzer for heating. Better provision was made for the German teachers in Munich. A council decree of 1564 stipulated that each pupil had to pay 15 creuzer per quarter for reading and writing lessons; if he also wanted to learn arithmetic, 30; and if Romanesque practice (the main subject of which was the rule of three) was added, a ducat had to be paid. The regulations for the German schools in Landshut were already similar at the beginning of the 16th century.[2609]

2609 Ibid., p.31.

And it was similar in other parts of Germany and even Europe, in the sense that the pupil had to pay according to the lessons he received. We have already seen on another occasion some decrees from 1646 for Rome, in which it was still specified in detail for each class or subject what each student had to pay.[2610]

2610 Cf. G. PELLICCIA, o.c., p.457-458.

Pupils also had to pay in the country schools. In Landshut in Bavaria around 1600, there were nine elementary school teachers who protested to the ducal government because some wealthy farmers in the countryside had employed lazy foreigners as teachers, thus reducing their income. The anonymous author of The Poor Devil, a schoolteacher, writes: “Every farmer wants to tell us how to train him, and when they have to give a teacher a raise because the usual salary in some places is so low that you could not even feed a goose herder with it, everyone shouts: we want to leave it at the traditional order... They are no less deceitful with the scholarship, because when they see that the school year is coming to an end, they take the children out of school and pretend to give only half the money, and the teacher has to angrily recalculate and argue with them.” Such “poor devils” - says Janssen - were, for example, most of the country teachers in Saxony.”[2611] This happened to the children of rich farmers, to those who could pay, but who cared about the poor, about the education of those who could not pay?

2611 Cf. J. JANSSEN, o.c., II, p.30.

The famous Articles of Visitation of 1628, written by Melanchthon and approved by Luther, practically became the model for other school regulations written by other authors and gradually adapted by the regions and cities that had joined the Reformation. The first to adopt them was Elector John of Saxony, for whose territory they were written. Hamburg followed in 1529, Schleswig-Holstein in 1542, Mecklenburg in 1552 and the Palatinate in 1556. “But - adds Bowen - schools were not always established after the ordinances were passed, especially in rural areas. And he goes on to describe the very interesting educational project carried out by Maurice of Saxony:

“The first attempt to establish an institutional school system distinct from the individual parochial schools appears to have been the Elector Maurice of Saxony, who in 1543 decreed the establishment of a two-tier system: municipal or town schools or Stadtsshulen (derived from the medieval municipal schools) and state schools or Staatsshulen, which were established outside the municipalities and divided into two types: Ländesschulen, which were intended to train the most outstanding children for State service and at public expense, and Klosterschulen, which were housed in monasteries and convents (depopulated of monks and confiscated by the State). The first three Staatsshulen were immediately established in Pforta, Meissen and Grimma, all of which were endowed with the assets of former local (secularized) monasteries. They were to accept a total of 230 boys, 100 from the Saxon towns, 26 from the nobility and 54 who were appointed by the Elector. These boys already had to be able to read, and after six years of study they were generally expected to transfer to the universities of Leipzig or Wittenberg in order to enter the civil service after graduation. This practice was common everywhere, even if the details are not exactly known, and it is also not known to what extent these rules were applied outside the main cities.”[2612]

2612 Cf. J. BOWEN, o.c., III, p.39-40. In note he quotes FRIEDICH PAUSEN, German Education: Past and Present (1906), in the English version by T. Lorenz (1908), from which he has taken these data, adding that the cities alluded to were: in the north, Stettin in Pomerania (1543) and Johachimstahl in Brandenburg (1607), and in the south, Württenberg (1559), Ansbach (1582) and Coburg (1605).

Despite the lack of clarity of presentation and data,[2613] it seems that these were free schools subsidized with the plundered goods of the monasteries and convents, although it cannot be ruled out that the students made contributions, since they were not poor; it is said that they had to be able to read, so they were not elementary schools; they were not schools for all, but for the chosen ones, pick on at will; at least the so-called Staatsshulen, or specifically the Ländesshulen, had the purpose of preparing State officials. Conclusion: these initiatives, which were undoubtedly laudable and useful to society, cannot be regarded as popular primary schools, even if they were apparently free. Bowen himself seems to confirm our conclusion when he adds with regard to all these schools based on the Articles of Visitation: “These schools… ... resorted to the three-stage course of the Articles of Visitation: elementary instruction, Latin grammar, literature. Very little is known about elementary education, partly because there was no established theory or practice to guide it, and partly because the schools still devoted most of their attention to the middle and upper classes...”[2614] In other words, the popular class, the poor, remained excluded from the new initiatives, even though they were supported with public funds.

2613 Of the 230 boys, the provenance of 180 is established, but another 50 remain undetermined. Were the three Staatsschulen established in Pforta, Meisen and Grimma Landesschulen or Klosterschulen? Were both supported by the property of the plundered monasteries or only the latter? Does the difference between Stadtsschulen and Staatschulen lie in the source of funds (municipal and state) or in their location (in the municipalities and outside the municipalities)? Or were all, both state and municipal, subsidized with public goods from the monastic spolia?

2614 Cf. J. BOWEN, o.c., p.40.

As for the compulsory nature of public schools, it is usually attributed to the enactments of various Protestant States in the first half of the 17th century. It was a very important step for the literacy and culturalization of the people. But it must not be forgotten that without complete gratuity, there is no complete schooling and the modern public elementary school did not actually exist. Nor can history be silent about the fact that before the German Protestant States began to consider elementary school compulsory and proclaimed it with laws under penalty of fines, there already existed a public institution open to all children which considered the necessity of school attendance compulsory, by system, not by state law, which was out of its reach. It was not only compulsory, but also free for all. And this historical institution was the Pious Schools.

But again, we must remember that it is one thing to make laws and another to enforce the laws. And this can also be seen in these legal provisions of the German federal states: “The first provisions on compulsory education - according to Bowen - were in Saxony, where the city of Weimar passed laws in 1619 obliging all children between the ages of six and ten to attend school. The Pious Schools were officially recognized as a congregation with simple vows on 6 March 1617, after twenty years of existence. The precedent set in Weimar was followed in 1642 by nearby Gotha, which imposed fines on those who did not comply with this law. Similar regulations spread throughout Protestant Germany, the Scandinavian kingdoms of Denmark and Sweden and the united Dutch provinces, although they were largely ignored. In fact, it was almost impossible to enforce them, as there was neither a clear idea of what an elementary school was, nor a proper system to support the type of buildings to be constructed, nor the training of teachers, nor the method of funding.”[2615] All these problems were completely solved in the Pious Schools; in particular, there was already a clear idea of what an elementary school was. And not only did it exist, but it was already functioning perfectly.

2615 Ibid., p.218.

And Bowen goes on to emphasize the relative ineffectiveness of the laws: “Even after the Gotha standards there seems to have been very little progress in the provision of schools and the training of teachers; there is ample documentary evidence of the inadequate training of teachers…. The improvement and expansion of schooling at the elementary level was a more difficult process than the enthusiastic promulgation of the standards suggested, and in Protestant Europe, as elsewhere, it developed slowly.[2616]

2616 Ibid., p.219.

The first German institution to emerge in a Protestant environment and offer free elementary education for the poor appears to have been that founded by August Francke (1663-1727) in Halle. In 1694, he set up a school for poor and destitute children in the suburban church of Glauchau, of which he was the pastor. Due to its success, the following year he opened another school, on behalf of the city, for boys and girls from wealthy families who had to pay school fees and called it the Bürgerschule, “thus laying the foundation stone -as Bowen comments - for a systematic elementary school for Halle in which reading and writing were taught in German”.” As a continuation of the Bürgerschule, he then opened a Latin grammar school “for the children of the wealthy”, which he called the Pädagogium. in 1697, two years after opening the Pädagogium, he set up a free school for poor “but gifted boys so that they could find their way to college”, and finally, in 1709, he set up a fee-paying school for girls alongside the Pädagogium.[2617]

2617 Ibid., p.222-223.

The importance of such initiatives is undeniable, especially as far as the poor are concerned. But we must bear in mind the limitation of free education to the gifted poor and the exclusion of the poorest in the Pädagogium and, above all, that at the time Francke founded his institution, the Pious Schools had already existed for a century and were already spread across half of Europe; the Christian schools had already been in operation in France for several decades, and women’s congregations for the free primary education of poor girls had also been established since the beginning of the 17th century.

The German von Pastor must have been aware of this entire historical and educational panorama of Reformation in Germany, at least in its basic outlines, when he did not hesitate to write in his monumental work on the emergence of Pious Schools that it was the first free public elementary school in Europe.

Primary education in Great Britain

Author James Bowen, so often cited for his great historical work on Western education, summarizes in these few lines the reality of medieval free elementary schools in England, not very different from the rest of Europe:

“Although popes and bishops repeatedly expressed disapproval of the existence of fee-paying schools as early as the twelfth century, often ordering measures to introduce free education, it is clear that the practice of charging stipends was still in force, and it is equally true that only a tiny minority - far less than 1 in 100 of the total population - had access to education; these pupils, apart from the nobility, came mainly from the increasingly influential but still very small bourgeois classes. Although it is tempting to believe that churches and monasteries offered free education, this does not seem to have been the case. The only known examples of charitable institutions are the so-called almonry schools (literally “of alms”), which are mentioned in the thirteenth century but are more likely to be fourteenth-century and were generally established in Benedictine monasteries. The main incentive for their creation seems to have been the sudden difficulty these monasteries had in recruiting oblate children in the previous century, which led them to select some of these children from the poorer classes and open free schools for this purpose. However, their numbers were very small. The number of pupils also seems to have been small: less than a dozen in general and only three or four in some places.”[2618]

2618 Ibid. II, p.421-422. As for the content he adds: “These schools taught singing and perhaps prepared the way for an eventual grammatical education to sufficiently capable children.” (ibid., p.422). In addition to chanting there was “a more elementary instruction such as teaching how to read”, “especially for liturgical purposes” (ibid., p.,435).

During the 15th century, the progressive urbanization of the country brought with it a logical demand for literacy, which led to an increase in urban, guild and cathedral schools. However, “despite Henry IV’s Statute of 1405-1406[2619], most children continued to be bound to the land as serfs and were not educated at all; there were only a few singing and grammar schools, which generally had very few pupils.”[2620]

2619 “In 1349 the Statute of peasants and apprentices was specifically enacted to prohibit serfs from any attempt to improve the social status of their children by sending them to a school or apprenticeship workshop, since these forms of education would respectively open the way to ecclesiastical positions or in guild corporations; both possibilities were considered undesirable by the ruling class” (ibid., p.423). In 1388 another royal decree ratified the same. In 1405-1406 Henry IV gave a statute that legally changed the situation: “any man or woman, of whatever social class, may freely send his or her son or daughter to study in any school he or she wishes to choose within the kingdom” (ibid., p.436). It remained a dead letter. They were not free schools, on the other hand.

2620 Ibid., III, p. 42. The free school instituted in 1512 by the English humanist John Colet at St. Paul’s Cathedral in London, of which he was Dean, was rather a school of selectees for the whole of Europe -exactly 153 children- who “must already be trained in catechism and be able to read and write completely.” It was, therefore, neither a public school, nor a primary school, nor a school for the poor. In addition, everyone had to pay the initial tuition fees, intended to cover a scholarship for “the poor scholar… who sweeps the school and keeps it clean” (cf. Id., o.c., II, p.476-480). It was not even completely free.

Henry VIII’s schism - as happened in Germany with Luther - did not improve the situation of schools, but rather worsened it, as the dissolution of the monasteries and chaplaincies, especially in the reign of his son Edward VI, led to the extinction of the monastic almonry schools, the only ones free existing. The so-called “foundations of Edward VI” were not foundations for new schools, but “in all probability a simple partial restoration of the previously confiscated ecclesiastical properties”[2621], with which schools were maintained, not exactly free, nor elementary schools, but grammar schools.

2621 Ibid., III, p.44.

These schools “were only for a privileged minority, mainly the children of the elite, although it was possible for the children of the working class to receive an education” with scholarships. When Elizabeth I ascended the throne (1558), there were 51 such schools, and by the end of her reign (1603) there were at least 280 endowed by the State; by the mid-17th century there were 305 endowed schools and 105 non-endowed, and half a century later, around 1700, the number of endowed schools reached 400, with a growing number of non-endowed schools, “apparently clandestine Catholic institutions” and others, for in Elizabeth’s reign, alongside the schools “of the Crown”, others began to spring up, run by guilds, communities, parishes, private groups and individuals.[2622]

2622 Ibid., p.49 and 179-180. Being endowed schools does not mean that they were free, but that they enjoyed public funds.

This growing movement to found and endow grammar schools ran parallel to English philanthropism, a phenomenon typical of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. As a result of Calvinist puritanical ethics which began to spread in England in the mid-sixteenth century, “not only emphasized that education was the path to understanding the divine plan, but also obliged the wealthy to help the poor and destitute… Throughout England, the rising merchant and property-owning class, many members of which had become wealthy through the Protestantization of the country, donated large sums to the founding of schools. Whereas in earlier times grammar schools had been endowed by wealthy prelates for the benefit of young men who wished to wear the habit, the endowments of the 16th and 17th centuries were mercantile and commercial, with donors providing a secular education for their own class and generous scholarships for gifted poor students. Behind this philanthropy was the desire to keep education, and thus English society, faithful to Protestantism.”[2623]

2623 Ibid., p.180-181. Rather than the poor popular class, they favored the lower class, but well-off, such as the children of artisans, shopkeepers, small landowners, farm laborers, farmers or those classified as “mediocris fortunae” (ibid., p.183).

In Elizabethan times, “it is impossible to determine the number of elementary schools, as they were completely unorganized throughout the country and often operated in simple places, usually in the same church building, without any special identification.”[2624] It was common for the clergy of the churches to run the school themselves, following the system of remuneration or stipends inherited from the Middle Ages. On the other hand, in spite of the large philanthropic endowments for education in the 16th and 17th centuries, this good will should not obscure the fact that England had not yet taken far-reaching measures to educate the poor, the homeless and the great masses of the working classes; moreover, the prevailing attitude of the middle classes was that education should not systematically reach all social classes, as this would have disrupted the social order and raised expectations beyond an acceptable level.”[2625]

2624 Ibid., p.49.

2625 Ibid., p.193.

We let Bowen take the floor so that, as a consummate connoisseur of English culture, he can describe for us the British educational situation at this time, nuancing attitudes, intentions and aims that would appear inaccurate or distorted in another pen. Of particular note is the explanation of the philanthropic movement prevalent in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, a crucial period for our history. The Pious Schools emerged during this period and their attitude towards the poor and their education necessarily relates them to the initiatives of Calasanz.

According to what we have heard from Bowen, philanthropism is a phenomenon peculiar to the middle class, formed by merchants and traders and by the “nouveau riche” at the expense of the expropriation of ecclesiastical property, who feel generous in promoting the cultural level of their own class more than in caring for the poor. And their attention is focused on the creation of middle schools (high schools) or higher schools (university colleges) instead of elementary school, which, since they are still fee-paying, can hardly be attended by the poor. At the same time, they adhere to a conservative spirit that sees class distinction as a divine design and consequently excludes the lower classes from any cultural endeavors that might lead them out of their natural state. This philanthropic impulse - writes Bowen - aimed at consolidating an educated and enlightened ruling class, raising the quality of the clergy, and stimulating the growth of an educated middle class; hence there was the best inclination toward grammar schools and university colleges, but not with the intention of doing works of mercy for the education of the poor and underprivileged.”[2626]

2626 Ibid., p.182.

It was not until the middle of the seventeenth century, during the Republic or “Commonwealth,” that the first official attempts were made for the schooling and literacy of the poor and destitute, proposed by the new utopian reformers of popular education, Hartlib, Milton, Petty and Dury, but they remained a mere utopia, for “Cromwell took no part whatever in the enthusiasm for the reform of education.”[2627] Moreover, the civil and political unrest that arose in this republican period limited any official tendency to educate the lower classes for fear of losing their control, so that even the traditional elementary schools declined in the second half of the seventeenth century and so continued throughout the eighteen century. “A very thorough modern investigation concludes that the movement toward public literacy was not open throughout this century.”[2628]

2627 Ibid., p.147. In 1648 - the year Calasanz died - the London parliament positively considered a project of great philanthropic pretensions, proposed by Samuel Hartlib, according to which “the poor and destitute children should receive a basic instruction and a professional training that would qualify them for apprenticeships in commerce, while providing for what was essentially equivalent to a national system of education, conceived as a three-tier structure, common schools for the general populace, mechanical schools for the training of aspiring apprentices, and noble schools for the training of select intellectuals.” (ibid., p.140-141). In the same year William Petty wrote in one of his works: “Let there be ergastula litteraria, literary workshops, in which children can be taught something that will enable them to earn a living, as well as to read and write” (ibid., p.141). It is not stated whether they would have been free, or to what extent.

2628 Ibid., 194.

Apart from the public powers, however, the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge (SPCK) was formed in 1699 on the initiative of the Rev. Thomas Bray and four lay philanthropists, which, as its name suggests, aimed to provide sufficient instruction for the poor classes to read the Bible through the establishment of charity schools. The curriculum was very limited and consisted mainly of learning to read, and not all schools taught writing and arithmetic. They had to memorize the Anglican Catechism, some sections of the Book of Common Prayer, some Psalms and selected passages from the New Testament. In addition to all this, they learned church hymns. Various places were used as schools, usually with only one classroom and “with the teachers available” who “were all too often only mediocre.”[2629]

2629 Ibid., 196-198.

This school model is much closer to that promoted by the Sunday schools of the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine in Rome a century earlier than that of the schools of Calasanz, as the central core was catechization; reading instruction was only a means of being able to read both the catechism and the Bible; writing and arithmetic were not a systematic and essential part of the curriculum. Nevertheless, “these [SPCK] schools played an important part in introducing education to the most deprived classes in England.”[2630] This statement by Bowen seems very interesting to us, as it is a private initiative of a religious nature that is seen as the beginning of free education for the poor in England and which, due to its identical features - and other complementary features - inevitably reminds us of the Calasanz schools, which however originated in 1597, a century earlier.

2630 Ibid., 199.

The SPCK schools were copied in England and its colonies by Nonconformists, Methodists, Quakers, Jews and Huguenots, and from the outset also spread to Wales, Scotland and Ireland with extraordinary success.[2631] This success is all the more admirable when one considers that these schools emerged against the general feeling of the social classes in whose hands the power and money lay, as Bowen notes: “Many middle-class people - probably the majority - would have accepted the views of Soame Jenyns, who wrote in 1757 that ignorance is “necessary “to all those born in poverty and to the toilsome labor of life, being the only opium that enables them to endure the miseries of the one and the toils of the other… ... a medicine administered by the gracious hand of Providence, and of which they should never be deprived by a misunderstood and inadequate education.”[2632] Less cynical and Volterian, but with a similar vision of the established order, the schools of Calasanz had already been opposed a century and a half earlier by certain figures in the Roman Curia, who even wore purple and a hat and managed to achieve the abolition of the Pious Schools as religious Order.

2631 Ib. p. 199, 203, 211, 214. With these more or less reliable statistics (cf. ibid., p. 198) it is said that in fifty years the SPCK opened 2,044 schools for a total of 51,000 children (Cf. VARIOUS, Histoire mondiale de l’éducation, vol. II, p.103).

2632 J. BOWEN, o.c., III, p.197.

Despite its successes, the SPCK lost importance in the second half of the XVIII century. And in 1780, another initiative was born, which can be traced back to Pastor Robert Raikes: the Sunday schools. They began as Sunday schools and were opened to adults and children, who received free religious instruction and learned to read. But after a short time, they were also opened during the week, especially for children whose parents could afford to pay, and they were taught writing, bookkeeping and sometimes even a trade. The success was equally extraordinary, especially when a society was founded in 1785 to maintain and fund these schools throughout England. Their importance, it is said, lies in the fact that “they mark the true beginning of free popular education, open to all children without distinction.”[2633] This does not seem quite right - even if it only applies to England - given what was said about the SPCK, which would retain primacy, and especially because the weekday schools were not free. In any case, these Sunday schools, which were private and not state-run, were founded in England almost two centuries after the Pious Schools in Trastevere in Rome. It was not until 1880 that the London Parliament made attendance at elementary school compulsory and levied fees on parents, until these were abolished in 1891 with the decree of absolute gratuitousness.[2634]

2633 VARIOUS, o.c., p.104.

2634 Cf. J. BOWEN, o.c., III, p.400.

After this necessarily brief historical tour, it seems that Baron Ludwig von Pastor was not wrong when he claimed that “the first free public elementary school in Europe” was born in Santa Dorotea in Rome’s Trastevere in November 1597[2635]; and that Pius XII was right when he said: “It is proven by solid and indisputable documents that Calasanz himself opened the first public school in Europe in this Alma City, in the church of Santa Dorotea, on the other side of the Sistine Bridge, in 1597, to educate the poor and abandoned children of the people free of charge.”[2636]

2635 PASTOR, o.c., vol.24, p.67-68.

2636 Brief Providentissimus Deus (EphCal 4-5 [1948] 105).

Chapter 19

Temporary generalate: the expansion

Let us pick up the thread of our story again. On April 28, 1622, Gregory XV signed the Brief Apostolici muneris, appointing the Founder as Minister General of the Pious Schools for a period of nine years. Why exactly nine years and not for life, as prescribed by the Constitutions of the Order that had just been approved? One could assume that this was to be a period of experimentation before reaching the Generalate for life. But in reality, the experiment was already sufficient to test the suitability of the Founder, who had been at the head of the work for some twenty-five years and had been Superior General of the Congregation since 1617.

The specific figure of nine years depended on legal reasons, which were apparently complicated. There is no doubt that the Pope could have appointed Calasanz directly as General for life in accordance with the Constitutions, as Urban VIII later appointed him by apostolic Brief at the end of this ninth year in 1632. But it was probably the Founder himself who wanted things to be done as far as possible in accordance with the Constitutions. The Constitutions stipulated that the General should be appointed for life but elected by the Chapter, and that the capitular fathers should be professed for at least seven years.[2637] On the other hand, when the Pauline Congregation was elevated to Order, it was stipulated that everyone should repeat two years of novitiate before taking solemn vows.[2638] It was therefore necessary to wait nine years (two years of novitiate and seven years of profession) before the first elected General Chapter could be convened, at which the first Father General was to be elected for life.[2639]

2637 CC n.260 and 219.

2638 Cf. n.1956 of chapter 16.

2639 Fr. Castelli justified the nine years in this way (cf. EC, p.655-656).

And that was most likely the reason for limiting this temporary Generalate of Fr. Founder, who was just beginning his sixty-fourth year, to nine years. And these were very important years for the expansion of the Order.

The foundation of Savona

At the beginning of their new journey as a religious Order, in this first period of temporary Generalate, the Pious Schools had the following houses: three in Rome, namely: San Pantaleo, the novitiate of St. Onofrio and the schools of the Borgo; and six others outside Rome, namely: Frascati, Narni, Moricone, Carcare, Fanano and Nursia. The schools of Mentana and Magliano had already been abandoned.

After the approval of the Constitutions at the end of January 1622, one of Father General’s tasks was to enforce observance with the Constitutions in all houses. Probably the necessary copies were made in the novitiate with some speed, at least to send them to all the communities and give each of them the necessary instructions or clarifications. Perhaps the Founder himself undertook this task in the three Roman houses and in Frascati and Moricone, where he often went on donkeyback because of their proximity. For the other four more distant houses, he entrusted the task to his first assistant and his right-hand man: Fr. Casani, who, as we know, was in Nursia in mid-March.[2640] And on May 8th, he appointed him Visitator of Carcare, Fanano and Narni, expressly with the task of introducing the observance with the recently adopted Constitutions, justifying this appointment by saying: “What I cannot visit, correct and promote myself, it is my duty to ensure that it is carried out by suitable ministers.”[2641]

2640 On March 11, 1622 he received there the profession of two young men (cf. PosCas, p.391).

2641 Ibid., p.410.

Casani began his visitation in Narni, to whose community he still belonged, and left a series of very detailed notes or recommendations concerning the church, the house and the schools, alluding to the “new Constitutions” and Father General’s explicit orders.[2642] From Narni he returned to Rome to give the Founder a report on the canonical visitation, as provided for in the letter of appointment.[2643] And in Rome the plans changed when, with some urgency, a new foundation was proposed in Savona, a town near Carcare that had lost its autonomy a century earlier, in 1528, and had been incorporated into the Republic of Genoa.

2642 Ibid., p.4I2-414. He alludes to the “half-hour” hourglass, used at the time: “The recess -he says- can last half an hour from the end of the second turn of the table. Let the lector have the half-hour hourglass and, once the thanksgiving is done, after he has eaten turn it down, and as soon as it is finished let all go to prayer”, (ibid.,414). On May 12, 1622 Calasanz wrote to the authorities of Narni, announcing the arrival of Fathers Viviani and Casani (cf. ibid., p.396).

2643 «…ac me quam primum quid et quomodo factum sit de omnibus certiorem facias.” (ibid., p.410).

The promoter of this foundation was the Savonian priest Alexander Abbati, Apostolic Protonotary, who had become acquainted with the Pious Schools in Rome on an official trip and decided to introduce them in his home town. Convinced, Father General appointed Father Casani as the person responsible for the new enterprise, who was also able to continue his work as a Visitator in nearby Carcare. He gave him three founding companions, who set off with Msgr. Alexander and arrived in Savona “at the beginning of the summer, if I remember correctly, - says Berro - and… the Fathers were received with great joy by the whole town, both the nobility and the citizens, even though the Jesuit Fathers had only arrived six months earlier and were already teaching. A town council was held to settle matters with the proper capitulations, and the Religion… of the Pious Schools in the town of Savona was accepted by all.”[2644]

2644 Cf. BERRO I, p.109-110; MORANDI, Narratione, p.9, n.39.

In fact, on June 20, 1622, a general meeting of the city council was held to discuss this matter. Msgr. Alexander Abbati made a plea on behalf of the Piarists, explaining what they were offering and what they were asking for. So, they were not relying on the monsignor’s generosity, but were asking for an official subsidy from the city council so that their schools were not just private but public. As this is one of the first founding documents of its kind, it is worth quoting some of the most important paragraphs:

“The Illustrious Community [Municipality] of Savona is humbly requested to undertake to pay 400 pounds each year for the love of God, or else to provide accommodation by at least paying the rent for the Most. RR. Fathers of the Pious Schools to pay for their lodgings and schools according to their necessities, if they should settle in Savona, to begin immediately to instruct all the children and pupils of the said town and its environs, without salary, in reading, writing, arithmetic, grammar, humanities and rhetoric, and other things, according to their institute, and so long as they perform this duty; or until they are otherwise provided for the said things; that since it is useful for the public good to instruct the children, especially the poor, by teaching them not only the said sciences, but also how to live godly, it is trusted that [the said Fathers] will render much spiritual help, by celebrating masses, confessing, preaching and doing other exercises, with the good example they set, both by their good habits and by their way of living and dressing poorly, without having anything of their own, either in particular or in general…”[2645]

2645 PosCas, p.432. The offer of priestly services to the people (Masses, confession, preaching and other exercises) reveals the pastoralist mentality of Fr. Casani.

Faced with the alternative, the council opted for the first solution, namely to pay 400 pounds a year for nine years on a trial basis to support the Fathers. This decision was adopted by secret ballot with 44 votes in favor and one against. Strangely enough, the chancellor and municipal notary who registered this official act, named Dominic Pizzardo, already ordained a priest, wore the Piarist habit on April 31, 1623, and the following day so did his only son, also named Dominic, who changed his name to Ottaviano.[2646]

2646 Cf. EHI, p.1353, n.2 and p.800, n.3; DENES II, p.441.

Monsignor Abbati - Berro further recalls - “gave our religion his palace in Scarzaria Street, to the left of the cathedral, and a private oratory next to the palace, with enough space for the schools of our institute, with a garden and a dormitory with 20 rooms and other suitable premises.”[2647] With a minimum of improvements, they set up the various rooms as living quarters and classrooms, and classes were inaugurated on September 11, 1622,[2648] “with such approval and satisfaction from all, - says Berro - that it was a wonder to see the nobles and the rest of the burghers vying to bring their children to the Pious Schools.”[2649]

2647 BERRO I, p.110.

2648 Cf. MORANDI, Narratione, p.9, n.39.

2649 BERRO I, 1.c.

Our analyst Vincent Berro was born in Savona in 1603 and was therefore in his twenties when the Piarists came to his city. It is therefore not surprising that he likes to conjure up these memories as an eyewitness. And one of the most curious memories relates to the ancient custom of stone fighting, deeply rooted in Savona and perhaps widespread in many other regions of Europe since time immemorial, either between rival gangs or neighborhoods in the big cities, or village against village if they were small. The Piarists put an end to this barbaric game in a short time, as Berro says: “First, a terrible and ancient abuse of fighting with stones was eliminated, not only near the city walls, but also in the main streets, with great damage to bodies and souls. The boys of a neighborhood met each other to the sound of drums and with unfurled flags, and when they met, they fought with stones and even with slingshots, resulting in many wounded and bruised and stirring up many enmities.”[2650]

2650 ID., p.111.

The foundation in Savona was the first to take place after the Pauline Congregation was elevated to a religious Order with solemn vows.

The journey of Calasanz to Liguria

The promoter of the foundation of Savona, Mgr. Alexander Abbati, urged Calasanz in his Roman conversations with him to visit the new house as soon as it had been furnished and the schools had started operating. And he must have repeated his invitation by letter over the course of the year until he decided to make the journey.[2651] The Castellani brothers, the founders and protectors of the house of Carcare, probably also urged him with requests, as they knew that the Pious Schools had also been opened in Savona. It should not be forgotten that Bernardino Castellani was still the doctor of the House of San Pantaleo. The proximity between Savona and Carcare made the visit all the more advisable. And finally, the holy Founder agreed.

2651 Cf. BARTLIK, o.c.: EphCal 5 (1938) 146.

It is tradition that he made the journey by sea and arrived in the port of Savona on April 7, 1623. This is also the most plausible, because when he informed Father Castille of his arrival, he added that he would return on a galley: “We arrived in Savona - he wrote on April 11 - on Friday afternoon, and on Monday we came to Carcare, where I intend to stay for a few days to visit the works and the house and then return to Savona to wait for the opportunity to cross on galleys.”[2652] On such voyages from Rome, it was customary to embark in Civitavecchia and sail along the coast, stopping at various ports such as Livorno, Genoa, Savona, etc. It had been thirty-one years since he had sailed this sea from west to east, leaving any hopes of crossing it again in the opposite direction, when he decided to stay in Rome for good. On this second, shorter crossing, from south to north, he perhaps looked with restrained emotion at the horizon line behind which his homeland lay hidden.

2652 C.147, BARTLIK wrote: “velis fortasse remisque usus omnibus fausta comprecantibus Savonam ex Urbe movit” (BARTLIK, o.c.: EphCal 6 [1938] 179).

The first impressions he received were extraordinary. The day after his arrival in Carcare, he communicated them to Father Garcia, saying: “Here, by the grace of the Lord, and in Savona, I have seen that our Fathers are so well received that one could not wish for more, and there are so many who want our habit that I was amazed; the first time they will clothe at least eight, and there are many more of good sense and good families who ask for it.” He could not help but rejoice deeply at these promises for a fruitful future. And in the postscript, he spoke movingly of the reception he had received in Carcare: “Let Mr. Antonio, the brother-in-law of Mr. Bernardino Castellani, know that we have been in Carcare since last night and have been received with extraordinary affection and charity” by both men and women.”[2653]

2653 C.147.

A written record from 1694 reports that the whole town went outside to greet him in the chapel of St. Sebastian and accompanied him in procession to school. On the way there, he was met by a well-known mute madman called Thomas Pastor, who was shouting and making incoherent noises. The Saint ordered him to be quiet and he fell silent. He prayed to the Lord and spoke to him again, being freed from the demon. The stupefaction of the people intensified the veneration they had felt for him before they saw him. The above-mentioned tradition adds that he predicted to a seven-year-old boy, the son of a certain John Ferrer of Aragon, that he would be a good Piarist. And he did indeed become one, with the name Charles of Our Lady of the Angels.[2654] This Ferrer boy must have reminded his nephews “of the house of Pere Ferrer”, the husband of his sister Mary, so it is understandable that he had special words for him when he learned his surname, completed with “of Aragon”. And another coincidence is that the liberated energetic man had the surname Pastor, like the husband of his other sister Magdalene.[2655]

2654 Cf. BARTLK, l.c., p.180. He quotes verbatim the note written by Fr. Peter F. Zanoni, in Acta visitationis Generalis 1692-1698, on the visit made to Carcare in 1694 (RegGen 64, f.82v). Charles, “in saeculo Carolus Ferrerius”, was born on January 30, 1616; ordained a priest on September 21, 1652; received the Piarist habit on November 6, 1654; professed on March 19, 1658; died on January 5, 1687 (cf. Catalogus Rel. 1630-1718, p.35; RegRel, n.3). His obituary says that he was “religiosus exemplaris”-(Memoriae Defunct. 1618-1700 p.110: RegRel n.36). See his short biography, not entirely accurate, in Religiosi Sch. P. qui Provinciae Liguri et Pedemontanae ab exordio ad annum 1700 adscripti fuerunt. vol. I (Florence 1893), p.90. Bau gives the name of his father, “John Ferrer of Aragon” (cf. BAU, BC, p.509).

2655 To both families, Ferrer and Pastor, he recalled in the letter of November 25, 1592 to the parish priest of Peralta (cf. C.4).

He had entered Carcare on Holy Monday, where he celebrated Holy Week. And in those days, so conducive to forgiveness and reconciliation, he performed a different kind of miracle, that he communicated with simple spontaneity to Fr. Garcia in a letter dated Easter Wednesday, April 19th: “During these days, with the Lord’s help, we have managed to make peace among the most important people of this town, who hated each other so much and threatened to quarrel in no time, that the governor, Don Peter de Toledo, who is in Finale, as soon as he heard about it, went to his oratory to pray the Te Deum, as they say, on his knees. After the peace, I invited them all to eat with us on two of these feast days [of Easter], to confirm them all in their unity with great joy and common satisfaction. And they ordered so much food in advance that it was possible to do this in full. May the Lord keep this peace and unity.”[2656] As these were the most important families of the people, it is not surprising that they contributed so much and transformed the poor meal of the Piarists into a veritable feast. Calasanz undoubtedly remembered other peace agreements that he had reached in some village in the Pyrenees during the years of his apostolic wanderings as Visitator of the archpriests in his diocese of Urgel. The memory of those also remained.

2656 C.148. Today, in the chapel of Saint Roque (formerly Saint Sebastian), at the entrance of the village, there is a memorial stone on the façade that recalls the healing of the demoniac and the pacification of the two families, due to St. Joseph Calasanz, in his only visit to Carcare (cf. La Provincia Ligure dei Padri Scolopi [Genova-Cornigliano 1984], p.15).

From Carcare he returned to Savona and on Sunday in Albis, April 23rd, he presented the Piarist cassock to three selected young men among the many who asked for it, as he himself said. These three were Thomas del Carretto, son of the Marquises of Gorzegno or Finale, as Berro says;[2657] Charles Boniface Caldari, of the Counts of Monesiglio, who as first-born renounced his brother’s hereditary rights, and John Baptist Baroni, son of a Genoese nobleman. The three made their solemn profession at the hands of the founder in Rome on April 25 of the Holy Year 1625, but the hopes placed in them did not last long.[2658] Others, who were not from the nobility, did better and were later clothed by Father Casani, to whose care and example this great influx of vocations was due. A young Vincent Berro is happy to say: “I was accepted by him [Calasanz] and enrolled by his hand to be clothed and entered the house to try out the Religion.” And he concludes the report on the visit to Savona with this final remark: “The next day [of the investiture: April 24th] Our Ven. Father, the Founder and General left for Genoa with Fr. Benedict Cherubini, and I accompanied them with some young people a little way out of the city. When he arrived in Genoa, he embarked on the galleys to return to Rome.”[2659]

2657 Cf. BERRO I, p.115.

2658 Carretto died on November 8, 1634, being 28 years old; Caldari or Caldera, in his 27th year, on September 15, 1632, and Baroni left the Order in 1646 when Innocent X suppressed it, dying in 1681 at the age of 76 (cf. Religiosi Sch. P. qui Provinciae Liguri..., p.8-9; BERRO I, p.115).

2659 BERRO I, p.115.

The house in Savona was obviously unable to accommodate so many candidates, so Father General advised Father Casani to look for another house for the novitiate. The deliberations went very quickly and on May 31 of the same year, 1623, the new house was inaugurated on the outskirts of the city, right next to Fathers of St. Francis of Paola. In June, Father General appointed another of his assistants, Father Francis Castelli, as novice master and sent him to Savona. On July 10, he extended the patent of the Provincial of Liguria, ad nostrum beneplacitum, in favor of Father Casani.[2660] Thus, the second Province of the Order was formed with the house of Carcare and the two houses of Savona, since all the other houses, although directed and administered by the General, would form the Roman Province, the first among all.

2660 Cf. MORANDI, Narratione, p.9, n.40; BERRO I, p.116-118; PosCas, p.433 and 436.

The soul of the new Province was Father Casani, about whom the young Berro wrote this wonderful eulogy as an extraordinary witness:

“Father Peter Casani of the Nativity, first companion of O.V.F. Founder and General, first Minister of that House and then first Provincial of Liguria, and the first to bear such a title in the whole Religion, shone above all in every kind of virtue as Father Superior and Master of all. He was commonly called “Holy Father”, and when he preached, countless people flocked to listen to him, for God worked admirable things through him for the sick and the possessed. In particular, many people often saw a great radiance emanating from a wooden cross that he wore on his chest when he preached. When he administered communion to the people, he used to say a few words, with the sacrament in his hand, to move those who were to receive it to devotion, with such a spirit that he moved the listeners to tears, and meanwhile it seemed to everyone that he was in the air, for then a great thud was heard, as if he fell on the altar platform, and his face was so inflamed that it was frightening to see it, and I myself am a witness.”[2661]

2661 BERRO I, p.116-117.

Undoubtedly, the greatest fruit of his admirable holiness was the abundance of vocations. From the vestiture done by the Founder in April, to the end of 1623, Berro records eighteen novices clothed in Savona and fourteen more clothed at once in Carcare on October 4th and sent to Rome under the direction of Father John Stephen Spinola. Berro himself also received the cassock from his hand on October 22nd, in a group of nine, “among whom,” he says, “I was the first,” and seven were from Savona.[2662]

2662 Ib., p.119.

The lack of space in the novitiate house made it advisable to look for other accommodation. In November 1623, Father Casani began the process of obtaining permission to establish a house in the neighborhood of Oregina, outside the walls of Genoa, near the gate of St. Thomas. With the official requests of the neighbors and other recommendations and reports, permission was obtained from the Senate of the Republic of Genoa on November 28th and from the Vicar general of the Diocese on December 11, 1623.[2663] A group of novices set out from Savona with Father Casani to take possession of the new novitiate. Berro was among them and he wrote several pages about the extreme misery in which they lived for the first few months, and yet by the end of Lent there were already 18 of them.[2664] The following year they managed to gain a foothold in Genoa and opened the first schools on October 15, 1625 in Scurreria Street in the center of the city, where the novitiate was moved in 1631.[2665] With the foundation of Genoa, the province of Liguria was consolidated.

2663 See extensive documentation in PosCas, p.470-475.

2664 Cf. BERRO I; p.122-127.

2665 Cf. La Província Ligure , p.2l-22.

Foundation in Naples and Sicily: the forerunners

On October 6, 1625, Father General signed a curious license in Rome in favor of Father Melchior Alacchi, the essential core of which was the following:

“Since our institute of Pious Schools has been requested by many cardinals, archbishops, bishops, princes and secular lords, as well as by municipalities in various parts of Italy and beyond, we hereby grant you permission and authority and, by merit of Holy Obedience, command you to go to such places as may seem favorable and expedient to you within Italy, but especially in the kingdom of Naples and Sicily, where our institute can be conveniently practiced; and in order to fulfill the pious wishes of those who ask us, you may found houses and churches and accept and receive them according to the disposition of our Constitutions, provided that you inform us of this before the reception or foundation, so that we may approve it if it is appropriate. We also grant you that you may admit to the habit of our Religion those who fulfill the requirements, or exclude from it those who appear to you on their merits. And in order to carry out this mission comfortably, we will provide you with some of our brothers as companions who will be subordinate to you, …and we will be very pleased if you carry it out as soon as possible.”[2666]

2666 Cf. BARTLIK, Annales 3 (1939) 79-80.

The first to be surprised by this unique “mission” was the analyst Father Bernardo Bartlik, from whom we receive the document. And he adds that among the foundations requested in this year 1625 and in the two previous years - Bartlik wrote between 1700 and 1706 - he found nothing that would justify this undertaking. Nevertheless, he agrees with the General by referring to two of his letters in which he alludes to such requests in general terms. On February 4, 1623, he writes: “A Neapolitan gentleman spoke to me about the introduction of our Pious Schools in the city of Campania and there are so many who desire our institute that if each one of ours were worth ten, they would not suffice.[2667] And on August 21, 1624, he says again: “They call us from so many places that a very numerous Religion would not suffice.”[2668]

2667 C.142.

2668 C.239.

The vagueness of these requests is consistent with the license to found. But this way of making new foundations without a definite aim, which is more typical of a mission in India, is unusual and inexplicable. And it is strange that both the Founder and Berro refer to this expedition as a mission. It would be more understandable if it were Father Alacchi alone or at most accompanied by one religious, as will be the case later when he is sent out to found Spain or when he himself will attempt to found in Venice alone. But here he is accompanied by a dozen novices and professed religious.[2669] Moreover, the Founder is not very sure about the success, because on the same day that he signs the strange license, he writes to Father Garcia: “Father Melchior is going on a mission with some professed and novices and I hope that they will return soon. Try to lend some mattresses for tonight or give them something to sleep on in some way.[2670] And the next day, October 7, he wrote again in Spanish: “Let me know when Father Melchior left and which people he left behind of those he brought with him from Rome, or if all twelve of them went with him.”[2671] He does not even tell his confidant, Father Garcia, where they are going.

2669 Of the companions we know the name of the only priest besides Alachi, who was Fr. Ansano Lenzi, and of the cleric novices Giovanni Domenico Franchi, Andres Sabino and Pietro Agostino Abbate. Of these, Sabino and Franchi were successively Provincials of Sicily (1637-1642), after Alacchi, who was the first to bear this title (1637) (cf. SCOMA, I, p.103-104; G. SÁNTHA, P. Melchior Alacchi: Archivum 13 [1983] 24). Berro names only one brother: Francis Noberasco (BERRO I, p. i44). Sántha says that the companions were eleven (cf. l.c. and EHI, p.9). But Scoma (1.c.), Berro (o.c., p.144), Calasanz (c.332), etc. affirm that there were twelve.

2670 C.331.

2671 C.332.

Father Melchior was novice master in Rome at the time, and it is very likely that he urged Father General to let him sound out the situation in Naples and Palermo, where there had certainly been requests for foundations, even if they had not materialized. In fact, the expeditions, with Alacchi at their head, go directly to Naples, to the house of the Marquis of Belmonte, Don Carlos Tapia, regent of the Royal Chancery and - as Calasanz will say - “today the first in the government, after the Viceroy”[2672]. This illustrious Neapolitan will in fact be Calasanz’s main protector, benefactor, admirer and friend. And when Alacchi and his group set off directly in search of him in Naples, it means that he was already known to them. They were not going without a fixed plan these thirteen celebrities when they left Rome on October 6th as conquerors of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies.

2672 C.596.

Strangely enough, Father Caputi begins his monumental memoirs (Notizie Historiche) with an account of the first meeting between Calasanz and the Marquis of Belmonte in San Pantaleon on the occasion of the latter’s visit to Rome for the Jubilee of 1625. After hearing about Father Joseph and his Pious Schools, “he wanted to visit them, as he was very pleased, and he wanted to speak with the founder, telling him that if he wanted to found in Naples, he would have helped him in whatever was necessary, and that there would be no lack of friends who would do the same.”[2673]

2673 CAPUTI, Notizie I, n.1. Charles de Tapia (Naples 1565-Naples 1644), Marquis of Belmonte and later of Villamaia, lived in Madrid from 1612-1625 as a member of the Council of Italy. When he returned to Naples in the Holy Year 1625, he was named Regent of the Royal Chancery (cf. EHI, p.858-860, n.1).

They arrived in Naples on October 18th and were obligingly received by the Marquis of Belmonte in his house. They stayed there for a few days, during which both the Marquis and Father Alacchi tried to obtain a foundation permit from the Archbishop of Naples, Cardinal Decio Caraffa, who was completely opposed to new foundations in his diocese. Even the mediation of the Viceroy of Naples, Don Antonio Alvarez de Toledo, Duke of Alba (1622-1629), was of no avail. Calasanz was aware of Cardinal Caraffa’s negative attitude and perhaps did not want to specify the locations of possible foundations in order to avoid offending sensitivities.

Waiting for better days, Alacchi and his transhumant community left Naples and continued their journey south. They passed through the straits and stopped in Messina at the beginning of December 1625 because the plague prevented them from reaching Palermo, the last destination Father Melchior had set for himself. His soul and body trembled with emotion as he breathed in the air of his Sicilian homeland. Unable at the moment to reach the capital of the viceroyalty, he turned to the civil and ecclesiastical authorities to enforce the foundation there, in Messina.

As the diocese had no bishop, he met with the vicar general, Don Luke Cochiglia, who accepted the foundation and gave his approval “in the choir of the cathedral, in the presence of many Canons”.[2674] He spoke with the city’s senators, who also welcomed the initiative with great satisfaction, and in a session of December 17th, 1625, they decided “that they be received and obtain from the city a suitable house, both for their residence and to have schools comfortably, and as for expenses, that they be given everything necessary from the first money that comes or should come to the city for any account or prize.”[2675] As a result, they were assigned a house next to All Saints’ Church and everything necessary was bought for them.

2674 Cf. SCOMA I, p.105. Fr. Scoma collected from the General Archives of the Order a great part of the material for his Memoirs, in the six-year period 1724-1730, when he was Assistant General. He began them in Rome and concluded them in 1740, with the help of original documents from the archives of Sicily. He relied on Berro, Caputi, Bartlik, letters and various writings of the Founder and others, and on some Adnotationes Siculae, written by Fr. Alacchi, which have been lost, as well as some of the documents of the General Archives, copied by him.

2675 Ibid., p.106.

The righteous satisfaction of Father Alacchi and his companions was short-lived, because when everything seemed settled, a howl of protest arose from some religious, especially the Jesuits, who used their Bulls to oppose new foundations in the city and appealed to the General Vicar, who, alarmed, refused to confirm their license in writing so as not to harm the other religious and jeopardize the future bishop’s decision. The nobility, the Senate and the people spoke out in favor of founding the Pious Schools. They protested to the General of the Society of Jesus, Father Mucio Vitelleschi, who demanded that the Jesuits give in, which apparently, they did, but supported the Vicar General in maintaining their refusal.

In mid-January 1626, the Senate wrote to the Founder, to Cardinal Antonio Barberini and to the Congregation of the Regulars, asking them to defend the new foundation.[2676] We do not know whether the Senate of Messina received a reply. In the midst of these contradictions, Father Alacchi endeavored to inform Father General of what was happening. Among other things, he informed him that Father Olderico Valmerana, a former Jesuit and former Piarist, was adding fuel to the opposition’s fire with slander, claiming that Father Founder “had been a Jesuit before founding the Pious Schools and had been expelled for his misconduct and bad behavior, but because he wanted to imitate the Society like a monkey,[2677] he had founded the Pious Schools.” Calasanz replied to this on February 14, 1626:

2676 Calasanz speaks about these letters writing to Alacchi (C.392 and 396).

2677 Cf, SCOMA I, p.107.

“The assertion that I am a Jesuit or belong to another religion is false, because I came to Rome 35 years ago or more as a secular priest, and have always worn the said habit until Paul V granted us the habit we wear, which was in 1617. It is quite certain that I gave our habit to a certain Valmerana, who was a Jesuit, at the request and command of Card. Giustiniani, our protector, and then, as he did not seem appropriate to our humility and modesty, I sent him away.”[2678]

2678 C.392. He miscalculated, because if he arrived in Rome in February 1592, he would have been thirty-four years in February 1626. Vilá reads thirty-four (cf. SCOMA I, p.109), but the original tells thirty-five (cf. RegProv 26, n.1, f.3r).

The news of the foundation of Messina was received with great satisfaction by Calasanz from the very first moment, as he told Father Alacchi in a letter dated December 27th: “It is true that I would love unspeakably to settle our institute in this city because it is a harbour and so universal.”[2679] The unexpected setbacks could only worry him, but in his letters, he encourages Father Melchior by reminding him that the Vicar General in Genoa had solved the same difficulties as the one in Messina. Despite everything, he is optimistic: “I hope,” he writes to him, “ that all difficulties can be overcome.”[2680] Five days later, he writes again that he is thinking of sending Father Casani there for a few months “because, as he says, he likes the people in that kingdom much better than those in Naples, and he has volunteered in the hope of finding good subjects.” And he reminded him that he had received letters from the Marquis of Belmonte, who certainly spoke of establishing himself in Naples, adding: “but in general everybody likes this place better than any other, although it is very far away.”[2681]

2679 C.380.

2680 C.392.

2681 C.396

On February 19th, while Calasanz was signing this letter in Rome, Father Alacchi, accompanied by seven novices, left Messina on his way to Rome. Father Lenzi remained in Messina with seven other novices, as they had already clothed some during those months. Why this decision? Historians suspect that Father General wrote to Father Melchior in view of the complications, which did not seem to have been resolved, and ordered them all to return to Rome. But Alacchi, believing him to be misinformed and wanting to save the Sicilian foundation, decided to obey halfway, leaving half the group in Messina and travelling to Rome with the other half to duly inform Father General.[2682] The truth, however, seems to be different, because in the last two letters that Calasanz wrote to Alacchi, as we have seen, there is no indication that he wants to abandon the foundation of Messina, but quite the opposite. He did not ask Father Lenzi and his companions to return to Rome, but even kept his promise to send Father Casani, as he did on March 19, exactly one month after Alacchi’s departure from the island.[2683]

2682 The Founder “wrote that they should return telling ‘good by’ to the city, honoring it with love. They did like this going back to Naples” (BERRO I, p.144). For Berro thus ends the Sicilian adventure. “On February 19th, Fr. Melchior, seeing himself much troubled in Messina and persecuted by the Mendicant Orders, decided to carry out the advice of his Founder, who obliged him to return to Rome without delay with his companions...” (SCOMA, o.C., p.110). Cf. BAU, BC, p.545.

2683 Cf. SCOMA I, p.111.

It is likely, as Sántha believes, that Alacchi allowed himself to be overwhelmed by the opposition of the vicar general and the opposing religious and lost hope of overcoming the situation. He was a man of more intellect, skill and boldness than perseverance; more nervous, restless and enterprising than thoughtful, patient and steady.[2684] For this reason, he left Messina without Father General’s permission, trusting to the full freedom of movement granted him in the patent letters, and set out discouraged, on his return journey. In two days, he reached the port of Naples by sea and returned to meet the Marquis of Belmonte, who kindly welcomed him into his home. Archbishop Caraffa had died on January 23rd, but his successor, the young Cardinal Francis Boncompagni, would not be appointed until March 2nd. Both the Marquis and Father Alacchi must have talked about the foundation in Naples now that the biggest obstacle, Caraffa, was gone. But perhaps Alacchi did not want to take advantage of this vacant chair - in Messina the problem had arisen precisely because it was a vacant chair - and with promises and well-founded hopes he left Naples on February 24th and arrived in Rome by land on the 28th with his entourage. The not entirely useless adventure had lasted almost five months.

2684 Cf. G. SÁNTHA, o.c., p.25-26.

The Founder went to found… in Naples

The reader will have noticed that Berro is not always accurate in his accounts, except in those cases where he is a protagonist or eyewitness, and even then, he is not fully credible in all details, writing as he does thirty or forty years after the events.[2685] Both his messages and those of his companion and memoirist, Father Caputi, must be corroborated by documents if possible, or supported by his own words if there is no other documentary source. And this should be said, because when Berro reports on the Founder’s journey to Naples, he begins with the words: “When Father Peter [Casani] arrived, he obtained all the necessary authorizations to open a house and a church, both from the Ordinary and from the Regulars and the Viceroy, the Duke of Alcalá. So, our Ven. Father General and Founder thought of moving there, which he did, leaving Rome with three companions on October 4, 1626.”[2686] None of the information is correct: neither did Casani receive the licenses, nor was the Duke of Alcalá viceroy, nor did the General leave on 4th October, nor did he take only three companions with him. The reality was different.

2685 His work Annotazioni is divided into three volumes, the first of which he revised in 1663; in the second he recounts events that occurred in 1664, and in the third, events of 1665. He died on April 15, 1666 (BERRO I, p.50).

2686 Ibid., p.148.

Father Casani left Rome on March 19, 1626 with two companions on his way to Messina, passing through Naples, where he was to await embarkation for Silicia. He was warmly welcomed by D. Carlos Tapia, as he had previously been by Alacchi and his companions. It is said that he waited in Naples for two months, but it is not plausible that no ship sailed from Naples to Messina in two months. In any case, he spoke with the Marquis of Belmonte and others about the longed-for foundation of the Pious Schools, but he did not take any important step, as he gave the Marquis the impression of “being “more contemplative than active”.[2687] On July 14th, Casani was certainly in Messina, because on that day he received the profession of a religious.[2688]

2687 Cf. SCOMA, I, p.117.

2688 Ibid., p.112.

It was Father Melchior who ran the Neapolitan Foundation from Rome, as can be seen from Lord Tapia’s letter to Father Melchior on July 7, in which he rejoiced in his recovery with these kind words: “Your letter of June 17 was a great consolation to me, seeing that, thank God, you are free from the long and dangerous illness you had; equally great was my displeasure at the danger of losing a religious friend for whom I have always felt a very special affection. Now I pray the Lord to give you the strength you need to fulfill his holy service.” And he responded to three questions regarding the foundation that Alacchi had suggested in an earlier letter, “which - the Marquis added - has brought us more light than we had on this matter and on the way it is handled in these schools.” And then he said, “In the meantime, we will try to settle the matter with the Cardinal, who comes very willingly, and we hope that when it becomes cool [in the fall], with the Lord’s grace, we will be able to begin joyfully a work so holy and so much desired by the whole city.”[2689]

2689 Ib., p.116. Scoma has preserved this single letter from Tapia to Alacchi (cf. EC V p.2573-74). Scoma rightly comments: “It seems that Father Melchior had a greater part in this foundation than the aforementioned [Father Casani]” (ibid., p.117).

The new archbishop, Cardinal Francis Boncompagni, gave his permission in writing on August 15, 1626.[2690] And it was not difficult for the Marquis of Belmonte, “who today is the first in the government after the Viceroy”, as Calasanz will say[2691], to obtain the authorization of the civil authorities, especially the Viceroy himself, who was Don Antonio Alvarez de Toledo, Duke of Alba (1622-1629), and not the Duke of Alcalá, Don Fernando de Ribera - as Berro said - who was his immediate successor (1629-1631).

2690 Cf. MORANDI, Narratione, l.c. p.15 Another preparatory version reads on day 4th (RegCal 11).

2691 C.596, dated in Naples on March 20, 1627.

The old saint, with his ailments and his age of sixty-nine, was not ready for such a long journey, but he gave in to the requests of the Marquis of Belmonte, as he confessed while still in Naples: “The fact that I came to Naples was more by force than by choice, since the Marquis of Belmonte urged it so much from here … with Our Lord, and His Holiness in turn entrusted our work to Archbishop Cardinal Boncompagni, and this Cardinal greatly favored and supported it.”[2692] So, he overcame a certain natural resistance and decided to set off on the journey when the mild autumn air made the long journey more bearable.

2692 Cf. ibid.

Never before in the Founder’s life had there been such a large and well-prepared expedition as the one that took him to Naples. There were 17 people, divided into two groups; some traveled by sea, the others by land. The page that Morandi entered in his annals has the appearance of a historical ephemeris and begins thus:

“On October 18, 1626. The Most Reverend Father Joseph of the Mother of God, Minister General, after leaving Father Jacopo [Graziani] of St. Paul as local minister of the Professed House of the Pious Schools in San Pantaleo, left Rome for Naples at a good hour in the morning, after celebrating Holy Mass, to found the Pious Schools near the Duchesca. He traveled in a litter because he had a weak leg and was almost 70 years old.”[2693]

2693 Cf. Morandi, o.c., p.15-16.

And the list of companions continues. Accompanying him in the litter, which was probably drawn by two horses, as was customary at the time, was a young cleric, John Meirana, from Carcare, and with them were two professed brothers on foot, who were joined by a third in Genzano; two others were on horseback, namely Father Francis Trabucco and another brother; the journey took five days. The expedition by sea was led by Father Melchior and of his nine companions, two were professed clerics, two cleric novices and five professed brothers. They reached Naples in two days.

The day after their arrival, the Founder wrote to Fr. Garcia: “We arrived in Naples in good health, thanks be to the Lord; and we found the people very friendly and ready to spend whatever was necessary for our work. Your Paternity say a prayer to the Lord and make all the people at home to do it and also the students, so that the Lord may give us the grace to do everything for his holy service.”[2694] And the following Sunday, October 25th, he wrote to Father Glicerio Cerutti, the master of the novices, expressing great satisfaction: “We arrived here last Thursday [October 22nd], all in good health, thank the Lord, and by today, Sunday, they have come to offer us three places, all excellent, to open the schools and two for the novitiate, without any expense to us, and in this one to which we have come we have found the house prepared with 20 beds in our style and all other necessary objects. Tomorrow, they will buy us a list of books for 20 or 25 escudos, about humanities and devotional matters. They are so friendly and eager for our work that if we were many here, we could open Pious Schools in three or four places.”[2695] On October 30th, he wrote again to Father Garcia with renewed enthusiasm:

2694 C.546. On the 17th he had written to him from Rome: “I intend, with the Lord’s help, to leave tomorrow, St. Luke’s Day, by litter for Naples, saying Mass at dawn, and to arrive at Genzano for lunch. If, after saying Mass there, you come to Genzano tomorrow, I would like it. (C.544).

2695 C.547. The date of the Founder’s arrival in Naples was, therefore, October 22, 1626, Thursday, and not the 23rd, as we read in MORANDI, o.c., p.16. And the departure from Rome, on the 18th, St. Luke’s day, and not on the 4th, as Berro writes, who was short in saying that he was accompanied by only three. In a previous version of Morandi (RegCal 11) we read: “Fr. Melchior left the same day with his companions and arrived in Naples on Tuesday at 20, having been at sea in a boat for only two days.” This would explain why the Founder found the beds prepared “a modo nostro”, as he himself said (C.547).

“Here we are asked every day to take a place in this or that part of the city and give us a house and a church, and you would be amazed at the competition that exists between the neighborhoods and the displeasure that some show because we have taken the Duchesca neighborhood, because it is at one end of the city and is made up of poor or very simple people. But this is the will of Regent Tapia, Marquis of Belmonte, and also of the Vicar General, who wants the first neighborhood to be that of the Duchesca. We would need many subjects here, because the people seem to me to be very pious and inclined to give alms.”[2696]

2696 C.550.

And in a letter to Father Graziani dated November 1st, he asked him to send three others to Naples immediately.[2697]

2697 C.551.

They set up the premises with admirable speed and began teaching on November 5th. The solicitous Br. Morandi noted the event in his chronicle, stating that it took place “with great acclaim from all and with a large number of students” and he adds: “The place where these Pious Schools were founded was a haven of a thousand evils and sins and a refuge for almost all scoundrels, transgressors and gamblers. Where the church was built, there used to be a comedy hall, and where the schools are now located, gambling and other misdeeds took place. Everyone was amazed that a place where so much evil and offenses against God were committed had become a holy place where God was constantly served and praised and where such a work as our Institute was practiced. And everyone gave thanks to God.”[2698] Morandi was not exaggerating, as this short paragraph by the Founder himself in his letter to Fr. Cherubini, exactly one month after the inauguration, proves:

2698 MORANDI, oc., p.16. According to another account, the schools were opened on November 2nd (cf. PosCas, p.552). But this is not plausible, since it is a feast on All Souls’ Day. Besides, this report says that Mass began to be said in the new church on October 28th, after the bishop of Larino blessed it, while the official act says that it was on November 28th (ibid., p.551).

“Here we have opened the schools in the neighborhood of the Duchesca, and for us to enter they have made more than 600 whores who lived here leave it; and they have given us for the church a large building used for comedies, so that where before God was so much offended, now he is praised by more than 600 boys.”[2699]

2699 C.560, dated December 5, 1626.

Exactly one week earlier, on Saturday, November 28th, the new church had been solemnly consecrated under the patronage of the ‘Mother of God of Pious Schools’, according to the indult or permission of the Cardinal Archbishop to build a house and a church.[2700] The inauguration ceremony was performed by Don John Thomas Eustaquio, Bishop of Larino, of the Congregation of the Oratory, as Father Founder had requested, accompanied by five other priests and three clergymen of the same Oratory, “out of special affection for the said religious [of the Pious Schools],” according to the official minutes, which allude to the previous secular use of the new temple.[2701] Calasanz had said of its dimensions: “We will have as a church a place that was formerly used for comedies, three or four times larger than San Pantaleo.”[2702]

2700 “…licentiam propterea iisdem supplicantibus concedimus erigendi et construendi eorum Domum et Eclesiam sub titulo et invocatione della Madre di Dio delle Scuole Pie in loco expresso et nominato in dicto memoriali et in alia quoque parte loci vulgariter nuncupati della Duchesca huius civitatis Neapolis” (cf. BARTLIK, o.c.; EphCal 4 [1939] 116).

2701 The Act is signed by the bishop of Larino on December 9, 1626 and begins with the date of the blessing: November 28, 1626 (cf. BARTLIK, l.c. p.117-118, and another identical version in PosCas, p.551).

2702 C.554.

The airs of Naples rejuvenated the many years of the Old Saint. And not only because of the magnificent landscape of land, sky, sea and Vesuvius, which, once you have seen it, you can die, as the saying goes: veder Napoli e poi morire. What moved the old teacher were the infinite number of children who populated all the upper and lower districts of this huge metropolis, which was perhaps five times larger than Rome with its half a million inhabitants. And most of them were simple people, and they all wanted a school. In the first month of the foundation, he enthusiastically repeated in his letters that the number of children was increasing. In less than eight days there were more than 400; after two weeks there were 500; by the end of the month there were more than 600, and “if there were enough room, we would have a thousand.” And in contrast, he regrets that there are only a few teachers and many offers: “If we were only a hundred instead of 20, we could take four very good places.”[2703]

2703 C.563, 552, 554, 556.

He was overjoyed that his schools were in such demand and that people were so willing and enthusiastic about this novelty. He was even offered a parish without asking, but what moved him most was the “infinity of poor children” he wanted to care for but could not reach. He writes to Father Cherubini:

“Those of Santa Maria della Scala, where there are many merchants, offer to pay us many thousands of escudos; if tomorrow we want to take possession of their church in Toledo Street, they offer us a parish with a house. In Chiaia they also offer us another place, where there are an infinite number of poor boys from these fishermen, and among those who come to the schools there are those with excellent talent and very studious, and they come to the schools with great zeal. I believe there are three times as many boys in Naples as in Rome, and three or four places of ours are not enough to supply the city.”[2704]

2704 C.563.

In Naples, a thaumaturgical manifestation of the Holy Founder could not be missed, as happened in Carcare. First there was a miraculous healing in the person of Mr. Anielo di Falco, one of the first benefactors in whose house the Pious Schools were opened. Both he and his sister Angelica di Falco and their entire families have since maintained a deep and very long friendship with Father Joseph and have remained the main benefactors of the Pious Schools of the Duchesca. The miracle was the immediate healing of a wound on Mr. Anielo’s leg that had not healed for years. Father Joseph simply made the sign of the cross.[2705] Caputi also recounts the conversion of a young family member named John Anthony, which was due to the Saint’s intervention.[2706]

2705 Cf. EGC III, p.145-146.

2706 Cf. BAU, BC, p.551-552.

More dramatic and famous, however, was the conversion of the director, owner and administrator of the Comedy House, which was expropriated to be turned into a chapel and schools, and of three of the main protagonists. About the first, Don Andrew della Valle, Berro reports that he became a priest a few years later and led an exemplary life.[2707] Caputi, Bartlik, the theatine Maggi and the Dominican Marchesi speak of him and the three actors named Francis Longavilla, John Baptist Raunzino and Horace Graziullo.[2708]

2707 Cf. BERRO I, p.148.

2708 Cf. BAU, BC, p.555-558; BARTLIK, o.c.: EphCal 5 (1939) 146.

The failure of Messina and the Founder’s return to Rome

There was no solution for the foundation of Messina. Apparently, the general vicar had taken it personally. The city’s Senate had turned to Rome in mid-January 1626 and asked for the intervention of Cardinal Antonio Barberini and the Congregation of Bishops and Regulars.[2709] On March 23rd, it again requested the intervention of Cardinal Magalotti.[2710] And it had an effect, because on April 3rd, the aforementioned Congregation wrote to the Vicar General, praising the zeal of the Senate of Messina in wanting to introduce the Pious Schools and noting the approval of the Superiors General of the Jesuits, Dominicans, Carmelites, Augustinians and Conventuals: “There seems to be no difficulty in allowing the construction of the new house. As I do not know whether there are any other religious opposed, they order me to write to you that, if there are no contradictory indications, you grant them the appropriate authorization, and if there are any, send the names and reasons of each one here.”[2711]

2709 Calasanz writes about it in his C.392 and 396.

2710 Cf. SCOMA I, p.112.

2711 Cf. CCP, p.38.

Father Casani arrived on the island in mid-May, but it seems that he achieved nothing positive. Not long after, Don Blaise Proto[2712] was appointed Archbishop of Messina, adopting the intransigent line of his vicar general. Perhaps there was another intervention by the Senate against the archbishop’s incomprehensible attitude, for the aforementioned Roman Congregation wrote to the archbishop in mid-August informing him that all the Regulars accepted the foundation of the Pious Schools, with the exception of the monks of St. Bernard, but the Congregation judged that “for very serious reasons this opposition should not be taken into consideration” and left it to him to decide whether to allow the foundation.[2713] Calasanz informed Father Garcia of this decision of the Congregation on August 17th and since the Archbishop was in Rome, Calasanz said, “We will try to get some of his friends to speak to him and commend our cause to him.” Nothing could be achieved.[2714]

2712 Cf. Hier Cath, IV, p. 239.

2713 Cf. CCP, p.39.

2714 C.495.

A few days after Calasanz arrived in Naples, he received letters from Messina informing him “that the Fathers of St. Bernard did not and do not make any request against us, but that it was all a matter of the Capitular General Vicar, who was looking for reasons to oppose our Institute.”[2715] The Saint says that he tried to convince Cardinals Sacchetti and Borgia, as well as the Spanish ambassador and a certain Mr. Saavedra, a friend of Father Garcia.[2716] But nothing happened. At Christmas, the Archbishop passed through Naples on his way to Sicily and had to stop for almost a month because he was ill. He was “very kind” to the Piarists who came to see him, and he even made “great offers” to the Founder.[2717] When he arrived at his headquarters, he stayed contrary to the promises.

2715 C.549.

2716 Cf. C.495, 549, 550-559, etc.

2717 Cf. C.569 and 575.

At the end of March 1627, Calasanz wrote to Graziani: “I have received a letter from Messina saying that the archbishop has made it clear that he does not want us to work in this city.” And on the same day to Garcia: “From Messina I am informed that the Archbishop has said that although our work in Rome has been recommended to him by many, even by the Pope, he is determined not to allow it in Messina, and a baron named Bonvicino, who is very close to the said Archbishop and is the head of the jurors of this year, is against us; so I expect all our people back in the first ship.”[2718]

2718 Scoma, citing other sources, says that Mgr. Proto proclaimed “that the Pious Schools were not necessary in Messina, because the Jesuits were already there, that they were enough; that there were too many Mendicants; that he had never consented, in spite of having been asked to do so in Rome by Card. Sacchetti, and in Naples by the Marquis Regent Tapia; so that they should never think of obtaining permission; if it was enough for them, let the Senate give it to them. He said this because he adhered to the opponents of our Institute, being almost always in the house of the Jesuits and because he was at odds with the Senate” (SCOMA I, p.123-124).

Since the end of January, the founder had already expressed his desire to return to Rome, but he was waiting for the arrival of Fr. Casani from Messina, who was to take over the management of the house in Naples.[2719] As things stood, Father Casani would have to wait a while longer if he was to give up everything and go to Naples altogether. Calasanz regretted his delay and said at the end of March: “I hope he will be here soon, as I have ordered him to be, because this work, since it enjoys so much prestige in Naples, cannot be left but in his hands, in which it will grow rather than shrink.”[2720] Casani finally arrived in the port of Naples with his companions from Messina on April 14th. It had not been possible to appease the Archbishop, who stubbornly and without good reason, and against the opinion and recommendation of so many people, starting with the Pope, prevented the continuation of the Pious Schools in his city.

2719 Cf. C.575, dated January 16, 1627.

2720 C.597, dated March 20, 1626. On March 6th he complained: “our Fr. Peter is so late that I doubt he will force me to stay longer than I thought” (C.593) “I cannot go until the end of this month or the beginning of the next, because Fr. Peter will not have arrived until then” (C.594).

There is no record of the poor Piarists shaking the dust off their sandals when they left Sicily, because in 1633 Father Alacchi returned for the second time, and for good, starting from Palermo and not Messina. In the chronicles of Caputi it is recorded that Br. Francis Noberasco, when he wanted to bid the archbishop farewell, said to him: “Monsignor, you will expel the Pious Schools from Messina, but then Your Excellency will also be expelled. The Pious Schools will return and remain in Messina for the glory of God, but Monsignor will not return.” And Scoma comments: “And so it was: the Pious Schools were founded in Messina six years later, but Monsignor was expelled from the city, wandered around the diocese and died in Milazzo.”[2721] Undoubtedly the commentary is more truthful than what is commented, although it cannot be said that Caputi’s anecdote is implausible.

2721 Cf. SCOMA I, p.125. The reason for this expulsion is recounted by Caputi and again by Scoma: the indiscreet and imprudent zeal of the archbishop induced him to open a mailbox in his palace where everyone could put secret accusations against the concubinaries, rewarding the informers. And many, out of enmity, interest or jealousy, defamed the best families. The protests, disorders and quarrels reached Rome, which forced the archbishop to remove the mailbox. This earned him the hatred of the Senate, the nobles and the city, which forced him to abandon it (cf. ibid., p.124).

Before leaving for Rome, the Founder appointed Father Casani rector of the House of the Duchesca and provincial of the Province of Naples. On January 30, 1627, he had appointed Father Jacob Graziani, Rector of the House of San Pantaleon, as Provincial of the Roman Province.[2722] There were now three provinces: Liguria, Rome and Naples.

2722 “I send you a patent of Provincial for all the houses of Nursia, Narni, Moricone, Frascati and Rome, so that all may correspond to you with the obedience that is due, recommending you what I can for the good and increase of Religion and when I am there you will not feel so much fatigue, with the help of the Lord (C.582, dated January 30, 1627).

He wanted to leave Naples by sea, but bad weather prevented the galleys from setting sail and he had to change his plans. He also did not want to travel by regular mail because, as he explains, “as there are many travelers this week, you have to pay much more than usual,” and therefore decided to “return “in a four-horse carriage, which I hope will leave safely tomorrow [April 25th] and with the Lord’s help will arrive in five or at most six days, that is, next Friday, with only one companion.[2723] And so it was, because on the first of May, a Saturday, he wrote: “I arrived yesterday afternoon” from Naples.”[2724]

2723 Thus he writes on April 24, 1627 to Father Graziani (C.609).

2724 The companion was the professed Cl. Benedict Salinieri of Jesus (cf. MORANDI, o.c., p.16-17).

On September 7th of the same year, a second house was opened in Naples, in the Caravaggio district, next to the so-called Porta Reale, while the Duchesca was next to Porta Capuana. Before the end of the year, on December 21st, another house was founded in Bisignano; on February 9, 1629, they were officially accepted into the new foundation of Campi Salentina, in the extreme southeast of the peninsula; on November 20, 1630, another foundation was accepted in the village of Somma, at the foot of Vesuvius, but the terrible eruption of the volcano on December 16, 1631 destroyed the village and the Piarists did not return. On August 5, 1631, they took possession of a new house in Cosenza, which was abandoned after the devastating earthquake of 1638. On September 13, 1633, Cardinal Boncompagni granted permission to live in another foundation in Naples, in Polisipo, which was intended for sick and convalescent religious. Finally, in 1636, a foundation was accepted in Chieti, in Abruzzo, whose schools were opened in 1640. This was the last house of the Neapolitan province to be opened during the lifetime of the Holy Founder.[2725]

2725 Cf. MORANDI, o.c., p.17,22-24,26; L. PICANYOL, Brevis Conspectus, p.120-123.

The voyage to Naples was the last long journey of his life. From then on, he only occasionally rode his donkeys to the small towns near Rome, such as Poli, Moricone and Frascati. His advanced age prevented him from moving around to found or visit the houses that were springing up all over Italy and Europe. But from his tiny room in Rome - which remains intact to this day[2726] - he directed all the new foundations one by one and held the reins of the Order’s leadership with an integrity and meticulousness that went beyond all measure. To this end, he made use of correspondence and intervened in all problems of provincial, local and personal nature, almost to the point of being unbelievable. He must have written between 10,000 and 12,000 letters, judging by those that have survived and the allusions made by him or his correspondents to others who have disappeared. So far, around 4,900 have been published.[2727] He is an exceptional case among the historical figures whose correspondence has been so richly preserved.[2728]

2726 Cf. C. VILA, Cella dormitionis de N.S.P.: algunos datos sobre su historial: EphCal 1 (1984) 19-38; ID., Sobre la “cella dormitionis” de N.S.P. y sus puertas: ib., 5 (1984) 226-230.

2727 They make up a body of 10 volumes, with the title Epistolario di S. Giuseppe Calasanzio. To the first nine published by L. Picanyol in the years 1950-1956, is added the tenth, published by C. Vilá in 1988, with excellent complementary indexes.

2728 Among the Founders there are still some who surpass him in the number of letters preserved and published, such as St. Ignatius of Loyola, of whom about seven thousand have been published in twelve volumes, or St. John Bosco, of whom about twenty thousand are preserved, not all of them published yet.

The Collegio Nazareno

When Cardinal Tonti died in the arms of Calasanz on April 2, 1622, no one would have guessed that it would take another eight years before his testamentary dispositions to found the so-called Collegio Nazareno would be fulfilled, and that it would take no less than sixty-seven years before the grandiose palace that Cardinal Nazareno had bought from the Caetani family for this purpose on January 29, 1622,[2729] would become the permanent seat of the school - until today.

2729 Cf. P. VANNUCCI, Il Collegio Nazareno, p.92, n.10 and p.102, n.26.

The hereditary setbacks provoked by the late cardinal’s relatives and servants for more than half a century are a sarcastic paradox, considering that Tonti had already received a special concession from Paul V since 1609, at the time of his greatest fortune. to make a will (facultas testandi) with the guarantee of absolute freedom, but with such attention to detail and meticulousness that it seemed as if all questions, even the most unpredictable, had been clarified in advance.[2730] What was perhaps truly unpredictable, however, was his death, for at the age of fifty-six he had not yet thought of making a will, so that at the last moment and on his deathbed, surrounded only by his family and his domestic servants, he hardly had the necessary clarity of mind and freedom of decision that he wanted to guarantee with the papal concession of 1609. Moreover, his selfish servants managed to ignore the requests of the sick man, who asked to speak to the Father General of the Pious Schools, and even to prevent him from being present at the drafting of the will.[2731]

2730 Ibid., p.61. Michelangelo Tonti had been a lawyer, administrator and counselor of the Borgese. When Cardinal Camillus was elected pope, under the name of Paul V (May 16, 1605), Tonti was appointed “Auditor General” of Cardinal Nepote, Scipione Borghese, and his influence, prestige and fortune grew from day to day. In October 1608 he was appointed Archbishop of Nazareth, in southern Italy (cf. ch. 16, n.2194), and on November 24th Cardinal, and then Archpriest of St. Mary Major and Datario. In 1609 the pope also named him bishop of Cesena, near Rimini, without the obligation to reside in his see. His power was maliciously expressed by Pasquino saying: Paulo sedente, Tonto regnante. But his excessive pre-eminence lost him, when his former protector, Cardinal Nepote, felt himself to be outcast. In 1612 he had to retire to his bishopric of Cesena, where he remained until the death of Paul V (Cf. P. VANNUCCI, o.c., p.37-39). When he returned to Rome for the conclave in February 1621 he remained in the Curia, meeting Calasanz. He died the following year.

2731 Berro tells that when the Cardinal fell ill, he asked to call Fr. José Calasanz to deal with the will, but his relatives and domestic servants prevented him from doing so. Because of the new insistent requests, Fr. José arrived, but they made him wait with the false pretext that they were applying a remedy to the sick person, locking him in a room for five hours, until the testament was finished: When he presented himself before the Cardinal, the latter regretted that he had not come earlier and made him read the testament, telling him that if he did not like it, he would have it corrected. But, given the serious state of the sick man, Father Joseph did not want to displease him and said nothing about what had happened, accepting the will as it was (cf. BERRO I, p.184-186).

Despite all this, the core of the testamentary disposition was directed towards the foundation of the Collegio Nazareno. In fact, according to the text summarized by Bau, the cardinal testator

“…orders the establishment and foundation of a Collegio, which shall bear the name Nazareno. For the said Collegio he proclaims and appoints as universal heir of all his movable, immovable and independent goods, wherever they may be in the present and in the future, of all his offices in the Roman Curia, of all the places of the Mounts, of all his assets, rights and actions, including those contained in the donation in favor of the Illustrious Ms. Casandra Tonti, his sister, which he has already revoked in due course. He leaves to the said Collegio his entire inheritance (having previously paid his legacies and debts), the income, fruits and emoluments of which must be claimed and administered by the Rector of the same, who must be chosen from among the Fathers of the Pious Schools. He will keep his accounts separate from those of his corporation and submit them each year to the auditors of the Holy Rota...”[2732]

2732 BAU, BC, p.568-569.

His domestic servants were able to secure a good portion of the cardinal’s large fortune by being allocated lifelong pensions or temporary annuities with other compensation in his will. But it was his nephews, the children of his sister Cassandra, who were not satisfied with what they had already received from him and contested the will, capriciously disposing of the testamentary goods and jeopardizing the possibility of founding the Collegio Nazareno.[2733]

2733 Berro assures us that the cardinal’s fortune exceeded two hundred thousand escudos in capital (remember that the house of San Pantaleon cost 10,000 escudos in 1612); that he instituted a primogeniture for a nephew, of 50,000 escudos; that to another he ceded the rights of an abbey of 7.000 escudos a year; that the nephews, when the Cardinal died, sold for a few thousand escudos the cattle of his lands in Romagna, which were valued at more than 50,000, besides perpetrating other outrages in his possessions in Rome, Rimini and Cesena. Nor were the domestic servants and executors more moderate; they plundered and misappropriated the furniture of the palace and the rich library of the cardinal (cf. BERRO, l.c).

The first official act in which he undertook to fulfill Cardinal Tonti’s will, expressed in the will regarding the foundation of the Collegio, was signed by Father General of the Pious Schools on August 24, 1622. It states:

“After the illustrious and reverend Rvd. Michael Angel Tonti, Cardinal of the S.I.R., in his will of 19. April 1622 that a school with the name Nazareno be founded in his palace in order to educate and teach initially 12 and later 20 pupils under the direction of the Fathers Poor of the Mother of God of Pious Schools according to the rules and constitutions of the said Fathers, in order that this pious wish of the reverend Cardinal may be fulfilled, I offer to take charge of the care and instruction of the students if the Collegio fulfills all the requirements according to the will of the reverend Cardinal, provided that poverty and the Constitutions of my Congregation are respected. As a witness to this, I sign this document in Rome, in the Pious Schools, on August 24, 1622. Joseph of the Mother of God, Minister of the Clerics Poor of the Mother of God.”[2734]

2734 Cf. Latin text in P. VANNUCCI, o.c., p.80-81 with photocopy of the original document.

For a long time, however, nothing could be done, as the passivity of the executors of the will left the cardinal’s nephews free to use and abuse his disputed estates, until in 1627 the intervention of the Tribunal of the Rota succeeded in recovering a large part of the estates of Romagna (Rimini and Cesena). For their better defense and preservation, in 1628 the executors ceded their rights and duties regarding the inheritance to Father General and his Order and demanded that two religious be sent to Cesena to administer the said estates, which was done.[2735] However, the school could not yet be opened during these very years, because at the end of June 1627 the Sacred Congregation of the Regulars, which had accepted the request made by Calasanz the month before, had ordered him not to accept any new foundation for the next two years.[2736] The ban ended at the end of June 1629.

2735 Such were Fr. Peregrino Tencani and Br. Archangel Sorbino, with whom he began on November 8, 1628 a very abundant epistolary correspondence (cf. C.986, 1065). In the years 1632-1638, except for some intervals, Fr. Cherubini resided in Cesena, as administrator of these goods (cf. EHI, p.631).

2736 Cf. G. SÁNTHA, Calasanctius et Visitatio Apostolica; EphCal 5 (1959) 199, n.38; P. VANNUCCI, o.c., p.82-83).

By mid-September, Calasanz had already announced to the citizens of Cesena: “As for the Collegio, be sure that it will be opened soon, at least for ten or twelve [students].”[2737] And on the same day, he showed Father Cherubini the house in which the Collegio was to be established.[2738] It was located next to the church of S. Andrea ‘delle Fratte’ and formed a block with Palazzo Tonti, both buildings the cardinal had purchased at the same time for the future seat of his school.[2739] By the end of the year, Calasanz was again referring to the next inauguration in his letters, doubting the actual number of students and asking Cesena to send him things, but above all, money.[2740] On November 15th, he already mentions the opening date, and on the 29th he almost gives those of Cesena the program of the inauguration: “On the first of the year, with the help of the Lord, in our Oratory of the Schools [of St. Pantaleon], after Mass, eight students of Collegio Nazareno will dress in the presence of many who have offered their participation, and after the celebration we will accompany them to their house.”[2741] And so it happened on January 1, 1630, the historic date of the Collegio’s birth.[2742]

2737 C.1208.

2738 C.1209.

2739 It was inhabited by the priest don Blaise Fattori, one of the cardinal’s executors, who describes him in the will as “ancient and faithful familiar” (cf. C.1209 and P. VANNUCCT, o.c., p.92, n.10).

2740 Cf. c.1211, 1221, 1239, 1250, 1256, 1260.

2741 C.1282. As was the custom in colleges of scholars and clerics, the boarders wore talar habits down to their feet, whose make and colors distinguished them from others. In this case, the Saint goes on to describe the habit thus: “the cassock is purple and the overcoat with long sleeves is light brown with the shows of color of dry rose that they appear very well and different from all the other collegianti” (ibid.). See a design of the habit in P. VANNUCCI, o.c., p.87.

2742 Cf. ibid.; p.84, 90-94. Berro mistakes the date, saying it was “a 4th ottobre 1630 o pur 1631”, as well as the number of fellows, which he says was 6 instead of 8 (cf. BERRO I, p.188). Of these first eight scholarship holders, two were 14 years old; two others, 15; and the other four, 16. Of these, four were later priests (cf. P. VANNUCCI, o.c., p.92, n.9).

The testamentary dispositions for the foundation of the Collegio stipulated that 12 students, a maximum of 20, should be accommodated in the boarding school; they should be poor but intellectually gifted; two of them should always come from Rimini; they should be selected and examined by the Piarist Fathers and presented in a list to the auditors of the Rota, who selected from the pupils presented those who were needed according to the free scholarships. The Collegio was to be under the patronage of the Roman Rota, while the management, administration and pedagogical tasks were to be taken over by the Piarists.[2743] Specifically, Calasanz was the official Rector of the school from 1630 to 1643, but among the stable religious of the community there was a superior and even Calasanz himself sometimes lived at the Collegio.[2744]

2743 Cf. BAU, BC, p.568-569.

2744 Cf. C.1839, 1842, 1853. In a document of May 17, 1630, it is recorded that Fr. Francis Baldi was “Scholae Praeceptor et Superior dicti Collegi” (cf. Fr. VANNUCCI, o.c., p.122, n.10). BERRO says of himself: “fui il primo Superiore e Rettore di quello” (BERRO I, p.189), but he gets confused again, because from the end of 1628 until 1631 he was at Poli, from where he went to the Nazareno (cf. EHI, p.294. n.1).

Before the Collegio was inaugurated, the Holy Founder of the Pious Schools drew up its Constitutions or Regulations, taking into account the customs and mores already existing in similar institutions, as the cardinal had indicated in his will.[2745] Reading them today, they seem more suitable for a seminary or novitiate than for a “boarding school” Those were different times.

2745 Cf. BAU, BC, p.568. VARIOS, I Regolamenti del Collegio Nazareno (Roma 1979) p.37-47. First complete Spanish translation in C. VILÁ, El P. Fetipe Scío, pedagogo: AnCal (1961) num. extra., p.179-189 (Apendice tercero: Constituciones del Colegio Nazareno) On the various translations and publications of the document, cf. ibid., p. 77. n. 24. FAUBELL, Antología Pedagógica Calasancia (Salamanca 1988) p.152-162.

As an institution, the Collegio Nazareno was a new experience in the religious Schools and was initially not accepted by Calasanz because it seemed to contradict the Order’s Constitutions, because it was a boarding school[2746] and because of possible violations of the supreme poverty, as it was supposed to have stable goods with its fixed income, which had to be defended through inevitable legal proceedings.[2747] But in the end, the cardinal bent his will by making it clear that it was to benefit “the poorest and most gifted”, as emphasized in the will and in the Regulations.[2748] And to remove any scruples about poverty, he placed the college under the patronage of the Roman Rota. Even the Holy Founder himself, when he took over the direction, expressly left poverty and the Constitutions of the Order untouched.[2749]

2746 Cf. CC, n. 184. The exceptions to this norm were accepted by Calasanz, almost forced by Cardinals, as was the Seminary of Magliano, requested by Giustiniani, the Nazareno by Tonti and the College-Seminary of Nikolsburg by Cardinal Dietrichstein.

2747 Cf. CC, n. 145-148.

2748 “The Auditors will elect by majority vote the poorest, the most egregious, the most ingenious and the most moral” (Testamento: BAU, BC, p. 569); “To carry out the will manifested in the testament of the Cardinal Founder, of good memory, the poorest boys of the best talent and the best morals will be chosen (Constituciones del Colegio Nazareno: V. FAUBELL, o.c., p. 153, n. 4).

2749 “…alumnorum curam et eruditionem me suscepturum dummodo paupertas Congregationis meae (et) Constitutiones eiusdem in aliquo non laedantur” (cf. P. VANNUCCI, o.c., p.81).

Another novelty of the institution was its similarity to the Collegio Romano, as there was no primary education and the regulations required that students “be able to read and write and have at least a good grounding in the declension and conjugation of nouns and verbs.”[2750] This level of higher education allowed the Holy Founder to think of sending his cleric students of humanities, Latin and rhetoric there, even before the school was founded, so that they could be properly educated.[2751] And so it happened: they attended classes at the school, but then returned to their religious house.[2752]

2750 Cf. V. FAUBELL, o.c., p.152, n.2.

2751 On December 15, 1629 he writes: “On the first day of the year I thought that the Collegio Nazareno would be opened with only eight students, where I think five or six of our students would study.” (C.1275).

2752 This is what the Prelates of the General Apostolic Visitation, on May 17, 1630, stated: “In the school they are together with them (the eight boys) eight clerical students of the Pious Schools, who do not live in the Collegio, but after the lesson, they return to their own religious house.” (cf. P. VANNUCCI, o.c., p.I22, n.10).

On the other hand, the Nazareno was to be a kind of school for the talented students of the Pious Schools, because, with the exception of two coming from Rimini, in order to ensure the necessary qualities, “it is ordered - the decree states - that before they are admitted to the said [selection] examination, they must have been students in the said schools [Pious Schools] for at least one year, so that they may know not only their talent and poverty, but also good morals.”[2753]

2753 Cf. V. FAUBELL, o.c., p.153, n.5. See the request of Fr. John Garcia for the admission of a student from Frascati (C.1260).

The founding testamentary estates, which had been severely decimated and impoverished by the Tonti’s nephews, were not sufficient to maintain the school, so that the number of students was very low in the first few years and they lived at times at the expense of the Order.[2754] To remedy the situation, Calasanz thought of selling all these goods from distant Romagna, but the Roman Curia rejected the idea.[2755] He then proposed to the Pope that the college be moved to Cesena for a period of six years “because the said petitioner [Calasanz] feared the complete destruction of the said Collegio”. The request was granted, with the six-year period being reduced to three years, but it remained a dead letter.[2756]

2754 To those of Cesena Calasanz writes on November 23, 1633: “As for the students, I send them now to study in the novitiate” (C.2140); on March 7, 1635: “As for taking students, be sure that we will not take any until the affairs of the school are not accommodated and now the students are maintained at the expense of the Religion” (C.2344. Cf. C.2264, 2288; EC, p.872, 875; BERRO I, p. 189.

2755 Cf. P. VANNUCCI, o.c., p.95-96, n.16.

2756 Ibid., p.96. On May 27, 1634 Calasanz writes to Cesena: “Finally it is resolved that the College can be transferred for three years” (C.2236).

As an emergency solution, the Collegio moved into various headquarters, all of which were small and modest and sufficient for the few students who could be supported, even in the Order’s own premises to save on rent. In 1634, it moved from its first location next to Palazzo Tonti to the novitiate near alle Quattro Fontane and from there, in the same year, to an adjacent house which, like the novitiate, belonged to the Barberini. Both houses had to be vacated in 1638 due to the demands of the papal family, and the two institutions were housed in a building near the Fontana del Moses and the church of Santa Maria della Vittoria. In October 1638, the College moved to the palace of Duke Muti in the so-called Horti Salustiani, from where it moved to the Rusticucci Palace next to S. Pietro in November 1644. In February 1646 it had already moved to the Borgo Nuovo near the Vatican church of S. Anna, and after a year it was transferred to the Borgo Sant’Angelo, where it stayed until 1648 or 1649, when it moved to Via San Onofrio or the slope to the Janiculum, where it remained for a long time until 1689. In that year, it took place the last move to the Palazzo of Cardinal Tonti, where it has remained to this day.[2757] In the meantime, during this long half-century, Palazzo Tonti was rented by Calasanz almost from the beginning to supplement the scarce income from the other foundation properties, as it was too much palace for so few students.[2758]

2757 Cf. P. VANNUCCI, o.c., p.85-88 and corresponding notes.

2758 On January 7, 1634 Calasanz wrote: “As for the Collegio I think to rent the palace in order to be able to pay the annual fees here.” (C.2174) and on January 28, 1634: “Now I think that we would rent the Palace for 500 scudi to the Lady Duchess Cesis with the small house where the College used to be.” (C.2187). In a Latin document, after 1689, we read: “Palatium ad annum usque 1689 diversis urbis Patritiis locatum fui ac primo quidem Ducissae Isabellae (Cesi) of Aquasparta [1631-43], deinde Cardinali Bentivoglio [1644], tum Patriarchae Ursinio [1645], postea celebri D. Olimpiae Pamphyliae (1647-1653), hinc Marchioni Aloysio Costaguto [1657-1661], ac demurn praesuli Georgio et comiti Ferdinando Bolosnetti [1661-1689], nec prius ad idem Palatium rediit Collegium, quam anno 1689” (cf. P. VANNUCCI, o.c., p.103).

The Colegio Nazareno also underwent a similar transformation to the Pious Schools, for after being founded exclusively for the poor, the rich and the nobility were also admitted in order to avoid marginalization and exclusivity. Although the Pious Schools generally maintained a free education for all, the Collegio Nazareno and other boarding schools that were to follow, along with the scholars who were completely free through the foundation, also admitted other boarders who had to pay. This happened around the year 1642, when there was already talk of pupils (scholars) and boarders (convittori). The question of admitting such boarders had already been proposed since 1634, and Calasanz delayed the matter.[2759]

2759 A decree given by Calasanz on October 1, 1642 reads: “vobis in Collegio Nazareno de Urbe convictoribus et alumnis” (ibid., p.100). With date of May 27, 1634, he writes to Cesena: “We’ll talk about the boarders later, because if we have to take them, I don’t want them to be more than 14 or 15 years old.” (C.2236 And on November 26, 1639 he still had not decided: “As for the matter of the boarding school, it cannot be undertaken if our schools are not open, which is not possible at the moment.” (C.3205).

If he admitted all kinds of children in all his schools, favoring the poor, he had to do the same at the Nazareno, favoring the “gifted poor”, as the will prescribed. The free education of the scholars was based on the foundation goods - which had been so scarce for many years - but the poverty of the Order could not allow him to pay for the upkeep of the other boarders. Nor did it have to, as the parents of these boarders not only had sufficient means, but often belonged to the Roman, Italian and even European nobility, especially as the Collegio Nazareno was later regarded as one of the most famous not only in Rome and Italy, but in the whole of Europe.[2760]

2760 In 1948 Fr. BAU wrote: “The Nazareno has been in existence for 318 years. Six Venerables, 16 illustrious scholars of Italy, 41 Cardinals, 29 Archbishops, Bishops, Nuncios and General Superiors of Orders, 13 great dignitaries, Ministers, Generals, 51 Knights and Commanders of Malta, 64 Barons, 92 Princes, 87 Dukes, 325 Marquises, 412 Counts have passed through its classrooms” (BAU, BC, p.568). Cf, more alumni data in A. PUCCI - A. MANODORO, Il Nazareno, p.81-161).

The Pious Schools of Fiammelli

In the first periods of their existence, at the beginning of the century, before they became a religious congregation, the Pious Schools of Rome were in a way a quarry for new teachers, a kind of informal teaching institution. Of all Calasanz’s collaborators, “many of them - as he himself said in a report of 1623 - having learned well the way of teaching, went on to make schools elsewhere for their interest.”[2761] These new schools were not described as “pious”, above all because they were not opened free of charge, but for a fee, “for interest” and not out of pure charity.

2761 EGC II, p.170.

One of Calasanz’s first companions, the aforementioned Florentine priest John Francis Fiammelli, appeared in Bologna a few years after leaving the Pious Schools in Rome, where, with the generous support of a group of priests and lay people, he opened a Pious School in August 1616 with the approval and protection of the then Archbishop of the city, Cardinal Alexander Ludovisi, the future Gregory XV. These were not simple public schools, but a secular Congregation, as the Pious Schools of Rome had been when Fiammelli belonged to them and called himself “fratello della Congregazione delle Scuole Pie” (Brother of the Congregation of the Pious Schools) in 1602.[2762]

2762 See the cover of his book Il Principe cristiano guerriero in BAU, BC, p.589.

With simplicity and sincerity, the founders of these schools in Bologna recognized their kinship with the Roman Pious Schools, both in name and in content. Indeed, in the Rules of the Bolognese Congregation, printed in 1629, we read the following

“In 1616, after Mr. John Francis Fiammelli, Florentine, had come to Bologna and with the help of some priests and other pious people had tried to introduce the Pious Schools after the model of Rome, they finally began with the help of a Congregation and with the approval and authority of the Archbishop on August 22nd of the same year in three rooms above the hospital of St. Mary of Death. These schools, unlike the other ordinary schools, are called Pious because they teach the poor out of charity and because they take great care to ensure that their students become good Christians, pious, devout and God-fearing.”[2763]

2763 Cited in L. PICANYOL, Le Scuole Pie e Galileo Galilei, p.60-61, n.2. The quoted text ends by describing the continuous prayer that was practiced in the schools of Calasanz and that was also instituted in Bologna: “l’Istituto loro vuole che sempre, durando le scuole, perseveri l’oratione, che si fa da certa quantità di Putti, che successivamente entra e subentra nel modo che si dirà” (Their Institute desires that always, during the schools, there is the prayer, which is done by a certain number of children, which enter and change in the way that will be said).

Fiammelli had been appointed “Prefect of Pious Schools” by his fellow members of the Congregation, but he probably resigned at the end of this course, in October/November or late 1616, and went to Florence, eager to help his own country with a similar institution.[2764] A few months later, around March or April 1617, he actually opened Pious Schools in the city of the Arno river, occupying the house of a certain Giovanni Nardi at least at the beginning of the new school year in November and moving them in May of the following year to Via dei Cimatori or dello Studio in a building belonging to the Cerchi family called Casa della Sapienza (House of Wisdom).

2764 Cf. R. FANTINI, L’istruzione popolare a Bologna fino al 1800 (Bologna 1971), p.6-7. It is interesting to note the popular panorama of Bologna regarding, above all, free popular instruction, which was to be common throughout Italy: “Panorama rather bleak - says the author -since the education was reserved only for the privileged classes. However, in Bologna the privilege was broken from 1616 with the institution of the Scuole Pie for the free education of the children of the people” (ibid. p.VII-VIII). A synthesis with abundant textual quotations of what Fantini expounds on the Pious Schools of Bologna can be found in F. MOROSI, Le Scuole Pie di Bologna: Ricerche 5(1982) 78-93. Cf. also R. FANTINI, Le Scuole Pie di Bologna (Bologna 1942).

In Florence, as in Bologna, the establishment of Fiammelli’s Pious Schools was an absolute novelty. The difficulties he had to overcome to establish himself in Casa della Sapienza and obtain official support and subsidies from the authorities gave rise to a series of pleadings and reports that allow us to ascertain the scholastic situation of the time. There used to be four public schools in Florence, each with a subsidy of 200 lire “with the withholdings”. This meager salary led to the schools being reduced to two from December 18, 1609, each with 400 lire and “the withholding”, which amounted to a further 56 escudos per year. These schools were one on one side of the Arno and the other on the other side, each with a priest-teacher. The school there had 24 students, the one here 16, and in both Cicero, Virgil, Horace and Ovid were read and Greek was taught. We are not told whether they also taught reading, writing and arithmetic. Perhaps they assumed that they had learned this.

In the Pious Schools of Fiammelli, which according to a report from April 1618 are still housed in the house of Giovanni Nardi, grammar is also taught, but above all reading, writing and abacus; they have nine teachers with 400 children, “a good part of whom would perhaps neither learn to read nor write without this comfort[2765], and the fear of God is also instilled in them, and it is amazing that teachers are found who, out of charity, want to devote themselves to such a strenuous and zealous exercise.”[2766]

2765 With this it is implicitly affirmed that the schools were free, and for such “convenience” 400 chidren attended, while the other two official ones would be like those of Rome, that is, subsidized by the public authorities, but with obligatory contributions (“the retentions”) of the pupils, for which reason they were so few. In this same report it is said that Florence is “una città bene ordinata dove è assai porvertà” (a city well organized where there is much poverty), and therefore there are poor children.

2766 Cf. O. TOSTI, Giovan Francesco Fiammelli e I’introduzíone degli scolopi in Firenze; Archivum 13 (1985) 24-25. On October 28, 1617, in view of the new academic year 1617-1618, Fiammelli asked the Grand Duke for the building in Via dei Cimatori, occupied for 40 years by weavers, who try to keep it (cf. ibid., p.21-23). In April 1618 Fiammelli continues to insist, because “for the large number of schoolchildren can not remain where they are, which for being too narrow, are dominated by great stench “ (ibid., p.24). The Duke asks for reports and they are given to him in May 1618. These are the ones we have quoted.

Fiammelli’s tactics mimic those of Calasanz, also in economic terms. And when he finds teachers to help him “out of charity”, he also has to pay the rent for the premises and other occasional expenses, for which he turns to the public purse. The Grand Duke Cosimo II of Medici not only ordered that the building in Via dei Cimatori be made available to the Pious Schools, but also that its rent be paid from public funds.[2767] And for other additional expenses, Fiammelli did not hesitate to approach the Grand Duchess Mother, briefly informing her of the situation[2768] and asking her to pay, among other things, the rent of the first house, which had not yet been paid.[2769]

2767 The aforementioned report of April 1618 recommends to the Grand Duke the cession of the building in Via dei Cimatori and that the way to pay its rent be studied, to which on behalf of the Grand Duke a reply is given at the bottom of the report, dated May 4, 1618 “Facciasi come si propone” (Be done as proposed) (cf. 1.c., p.25-26). In September another report is presented with the solution of the share and is answered with identical terms on the 22nd of the same month (ibid., p.28-29).

2768 In the request that Fiarnmelli addresses to the Archduchess on September 22, 1618 there is the key to fix the date of the foundation of the Pious Schools of Florence. It says: “Already 30 months ago Giovanfrancesco Fiammelli came to Florence to erect the Pious Schools and 18 months ago with Divine help carried out this holy thought of his” (cf. O. TOSTI, o.c., p.27). In September 1618 it was already 18 months since his foundation. Then it was in March or April 1617. A letter of Fiammelli to Calasanz, dated April 1, 1630, speaks of the fatigues to earn his bread, “as I have already done here [in Florence] for space of sixteen years.” (EHI, p.1188). Based on this expression, which is not sufficiently clear, some have deduced that Fiammelli founded the Pious Schools in Florence in 1614, before founding them in Bologna (cf. G. SÁNTHA, EHI, p.1188, n.1 L. PICANYOL, Le Scuole Pie e Galileo Galilei, p.61, n. 1, in which he rightly rejects that it happened in 1625, as we read in a Florentine document; F. MOROSI, Memorie storiche della prima casa di Firenze: Ricerche 12 [1984] 251). Vilá is not right either in proposing a date of 1618 or 1619 (cf. C. VILÁ, Galeria de escolapios “seculares”: Archivum 14 [1983] 285). All of them were unaware of the documents of the Arch. di Stato. Firenze, published by O. Tosti in the study we are citing. On the other hand, the 30 months to which Fiammelli alludes could mean that in March 1616 he was in Florence trying to make this foundation; but, seeing that it was not possible, he went to Bologna, where he appears documented for the first time on May 29, 1616 (cf, F. MOROSI, Le Scuole Pie di Bologna, p.78-79). In another supplication of March, 1619, he says of himself: “The supplicant for being 39 months in Florence at his own expense…” (cf. O. TOSTI, o.c., p.31-32), with which he confirms that at the beginning of 1616 he was already in Florence.

2769 “…hoping to have some help, he has spent more than 500 escudos of his own money and does not have to live for himself, neither that he can help the work. Now, based in promises of people, he has rented a house from M. Giovanni Nardi for the use of the said schools and he has been left with the said rent and in past May it was 25 scudos with the expenses, and that the petitioner has to pay for it, and 23 escudos will be at All Saints’ for not having wanted M. Giovanni to rent it etc…” (cf. in O. TOSTI, o.c., p.21). It seems, therefore, that from the time he founded the schools, around March-April 1617, until the end of the school year he spent more than 500 escudos, including, logically, the rent of a first unknown building; trusting then to promises of help, he changed house and rented Nardi’s house for the whole of the following school year; At the end of the first semester, in May, he got the new house in Via dei Cimatori and moved, but he had not paid the rent of the one he was leaving, and he had to pay also the second semester for All Saints without having occupied it. For this and something else he had recourse to the Archduchess. The Grand Duke, for his part, ordered that the rent of the new house in Via dei Cimatori be paid from May 1618, that is, from the time the Pious Schools moved there. For this reason, on September 22, 1618, he wrote to the Grand Duke: “Your Highness approved on Last May by your rescript the report of practice on the Pious Schools of this city, regarding the house that was granted to them in via de’Cimatori near Orsanmichele, for which they have to pay rent of 81 escudos a year to the Magistrate of the Captains of Parti [whose building it was] and the payment of the first semester comes next November.” It is specified to paying the rent in two semesters and in the name of the Grand Duke it is approved: “Facciasi come si propone” (Be done as proposed) (ibid., p.28-29). It does not seem, therefore, accurate what Tosti affirms: “Il trasferimento dovette avvenire nel mese di ottobre 1618” (The transfer could happen by October 1618) (ibid., p.29). It must have been in May.

He also adhered to Calasanz’s idea that an oratory was needed alongside the schools for the religious education of the children. And in November 1618, when the cold of winter was already making itself felt, he again turned to the Grand Duchess and asked for help to repair the windows of the classrooms and the oratory, “in which - he says - we spend five hours of the day praying on feast days and half an hour praying for the general peace and for Your Highnesses.” And he began this request with these words: “The poor boys who tremble in the Pious Schools humbly beg you to favor them by ordering that...”[2770] In March 1619, he asked for the wooden altar to be replaced with a brick one, and in May he requested permission to say mass in the oratory “for the benefit and advantage of the children who are taught to write there.”[2771]

2770 Cf. ibid., p.31.

2771 Cf. ibid., p.32. In the Latin document, in which he is given license to say Mass in the Oratory, Fiammelli is called “Rectoris et Praefecti piarum scholarum”, a title he had also in Bologna and which recalls the one Calasanz had for so many years in Rome.

There is ample evidence that the old friendship between Calasanz and Fiammelli had not cooled even after the founding of the Pious Schools in Florence, for when the latter traveled to Rome, he was received fraternally in San Pantaleo or in Frascati, as Calasanz says in October 1621.[2772] On the other hand, in October 1624, a group of Piarist novices traveling to Rome from Genoa passed through Florence, among them Berro, who writes: “In Florence we went to the house of Mr. Fiammelli, who was in charge of the Pious Schools, and we stayed in the city for two days.”[2773] It is likely that the house in Via Cimatori was a reception point for the Piarists coming and going from northern Italy to Rome. Berro also asserts that “there was always a religious correspondence between the two [Calasanz and Fiammelli].[2774]

2772 From Frascati Calasanz writes to Fr. Garcia, who is in Rome, dated October 1, 1621: “Mr. Fiammelli is going there; if he wants to stay in the school for a few days, give him the room next to Fr. Caspar, or if he wants to stay at the novitiate where perhaps he will be better off, and give him to eat in his room” (C.88). The fact that he does not say who is he indicates that he was already known to everyone from previous visits. And more than one visit to Rome or Frascati is mentioned in another letter of October 3rd from Calasanz to Garcia: “To Sig. Fiammelli you will say that his memorandum has been remitted to the Datario and moreover that the leather bag that he left with the medals and the cross was immediately (put) safe by Fr. Pietro Andrea to give it to him when he came back here [to Frascati] or (to) give it there” (C.89). Corrected with the original. text.

2773 BERRO I p.130. We already spoke of this trip previously. Calasanz alludes to it in a letter of October 16, 1624 (C.257).

2774 BERRO I, p.195. There had to be also epistolary correspondence, but only a letter of Fiammelli to Calasanz has remained (cf. EHI, p.1187-1189), that we will quote later.

The Piarists in Florence

The first to think of and take the first steps to found a Piarist house in Florence was the Tuscan (from Castiglion Fiorentino), Father Francis Castelli, when he was Provincial of Genoa.[2775] In June 1628, he wrote to the Archbishop, Mons. Alexander Marzi-Medici, asking him for permission to found the Order and sending him a report on the Order and its Constitutions and privileges. On 15 July, the archbishop replied to him, expressing his benevolence and recognizing the great benefits for the city. He said:

2775 BERRO writes: “Fr. Francis [Castelli] being a native and nobleman of Castiglione Fiorentino procured permission from O. V. Fr. Founder and General, while he was Provincial of Liguria, to procure the introduction of the Pious Schools in Florence”. (BERRO I p.194). The chapter Berro dedicates to the foundation in Florence is too short and inacurate in comparison what he dedicated to other Provinces.

“If I could conveniently dispose of a place, and at the same time have as much authority as would please your paternity, you would understand that the request you make to me in your gracious letter of last June falls far short of what I wish to do for the sake of your Religion. If I have an opportunity, I will not fail to help you, both because of my obligation and because of the great benefit you should bring to this city in view of the great poverty that prevails here. Rest assured that I will do everything in my power to satisfy you.”[2776]

2776 Cf. O. TOSTI, o.c., p.35.

However, a long year passed without any steps being taken. Perhaps Castelli understood that it was not easy to achieve his goal from a distance, nor was it convenient to move himself to clear the ground, and he decided to send a man he trusted: Father Archangel Galletti, a compatriot of his. Without giving many explanations, he wrote to Calasanz that he urgently needed Father Galletti, who was in Naples, and Calasanz asked for him on September 15, 1629, giving him only two months to resolve the matter.[2777] The first time that Calasanz speaks of the planned foundation in Florence is on the 22nd of the same month, exactly one week after the previous letter, and he considers it impossible precisely because the Pious Schools of Fiammelli already exist there. Perhaps Castelli had just informed him of the founding plan, in which Father Galletti was also involved, and Calasanz’s first reaction was to the contrary.[2778]

2777 Cf. C.1209.

2778 In letter of September 22, 1629 to Fr. Cherubini, in Naples, he writes: “Related to Fr. Archangel [Galletti] I will make him come back even if I would know to go there in person nobody will remove me from this opinion that as for going to Florence to negotiate to open schools there, it will be a waste of time because there are those of Fiammelli and the Giesuiti Fathers have some secular priests and the title of Pious Schools according to what has been written to me” (C.1214).

Calasanz’s resolute attitude annoyed the irritable genius of Castelli, who wrote to him on October 20th, affirming “that things are going very well in Florence, as the archbishop of that city, among others, writes to me,” he says.[2779] And he begins to complain that he has sent away some of the religious he wanted to send to Florence and that he threatens to send Galletti away as well: “Do me the favor - he adds - of not esteeming Florence less than Carcare or even Narni or Nursia, and send us Fr. Francis [Michelini] and Fr. John Baptist [Costantini] back to us...”; and then: “If you want to console me out of mercy, then give me greater proof of your esteem for my homeland.”[2780] By this time Galletti was already in Florence and about three weeks later Costantini and Michelini arrived.[2781] The latter, a great mathematician, was appointed one of the pillars of the prestigious group of Galileian Piarists of the Florentine community, and within a month of his arrival he had made himself known to Galileo and his friends.[2782]

2779 EHI, p.574.

2780 Ib.

2781 EHI, p.1208.

2782 Galleti writes to Calasanz on December 7, 1629; “Brother Francis Michelinil makes himself known to Galilei, to Sig. Mario Guiducci and to Sig. delle Colombe, all three of them good men; but Galilei overpasses them. “ (EHI, p.1212).

The optimism exuded by Castelli and Galletti had caused Calasanz to change his attitude very quickly, for he not only sent the religious Castelli had requested to Florence, but expressed his complete satisfaction in his letters to him - now lost - when as early as November 3rd, Castelli wrote to him movingly: “Rest assured that if I had previously wanted to work towards this undertaking for so long and was on the way there, now that I see so much satisfaction on your part, I will fly quando, quantum, quo et quoties if necessary.”[2783] And at Father General’s insistence Castelli left Genoa and entered the city of the Medici at the Vigil of the Immaculate Conception.[2784]

2783 EHI, p.580.

2784 EHI, p.594. The following day he wrote to Calasanz.

From the moment Galletti arrived in the city, he and all who followed him were welcomed by Fiammelli, in the well-founded hope that their situation as guests would be short-lived and that they would easily obtain the necessary permits to open their own schools, different from those in the Via dei Cimatori. [2785]This well-founded hope was supported by the influential people who knew Castelli and Galletti and by the promises or good words of the highest civil and ecclesiastical authorities.[2786] But despite so many influences, things progressed slowly, the slowness being mainly due to the Grand Duke’s absence in the last months of 1629. Although almost all his ministers and courtiers were already in Florence on the eve of Christmas, he apparently intended to spend the holidays in Pisa.[2787] This slowness, which was in contrast to the many influences proclaimed by Castelli and Galletti, made Calasanz doubt the success of the foundation, for on February 7, 1630, he wrote to Naples: “As for the matter with Florence, it has been put up for consultation and God knows whether it will turn out well. If it does not turn out well, I will see to it that Father Archangel [Galletti] comes here and then we will try to send him back there.”[2788]

2785 Galletti writes to Calasanz on November 17, 1629: “The Fiammelli does not need to be given any other satisfaction, since Fr. Francis [Castelli] gave to him six doppie (golden coin valued 12 sous): if Y. P. had to correspond with some here, it would be a great charity” (EHI, p.1208). It is about rewarding him for his hospitality. Castelli, on December 15, 1629, writes: “I don’t know how we will do here without other men at the opening of the schools, that from the end of the year, at least in the middle of January I hope that we will begin, if nothing else happens.” (EHI, p.601): Logically, this refers to the proper schools and not to Fiammelli’s schools, which would have started the course normally at the beginning of November. There is still no talk about the “handover” of Fiammelli schools. On January 29, 1630 Calasanz writes to Cherubini: “If the schools are not done in Florence, which is not yet resolved, we will make him return [to Fr. Galletti].” (c.1312). Nor does he allude here to the Fiammelli schools, which are still open.

2786 Andrew Cioli, Secretary of State, was a fellow countryman and friend of Castelli (cf. L PICAÑOL, o.c., p.62; EHl, p.570); Peter Vettori, brother of Alexander, who was auditor of the Grand Duke, a great friend of Castelli (EC, p.651-654 ); Marquis Luke de’Albizzi, inspector of the schools of Florence, “molto amico del P. Francesco” (EHI, p.1205 ); “everything is on our [side]” (ib., p.1206); Signor Dimurgo, secretary to the Archduchess mother, “our Countryman,” says Galletti (ib., p.1211); Francis Bonzi, “principalissimo, who has our figliolanza [Letter of Brotherhood] long ago” (ib., p. 1206); Nicoló d’Antella, Councilor to the Grand Duke “is all on our [side], and who does not fail to solicit our negotiation” (ib., p.1211); the confessor of the mother Great Duchess was an Augustinian, whose Prior was “mio cugino”; says Galletti (ib., p.1207 ); from the Archbishop we have already read a very expressive letter, and the Nuncio, Alfonso Ciglioli, “the affection that he brings us for the love of Fr. Paul [Ottonelli] and for having been our neighbor in Rome cannot be said.” (ibid., p.1210); the Cardinal of Florence, Charles de Medicis, brother of the Grand Duke, “promised to help and benefit our institute” (ibid., p.1208).

2787 The last letter preserved from Galletti to Calasanz is from December 7, 1629 and tells: “His Highness is now at Ambrogiana, 12 miles away and from there he will go to stay for a month in Pisa” (EHI, p. 12111). And Castelli writes on December 18, 1629: “the delay of our expedition does not result from anything other than the absence from Florence, not so much of the Court, as of some of the Deputies, who are expected daily, not being able to do without them because most of them are missing (ib., p.602). Cf. Also the letter of December 22, 1629 (ib., p.604).

2788 C.1319.

People in Florence were certainly more hopeful. The fact is that Castelli and his companions, after months of living together with Fiammelli, and given his advanced age, were bound to lead to discussions about the immediate future of Fiammelli’s Pious Schools. And towards the end of that month of February, the kind old man made the decision to place his work and his house in the hands of the Piarists, even with the same official subsidies he enjoyed, and to this end made the following request to the Grand Duke Ferdinand II:

“I, John Francis Fiammelli, Prefect of the Pious Schools, having considered that I am not eternal and that I am already 75 years old and that this work of charity would be annulled and in vain by my death, acknowledge, that this work belongs (s’appartiene) to the new Religion of the Fathers Poor the Mother of God of the Pious Schools, which as a rule have no property, neither in general nor in particular, nor in the sacristy, which live only on alms, which are collected from door to door, which teach the true fear of God and the letters, that is, reading, writing, abacus and grammar, even rhetoric, all out of pure charity and zeal for the health of souls. Therefore, it seemed good to me to ask the said Fathers to approach Your Highness to grant them the use of the house of Pious Schools which I now possess and as I possess it, so that the city of Florence may not lose this benefit. And I myself also ask Your Majesty to grant the said Fathers this grace, so that they may exercise such an institute, since I am unable to do so due to the aforementioned age, which is not suitable for such fatigue.”[2789]

2789 Cf. O. TOSTI, o.c., p.53-54.

This request of Fiammelli’s must most probably have been accompanied by that of Father Castelli, mentioned first, in which, to facilitate matters, he tries to avoid friction with the religious of other Orders, always jealous of their own privileges and suspicious of the competence of others, and spontaneously - or as a result of previous consultations - proposes certain restrictions. Indeed, he asks to be admitted “only six in number, and to live as in a secular hospice in the purely secular house, which has a single and simple chapel and a private Oratory, where Fiammelli Schools have hitherto been held by him with other dependents, which he says he can no longer attend for age and other reasons, and they are content to accept this for five years or more or less time, with the consent of His Highness, being by their number of only six subject to the Ordinary… ..[the present Fathers authorize the cession] before a public document is issued by Father Joseph of the Mother of God, their General and Founder…. in whose name Fr. Francis [Castelli] of the Purification, his companion, vassal of Y. H. and Provincial of Genoa, asks you for this or any other house, without payment of rent on the above conditions.”[2790]

2790 Ib., p.54-55. Neither of the two requests is dated, but both had been made a few days before March 2, since Castelli communicated it to Calasanz on that date, and Calasanz to Cherubini on the 9th of the same month: “They write me from Florence that they are waiting day by day for the decree and they think that it will be granted to have a lodge with only six Fathers... as [Fr. Castelli] writes me. with one of his on 2nd of the present…” (C. 1337).

The Grand Duke of Tuscany, Ferdinand II, accepted the request and on March 20th the Secretary of State, Andreas Cioli, conveyed it with a document that began as follows:

“It pleases H.H. that the said petitioners be granted the house they request for the exercise of Pious Schools for five years, with the conditions and explanations they propose, and that the rent of the said house, which amounts to 80 escudos, be divided into four parts, as in the past...”

And it ended like this:

“And when the consent and agreement of Father General is received, the contract shall be concluded in the magistracy of the Officers of Monte, with the cooperation of the deputies, and then they shall be able to take possession of the said house, and so it shall be fulfilled.”[2791]

2791 Ibid., p.55-56. The payment of the rent of premises would be divided in four parts “com’in passato” (as in the past), that is, as it had been requested and granted in September-October 1618 to Fiammelli (Cf. O. TOSTI, o.c., p.28-30).

On the same day, March 20, 1630, the famous Gaspar Scioppio signed two letters in Milan: one for Father Castelli and the other for Archduchess Maria Magdalena of Austria, widow of Cosimo II and mother of Ferdinand II. Father Castelli, who had sent three young religious to Milan in April 1629 to learn Scioppio’s grammatical methods, asked him for a letter of recommendation for the Grand Duchess’s mother and the famous philologist agreed, praised the new Order and announced his intention to write to the Emperor to recommend it too.[2792]

2792 Ib., p.56-58. In conscience I think - he writes to the Archiduquess - as do all men of letters and judgment, that as this new Religion and its Institute will be well known to Princes and Republics, all they will want to introduce it for all and it will be of greater use in public and in private than it can be said. I hope to meet soon with His Majesty the Emperor my Lord, to whom I will put in consideration, that to facilitate the promotion of the Catholic faith can not find anything more appropriate than this Pious Schools, where the Heretics themselves will concur, and will send their children there, because they will see the great charity of these Religious without any appearance or suspicion even of the slightest self-interest. (ib. p.56). Of the benevolence of “Madama la Vecchia” (the Old Lady, the Archdukess) speaks Galletti (cf. EHI, p.1207).

The Grand Duke’s decision was immediately communicated to Calasanz, who on March 30, before his trusted notary Felix de Totis,[2793] authorized Father Castelli to act in his name and in the name of the Religion. On April 6th, with these powers, Father Castelli signed the contract for the admission of the Piarists to Florence before the competent authorities and deputies required by the Grand Duke’s concession. And on April 8th, he received “verbal” approval from the Archbishop of Florence.[2794] But not everything ended in this way. The personal cession of Fiammelli and the acceptance or seizure of his schools by the Piarists was still missing.

2793 Cf. EHI, p.870, n.1.

2794 Cf. O. TOSTI, o.c., p.58; C. VILÁ, Galeria de escolapios “seculares”, p.295-296; F. MOROSI, Memorie storiche della prima casa di Firenze, p.255.

Fiammelli was extremely careful to publicize throughout Florence his resignation from the Pious Schools and his voluntary cession to the Piarists, which he presented in a few words. For this reason, he wrote an edict that was to be posted on the doors of all Florentine churches. But before he had it printed, he sent the text to Calasanz with a valuable explanatory letter dated April 1, 1630, in which he asked him to add what he wanted, but not to veto its publication, because “if it is not right - he said - for the Fathers to preach their own lives, it is nevertheless obligatory for the world to know it immediately, for the greater glory of God and also for the good of the work, which I greatly admire and revere.” The edict reads as follows:

“Health to the souls of believers and conversion of unbelievers. In view of the fact that John Francis Fiammelli, the prefect of the Pious Schools near Orsanmichele, in Via dei Cimatori, is already an old man of 76 years and is no longer able to endure so many hardships, he has appointed, with apostolic approval, the Reverend Fathers of the Mother of God of the Pious Schools, who, with the permission of all superiors, both secular and ecclesiastical, at ... the schools for the general benefit and for the benefit of the country.

The life of these fathers is as follows: They live in community, they can have no fixed goods, neither in common, nor in particular, nor in the sacristy, and they cannot support themselves except from day to day with alms, which they receive from door to door, from anyone who wants to give them, as the Capuchin Fathers do.

They teach the whole people and anyone who knocks on their door: reading, writing, abacus, grammar, rhetoric and mathematics to all who are able, etc...”[2795]

2795 EHI, p.1187-1188. Interesting the allusion to Mathematics (besides the abacus), since precisely Br. Michelini would be the initiator in those first years of the school of algebra for adults, generally of the aristocracy, in the Florentine Pious Schools, and the center of the Galileian movement of Piarists in that very cultured primitive community (cf. L. PICANYOL, o.c., p.68-70).

We do not know whether Calasanz retouched Fiammelli’s edict or whether it was actually printed and affixed to the doors of Florentine churches. We cannot doubt, however, that the saintly Founder duly replied to his friend, thanking him for his generosity and his feelings of esteem for his person and his work.[2796] But neither this letter nor other letters he must have written to him during his lifetime have survived.

2796 Here are some expressions from Fiammelli’s letter: “Live happily and pray for me!” “Let us labor in the Lord and follow (what) he wills; and if we do not see each other on earth, may it please the Most High that we meet again in Paradise, though I am not worthy of it.” “Zelus Religionis tuae comedit me, etc.”

Finally, on April 30th, Fiammelli signed the definitive deed of cession of the schools and residence attached to the Order of Pious Schools in a new document in which he reiterated the ideas he had already expressed in his request to the Grand Duke at the end of February and in the edict of early April, putting into the present what had previously been in the future or were still demands at the time.[2797] The following day, May 1st, the official act of cession took place, but as the religious who were to form this reduced community of six had not yet arrived, they waited until the 22nd of the same month, Pentecost Wednesday, when the Piarists finally took over the schools.[2798]

2797 Thus ends the document in the Latin version of Fr. Bartlik, since the Italian original has apparently been lost: “…propterea videbatur mihi conveniens, praefatos religiosos exorare, ut ad Suam Serenitatem recurrentes pro continuatione hujus boni operis jus plenamque auctoritatem obtineant, ne urbs nostra tanti boni operis fructu, ac merito defraudetur. Cum proinde iam dicto jure gaudeant, et ego, ut praemissi, per aetatem ad hoc munus inhabilis videar ac inveniar; hoc ipsum ius Scholarum Piarum Florentinarum et hospitii libenter iisdem cedo ac defero. Die 30 mensis aprilis 1630. Joannes Franciscus Fiammelli ut supra (BARLIK, Annales: EphCal 5 [I941] 134-135). Curiously, neither Vilá, nor Morosi, nor Tosti in their studies on the subject, cited above, know this last document of Fiammelli, which was also published in Spanish by Bau (cf. BAU, EC, p.592, and BAU, RV, p.181). After quoting for the second time, and as if Fiammelli’s plea to the Grand Duke were different, Vilá logically warns: “The reader will have been able to observe that this document reproduces almost the same concepts as the edict and that in reality it does not give the transfer of the house to the Piarists” (C. VILÁ, o.c., p.296). For his part, Tosti cuts his narration after comenting the Edict, without alluding to the effective cession, carried out with this last document.

2798 Cf. F. MOROSI, o.c., p.256.

From mid-April at the latest, Calasanz waited for Father Castelli to arrive in Rome to inform him personally of the status of the Florentine foundation and to appoint the six religious who were to form this community. In the first days of May, they were already appointed and arrived in groups in the city on the Arno, the last one being Father Castelli, who held the title of Provincial of Tuscany.[2799] The first Florentine community consisted of Fr. Castelli, provincial and provisional superior; Fr. James Graziani, provincial of the Roman province and professor of humanities and rhetoric, also provisional; Fr. John Stephen Buraggi, teacher of grammar, Br. Francis Michelini, professor of mathematics and writing; Br. Martin Ciomei, teacher of reading, and Br. Antony Mary Vagnuzzi, cook and administrator. There was also Fr. Galletti, who, as he could not exceed the number of six people in the community, remained as an assistant in a parish, but helped the Piarists.[2800] The foundation was already a fact.

2799 On April 20, 1630 Calasanz writes: “Here we are waiting for Fr. Francis (Castelli) to tell us about Florence so that we can decide who will be more suitable to go there in these beginings.” (C.1366) Other allusions in C.1373 and 1380 (cf. O. TOSTI o.c. p.49-50). Morandi in his Narratione notes the departures from Rome, which began on May 5 (cf. o.c., p.22-23), from whom the Memoirs quoted by Morosi (o.c. p.257) disagree. In a letter of April 13, 1630 Calasanz already speaks of the “Provincial of Florence, which whom now will deal the way to found the work. (C.1361) And probably in those conversations it would be spoken of the annexation of the College of Fanano to the nascent Tuscany Province, so that it would not consist only of a house.

2800 Cf. BARTLIK, Annales: EphCal 5 (1941) 135; F. MOROSI, o.c. P.257.

The plague of 1630 and the final consolidation of the Florentine foundation

The joy of the new Florentine foundation was overshadowed by fears of the plague, which came inexorably from northern Italy and spread death and terror in the towns and villages. Manzoni’s classic pen described this historical catastrophe in his famous novel I Promessi Sposi, limiting himself to the devastation it caused in Milan. Without being literary, there is no lack of expressive drama and vivid emotion in the numerous references to the plague that can be found in Calasanz’s letters when news of its advance and its victims reached him. In a providentialist spirit, he considers it a punishment from God for the sins of men and exhorts to pray for all and be prepared for death. See a few paragraphs:

“May the Lord preserve the city of Naples from the plague, for if the plague were to invade, the city would be ruined; pray there for the general health of all parts that have no plague, and for those that have” (January 1, 1630); “We are all waiting for the plague, which has already arrived in Bologna, with the preparation that God knows; many are buying antidotes to the plague, leaving aside devotion and penance” (June 15, 1630); “From Reggio, which is 15 miles from Parma, they write to me that not only people are dying of the plague, but also the poor are starving and men and women are shuffling through the streets crying for mercy” (July 3, 1630); “The fear in Rome is so great that it is certain that within eight days an edict will be issued ordering the closure of all schools in Rome, the emptying of prisons and the prohibition of assemblies; gallows have been set up at some doors and great severity is being applied. May the Lord have mercy on us, for there is great fear in this city” (July 6, 1630); “From Florence they write to me that at the borders they are killing men who stray from the road, and in Bologna almost all the religious who have helped are dead, and there is no one to administer the sacraments to the sick. Try to be at peace with God, for this summer there will be a great danger” (July 13, 1630); “In Rome there is unceasing prayer and a very great devotion, for if it came in it would be total ruin; I try that all ours are ready to die, for it is doubted that if not from the plague, at least from some other perhaps common disease, for our sins deserve it” (July 27, 1630); “From Florence, the plague has come to Rome, and I am afraid that it will be a great danger. July 1630); “From Florence our fathers write me that they are in great fear of the plague, which has already been discovered three miles from the city” (August 14, 1630); “We have terrible news from Florence, with which and with the whole state communication has been forbidden here in Rome. Our people are in great danger. May the Lord preserve them from the contagion, which some say has already entered” (September 7, 1630); “If God were to allow the plague, which is already in Florence, to come to us, Rome would be ruined. It is said here that after the harvest they will close all the doors or leave only two open; so great is the fear that has arisen because of the incredible misery that is told of Milan and other cities in Lombardy.”[2801]

2801 C.1284, 1417, 1433, 1434, 1437, 1447, 1464, 1486, 1492.

The dreaded plague finally broke out in Florence, and on September 29, the schools were ordered to close. Ours was open for just four months and only reopened on November 2, 1631. During this long year, some members of the community who were not in the city when the plague broke out were only able to return when they were allowed to, such as Father Castelli and Br. Vagnuzzi. Among those who stayed behind, who distinguished themselves by their heroic charity in helping those suffering from the plague, were Father Galletti and Br. Ciomei, of whom we read in the first Memoirs of the house:

“Father Archangel [Galletti] of the Nativity with Br. Martin [Ciomei] of St. Charles devoted himself with so much fervor to so beneficent a work that he earned the name of Father of the Plague, exposing himself to very great dangers for the love of God, to the point of carrying on his back the bodies of the victims of the plague, which caused admiration in the minds of all and great esteem for our Religion. And although the said Father went everywhere with his companion, assisting everyone without abandoning anyone, and a large proportion of those exposed to the plague, both secular and religious, died, he always remained healthy due to his robustness and good physique.”[2802]

2802 Cf. F. MOROSI, o.c., p.261.

Calasanz referred to them when he wrote to Alacchi, who was surprised by the plague in Venice but also escaped unscathed: “Our Lord has made two of our people in Florence healthy from the beginning until now - he wrote on July 19, 1631 - in the service of the sick, and likewise two others of our people in Carcare, where I believe most people have died, and he has also given you health there in Venice.”[2803] Thank you to the extraordinary precautions taken, Rome spared the plague. But in the northern half of the peninsula in particular, the devastation was apocalyptic.[2804] In Florence in particular, which had around 60,000 inhabitants at the time, around 9,500 people died in the city alone between August 1630 and September 1631.[2805]

2803 C.1650. The two of Carcare were Fr. Dominic Pizzardi and Br. John Baptist Bucardi, who died of plague on July 4, as Calasanz later notified in another letter of July 23, 1631: “Fr. Dominic, who served the sick in Carcare, passed away together with his companion, on the same day both of them of the same illness. (C.1651) Cf. BAU, BC, p.579-580.

2804 Cf. PASTOR, o.c., vol. 29, p.181-182; Diario by G. GIGLI: Ricerche 18 (1986) 361-363.

2805 Data from F. SETTIMANI, Memorie Fiorentine and Diario, cit. in A. K. LIEBREICH, The florentine Piarists: Archivum 12 (1982) 273 and 276. RONDINELLI, Relazione del contagio del 1630 (Florence 1634) in the said thirteen months there were 12,000 victims in and around the city within a mile of distance (cf. F. MOROSI, o.c. p.260, n.9).

The heroic work of help performed by Father Galletti and Brother Ciomei did not go unnoticed in Florence, and - as we read in the above-mentioned Memoirs of the House - “the whole city, the princes, their ministers and deputies on the plague were thereby greatly edified by our Religion and greatly encouraged to promote our Institute.”[2806] The deputies of the schools had not yet visited the schools in Via dei Cimatori, as they were in the hands of the Piarists. The Provincial asked them to come and on April 20, 1632, Luca degli Albizzi and Nicolò Berardi arrived, who were very pleased with the students and teachers and promised to give the Grand Duke good reports.

2806 Cf. F. MOROSI, o.c., p.262.

The provincial took the opportunity to ask the two inspectors in writing and verbally to ask His Highness, in view of the influx of students and the shortage of teachers, to increase the number of religious to more than six so that more could be made available without restriction if necessary. On April 30th, the Grand Duke granted this request and on May 6th, the deputies complied. They also received indefinite permission to stay and teach in Florence. When the provincial shared this news with Father General, he asked him to send him more religious. In the same year, 1632, the Florentine community grew to 12 religious and the number of students was already 500.[2807]

2807 Ibid., p.262-263; L. PICANYOL, o.c., p.64-65.

The lack of space became unbearable, not only for the increasing number of religious, but also for the students, who could no longer find room in the oratory. In view of the goodwill of the Grand Duke and other authorities, the Provincial asked to be given the Santa Maria dei Ricci church, which was two blocks away, in the direction of the cathedral, on Via del Corso. In his request to the Grand Duke, Father Castelli pointed out the need to be able to accommodate the students comfortably and also “to make many pious people happy with masses, confessions and other spiritual help.”[2808] The pastoral work of the Fathers was thus made accessible to the public. At the end of October 1632, a provisional agreement was reached with those responsible for the church; a month later, the contract was signed after the approval of the Archbishop and the Grand Duke had been obtained; on February 1, 1633, the keys were handed over and the following day, the Piarists celebrated the Candlemas feast in their new church.[2809]

2808 Cf. F. MOROSI, o.c., p.263.

2809 Ibid., p.264-265.

In the past, the house attached to the church had been the residence of the Podestà (Governor or syndic) of Florence and the seat of the Studio Fiorentino. On May 1, 1633, the Piarists acquired part of the building, which was owned by the Grand Duke, and moved in. In 1640, they bought another part of the building, which was privately owned, on the condition that “they were never allowed to set up their schools in the said house, but only to use it for residential purposes.”[2810] And so it was: from 1633, the Florentine religious schools continued to be run in the building in Via dei Cimatori, while the community resided in the so-called Professed House in Via del Corso.[2811]

2810 Ib.; VARIOS, Il passato e il presente della Provincia Toscana delle Scuole Pie (Firenze 1979) p.16-17.

2811 The separation of premises was maintained until 1775, when, with the suppression of the Jesuits in 1773, the Piarists occupied their college and church of San Giovannino, next to Palazzo Medici-Riccardi, abandoning the previous buildings.

In defense of the name of the Pious Schools

When the free schools were founded in Bologna in August 1616, bearing the name Pious Schools, “similar to those in Rome”, it had already been at least fourteen years since the latter had been recognized as a congregation, although they were secular and without vows. In March 1617, through the work of Fiammelli, other Pious Schools were founded in Florence, such as that of Bologna. In view of the old friendship and collaboration between Fiammelli and Calasanz, it can be assumed that the former informed the latter of both foundations and was even content to follow his friend’s initiative. In any case, it cannot be doubted that Cardinal Ludovisi, when he was received by Father Joseph Calasanz in Narni in October 1619, spoke about the Pious Schools of Bologna, which had been officially approved by the Cardinal, and those of Rome, which had already been elevated to a Congregation with simple vows.

There is no evidence that Calasanz protested against the “usurpation” of the name of the Pious Schools by Fiammelli, neither in Bologna nor in Florence. Rather, the facts show that both “founders” maintained the old friendship and mutual esteem, with the Florentine being accepted into the Pious Schools of Rome and the Piarists into the Florentine schools.

In September 1629, Calasanz learned that some priests near Naples had opened schools that they called Pious Schools, and he complained about this to Father Cherubini: “I will try to get a letter here on how to prohibit such a title.”[2812] In later letters, he returned to the subject, stating that such schools had been opened in Aversa, Nocera dei Pagani and Sant’Agata de’Goti. And he specified: “I intend to obtain an injunction, not to prevent them from doing so, but to change the name of the Pious Schools to something else.”[2813] And in the same letter, he announced that in Florence, in addition to the Pious Schools of Fiammelli, “the Jesuit priests have some secular priests and the title of Pious Schools.”

2812 C.1201 (dated September 8, 1629).

2813 C.1214 (Picanyol transcribes Ancona instead of Aversa), c.1537.

However, almost a year passed without the matter being discussed again, while the transfer of the Fiammelli schools to the Piarists was secured. And it is very likely that Calasanz, out of consideration for his friend, only asked for the announced Apostolic Letter when the transfer had already been completed. On April 30, 1630, Fiammelli signed the notarial act; on May 22nd, the Piarists took over their schools, and on August 7th, Urban VIII signed the letter requested by Calasanz, in which he said “According to the present state of things, we command and forbid anyone, regardless of his authority, to establish schools with the name Pious Schools or to call the schools already established Pious”.[2814]

2814 Cf. Bullarium Sch. P, p.36-37.

The prohibition was absolute, without any explicit exception. The Pious Schools of Bologna, however, unwaveringly retained the name until 1864, when they lost it, even though they had already become elementary school of the new Italian State since 1860.[2815]

2815 Cf. R. FANTINI, L’istruzione popolare a Bologna fino al 1860 (Bologna 1971), p.37-39.

The incredible adventure of an impostor: Matthew Massimi

The name of the Pious Schools was abused in a particular way by an impostor, forger and adventurer who called himself Mateo Massimi, although his name was probably Matthew or John Baptist Millini. Not only did he adopt the noble surname Massimi, but he also posed as the General Vicar of the Order of the Pious Schools. It is said that he was a priest, although it can be assumed that this was just another of his impostures. His tricks seem to have been taken from a picaresque novel, but the abundance of evidence guarantees his historicity. Berro devoted two chapters of his memoirs to it, and Caputi did the same in his own.

The adventure began in 1625 or early 1626, when the alleged Mateo Massimi knocked on the doors of the Piarist novitiate of the Quirinal in Rome and, as an ardent priest, expressed his desire to enter the order. After a few visits, he managed to borrow some Constitutions and an autograph document of the Holy Founder and disappeared.

Shortly afterwards, he presented himself under a different name at the reformed Cistercian monastery of San Bernardo alle Terme, also in the Quirinale, as an emissary of Cardinal Antonio Barberini, the brother of Urban VIII, and asked for letters of recommendation from the Father General for the Cistercian monasteries in France in favor of Mateo Massimi and a companion, both alleged Piarists, whom the Father General of the Pious Schools wanted to send to found houses in that country. And the swindler got what he wanted.

With great skill, he managed to imitate the handwriting of Calasanz and forge the official seal of the Order; he issued a patent with which the General of the Pious Schools appointed him Visitator and General Vicar and gave him the authority to prepare new foundations, and he and his companion set off on a long journey through Europe.

Naturally, he was received with great attention in the Cistercian monasteries and received further letters of recommendation from them for further accommodation and, above all, to receive abundant alms from ecclesiastical and secular persons. It seems that even the great Cardinal Richelieu fell into the trap and did brilliantly with the shrewd and fearsome swindler. From France he went to Spain, and in Madrid he managed to win the goodwill of Cardinal Francisco Barberini, who acted as papal legate, thanks to whom he was able to introduce himself to the court and, as Berro says, amassed “many thousands of pieces of eight reales” paid out by dukes and princes “in the hope of sending subjects from Italy to found Pious Schools.”[2816] He then traveled in the retinue of the above-mentioned cardinal, who took him in addition to his galley, which sailed from Valencia and reached Italy via Nice and Genoa, arriving in Rome on October 13, 1626.[2817]

2816 Cf. BERRO I, p.160. More precisely they were called ‘reales de ocho’, a silver coin that in Castile was equivalent to 272 maravedíes, while a gold escudo was worth 350.

2817 Cf. PASTOR, o.c., vol. 27, p.372; BERRO, 1.c.

While the adventurer was traveling through half of Europe as General Vicar of the Pious Schools, the Father General of the Cistercians, seeing that neither Cardinal Barberini nor the General of the Piarists had shown the slightest hint of gratitude for the favor he had bestowed on the recommended man, suspected that it was a fraud. He sent an emissary to the Cardinal and found that it was indeed so. The next day he informed Father Calasanz of what had happened and asked him to take action in this matter and “arrest and punish these two unfortunates”[2818] We do not know when this letter reached him or how he reacted to it.

2818 Cf. EHI, p.I927. It does not bear an exact date; it is simply said to be from 1626.

We do know, however, that in mid-October 1626 Cardinal Francis Barberini arrived in Rome from Spain together with the impostor Massimi. Father Joseph Calasanz traveled to Naples at the same time, where he remained until the end of April 1627.

It is likely that after his return from the Spanish legation, Cardinal Francis Barberini in some conversations with his uncle, Cardinal Antonius Barberini, mentioned the unpleasant anecdote of Massimi’s frauds, abusing the name of Cardinal Antonio and Cardinal Francis realized that he too had become a victim of the shameless adventurer. To make sure, he called the Founder of the Pious Schools, but as he was in Naples. Father James Graziani, Provincial of Rome, who had already been informed of the matter by the Cistercians’ letter, came on his behalf. The Cardinal was outraged that he had been so shamelessly mocked, as his uncle had been before him, and sought out the culprit to bring him to prison. He was quickly found and locked up in the prisons of the Holy Office, with the threat of ending up in the galleys for the rest of his life.[2819]

2819 Berro supposes that it was Fr. Graziani who discovered the fraud to the Cardinal, when the latter called him to discuss the foundation of the Pious Schools in his abbey of S. Salvatore Maggiore (BERRO I, p.161). But the foundation was made on December 11, 1628 (cf. MORANDI, Narratione, p.19). It is unlikely that in two years the Barberini did not learn of the hoax of which he had been the victim.

Shortly after the conversation with the Cardinal, Father Graziani wrote to Calasanz in Naples, informing him of the news that was happening in this case in Spain, and the saint replied on January 9, 1627:

“As for the temptation of this poor priest who wanted to go to Spain under a false name to open the Pious Schools, he is so fickle and of little letter and perhaps even less spirit that he can only do things of little good example. I am thinking of writing to the Regent of the Supreme Council of Aragon, a certain Navarro, a countryman of mine, in Spain, to prevent such a misdeed, and also to the Nuncio, who is Msgr. Pamfili.”[2820]

2820 Mons. John Baptist Pamfili (future Innocent X) was part of the entourage of Cardinal Francis Barberini in his legation to Spain, who before leaving for Rome left him as nuncio (Cf. PASTOR, o.c., vol.27, p.371). The Supreme Council of Aragon had its seat at the Court of Madrid. Therefore, both Pamfili and Navarro - of whom we have no more information - resided there.

Calasanz’s judgment of the “poor priest” shows that he already knew him from his first adventure in France, which he must have learned about through the letter from the Cistercian of St. Bernard. In the background, we can detect a certain feeling of pity and not indignation for the impostor, which becomes even clearer when he learns that he has been sent to prison in Rome, and on March 13, 1627, still from Naples, he writes to Father Graziani: “I regret the imprisonment of this priest who has taken away our Constitutions, but what success could such a reckless enterprise and such an insult to the Lord have had?”[2821] But this sincere compassion for a man who had done so much damage to the possible expansion of the Order in Europe by compromising it with his deceit, greed and false promises did not remain in words alone. Berro writes: “He begged His Eminence with great affection that the Constitutions, the seals and the patent be first taken from him and that he be released after a salutary punishment imposed in the same prison of the Inquisition. The cardinal agreed, and after a few months in prison, he released him to the pleasure of our Holy Founder and banished him from Rome.”[2822]

2821 C.595.

2822 BERRO I, p.161.

The punishment of prison was of little use to him, for as soon as he was free, he returned to his old habits and with the renewed patent of the General Vicar of Pious Schools, he crossed the Alps and made his way to Flanders, where the widowed governor, Isabel Clara Eugenia, fell victim to his deceptions.[2823] In the same year, 1627, he then appeared in Moravia and also deceived the Cardinal and Imperial Prince Franz von Dietrichstein in his residential palace of Nikolsburg, and promised to send him Piarists soon, but “after receiving a remarkable alms, he disappeared.”[2824] He returned to Italy and crossed it from top to bottom until he reached Naples, where the archbishop had him imprisoned. When the patient Father General learned of this, he wrote from Rome on June 30, 1628 to Father Cherubini, the rector of the Neapolitan College of the Duchesca, who was again moved by “the unfortunate man” instead of demanding justice, telling him:

2823 Ibid., p.161-162.

2824 Thus wrote Mgr. Grammay on August 2, 1630, specifying that this occurred “ante triennium plus minus” (EEC, p.481). Of Grammay and Cardinal Dietrichstein we will speak later.

“…as for the unfortunate Matthew Massimi, who is imprisoned there, I am very sorry for his bad judgment, and I think he has done very unworthy things in our name to get money. I would like that, without harming him, a way be found to prevent him from committing such stupidities again to the detriment of our religion. If you like, tell the Cardinal the first time you visit him, but I believe that if he is given freedom as in the past, he will do the same again.”[2825]

2825 C.884.

Thanks to the intercession of the Holy Founder, the unrepentant globetrotter was released from prison for the second time to undertake his third run. Despite everything, it was clear that, like the usual delinquents, he had taken a liking to the business. In fact, four years later he turned up in northern Italy, as Calasanz wrote on August 20, 1632: “There is another vagabond in Milan who has been staying in various places, claiming to be one of the Fathers of the Pious Schools, and after receiving alms, he has disappeared. He was in Germania, in Paris, in Madrid, always under the name of the Pious Schools and was never one of ours.”[2826] Berro adds further wanderings through Parma, Piacenza and Piedmont.[2827] At the end of 1633, Calasanz fears that he is lurking in Sicily and writes, summarizing his long and delicate journey through Europe: “As for the false religious named Massimi, who has traveled through Germany, Flanders, France and twice through Spain and Lombardy and Piedmont, taking money from everyone with the promise of sending Fathers of the Pious Schools, it could be that he has arrived there, but if he learns that there are Fathers of ours, he will flee immediately.”[2828] And indeed, he seems to have had his last adventure there, because in May 1635 Calasanz delivered this last message: “I was told that the one who claimed to be from the house of the Massimi died in Sicily or near there.”[2829]

2826 C.1856.

2827 BERRO I, p.162-163.

2828 CCP.35 (dated December 28, 1633).

2829 C.2373.

Perhaps the old saint commented more than once with his neighbor and friend Don Peter de Massimi[2830] on the deplorable adventures of this impostor, to whom both fell victim, because if on the one hand he claimed to be General Vicar of the Pious Schools, on the other he presumed to belong to the princely family of the Massimi, of which Don Peter was the head. The truth is that the triple story of this adventurer is not a mere picaresque anecdote in the biography of Calasanz, but a serious setback that he had to endure for almost ten years (1625-1635), and at the same time a manifestation of his heroic charity and patience, since he not only forgives the offenses, but is moved by the offender and manages twice to free him from prison. And that is as admirable as a miracle.[2831]

2830 Peter de Massimi (1574-1655) was the second witness in the Process of Beatification of Calasanz, in which he declares “that he maintained close relations with him, attending his Mass, going to confession with him and conversing with him many times, even to ask his advice in not exactly spiritual matters” (S. GINER, El Proceso de Beatificacion…, p.75).

2831 On this Massimi-Millini case cf. BERRO I, p.159-161; TALENTI, Vita, p.213-216; BAU, BC, p.600-604; BAU, RV, p.160.

First foundation outside Italy: Nikolsburg, in Moravia

The first time the name of the Pious Schools was heard in some European courts and cities unfortunately came from the mouth of the impostor Massimi. And this propaganda, based on false promises without further clarification, must have been disastrous. In fact, there is no record of any application for a foundation in the places the adventurer passed through. There was one exception, however, but in this case, it is very likely that the existence of the Pious Schools and the person of the Founder were already known before the false general vicar turned up there: it was the stately castle of Cardinal Franz von Dietrichstein in Nikolsburg, Moravia, now Mikulov, in the Czech Republic.

It cannot be ruled out, and is even easy to assume, that the young Dietrichstein knew Calasanz during his stay in Rome at the end of the century (1588-1600), especially around certain Roman Confraternities, such as that of the Holy Trinity of Pilgrims, both of which he visited in the fervor of the Holy Year 1600, and that he also had information about the new schools that emerged in Santa Dorotea in the fall of 1597.[2832] He could also have known the Pious Schools and their Founder during his various trips to Rome, especially on the occasion of the conclaves. But we do not know that. What is certain is that the first invitation to found Pious Schools in the German Empire came neither from Nikolsburg nor from Cardinal Dietrichstein.

2832 After a three-year term at the Prague Seminary, he entered the Germanic College in Rome in 1588. Before his ordination to the priesthood (1597) he was appointed canon of Olmütz (1589) and secret Steward of Clement VIII (1592), and while still in Rome, in 1599, he was created cardinal at the request of Philip III of Spain, and bishop of Olmütz (now Olomouc), where he moved in June 1600 (cf. G. SÁNTHA, Cardínalis Princeps Franciscus Díetríchstein, Episcopus Olomucensis (1570-1636) et Scholae Piae: EphCal 2 [1960] 45-46). It does not seem likely that Dietrichstein was the “secret steward” of Clement VIII who helped Calasanz to obtain canonicalates, as Picanyol, Bau and Sántha supposed (cf. n.1188 of chapter 10 and G. SÁNTHA, l.c.).

In fact, in the Holy Year of 1625, Calasanz received a letter from the parish priest of Brixen (Bressanone, today in Italy), John Rigger, suggesting that he could found schools in the most important cities of the empire, such as Munich, Innsbruck, Vienna and Prague, from which the order could easily spread throughout Germania. For this purpose, the Jesuits and Capuchins would have to be the promoters or propagandists. Such a strange proposal without further guarantees naturally remained a dead letter.[2833]

2833 Cf. EEC, p.1104-1105.

The proposal of Mgr. John Baptist Grammay, a strange personality who was well- known and influential at the courts of half of Europe, offered more hope of success.[2834] In July 1625, he arrived in Rome and signed a unique document in the name of Count and Imperial Marshal Michael Adolph Althan concerning a confederation or mutual communication of spiritual goods and fraternal aid between the Order of the Pious Schools and the newly founded Order or Christian Militia and Hierarchical Communion, of which he was the prelate or supreme spiritual head. According to the document, the reason for this union lay in the certainty of the Count and his associates that the Pious Schools “can contribute to the defense and spread of the Catholic faith in the lands of the Germanic Empire through their special integrity of exemplary life, piety, erudition and other virtues with which they achieve incredible fruits in the Church of God.” Therefore, both the count and the other princes, prelates and knights of the Christian Militia and the Hierarchical Communion were “determined to promote and spread the said Order throughout the empire with all their might; and especially and primarily to ensure that they open a house in Vienna and Prague.”[2835]

2834 Born in Antwerp (1579); pupil and professor in Louvain; historian of the Archdukes Albert and Elizabeth Clare Eugenia; for various reasons he travels through France, Germany, Italy, Malta, Austria, Spain, Poland; leaving Malta, pirates take him captive to Algiers, and under the protection of the French consul he travels through North Africa. Their Christians named him Primate of the churches of Africa, an abusive title, confirmed by Philip IV of Spain; Sigismund III of Poland named him (also abusively) Archbishop of Upsala; he wrote several books of history, the fruit of his travels. In 1623 he meets the Count and Imperial Marshal, Michael Adolf Althan, who together with the dukes Gonzaga of Mantua and Nevers has just founded the “Order or Christian Militia of Regular Knights of the Immaculate Conception”; under the Rule of Saint Francis, for the redemption of captives, to fight against the Turks and other enemies of the Church, to propagate the Catholic faith, to recover the Holy Land, etc. With similar aims they also founded an association, called Hierarchical Communion. Bishop Grammay was named prelate or supreme spiritual head of both. Both associations were approved by Urban VIII in 1624 and 1626, respectively. In 1623 Emperor Ferdinand II had also appointed Monsignor Grammay as general and supreme responsible for the spiritual care of his armies, placing under his authority all the military chaplains (cf. G. SÁNTHA, Calasanz, Las Escuelas Pias y el Conde Miguel Adolfo Althan, Mariscal Imperial; RC, 8 [1956] 429-446; EEC, p.482-485: biography of Monsignor Grammay).

2835 Cf. the complete document in G. SÁNTHA, o.c., p.438, n.38. It is dated July 19, 1625.

Undoubtedly there was more than just promises and hopes, for Berro notes that Father Casani arrived in Rome from Genoa on September 28, summoned by the Father General to send him to Vienna for the foundation. But by that time, Bishop Grammay had already left the Eternal City, and Father Casani’s journey was postponed as he was waiting for news from the imperial court or from his Roman ambassador.[2836] Moreover, the Archbishop of Vienna, Cardinal Melchior Klesl, was in Rome during these months, and it is likely that he was aware of Count Althan’s and Bishop Grammay’s foundation projects. In fact, he spoke personally with Father General on more than one occasion and promised to found in Vienna. This is what Calasanz said in a letter dated December 27, 1625:

2836 Cf. BERRO I, p.142-143.

“…Father Peter [Casani] does not know how to be without going out often, and I consider him more suitable for dealing with cardinals and prelates than for the said office [of novice master], unless the Emperor asks us to send him to Vienna next spring, where I believe Cardinal Klesl, who is so well disposed towards us, will then return, wishing to take our Institute with him, as he told me during my last conversation with him.”[2837]

2837 C.380.

In the meantime, as soon as he arrived in the imperial capital, Msgr. Grammay took the necessary steps for the foundation, obtained the approval of the Father Provincial and the Rector of the Vienna Jesuits as well as the city authorities, and even determined the school they were to run, namely St. Stephen’s School. But just when everything seemed certain, the project fell through due to pressure from the Jesuits on the emperor.[2838] Nevertheless, the good relations between Count Althan, Mgr. Grammay and Calasanz continued.[2839]

2838 Dated August 2, 1630, Grammay wrote to Calasanz: “Meminerit haud dubie Rma. V. P. ante annos quinque per litteras meas edocta, qualiter, conscio et etiam, ut videbatur, probante P. Provinciale et Rectore Societatis Jesu Viennensis, cum Consule et Senatu Viennensi tractaverim pro introductione Patrum Ordinis Vestri in Scholam Scti. Stephani dictae Civitatis. Sed dum in portu nos navigare existimo, obtento senatus consensu, per illos ipsos Patres Societatis, interventu authoritatis Caesareae, negotium totum dissipatum est” (EEC, p.481). Due to the staunch opposition of the Society of Jesus, the Piarists did not succeed in founding it in Vienna until 1698 and in Prague until 1752.

2839 On September 8, 1626 the Count wrote Calasanz a letter, renewing his wishes to help the Pious Schools, as he would do later, and Calasanz answered him in late 1626 or beginning of 1627 (cf. EEC, p.12.13).

During these years, the count established a free grammar school or boarding school for poor children on his domain near Nikolsburg and placed its administration and management in the hands of the active Mgr. Grammay. Something similar was set up by Cardinal Dietrichstein on his estate in Nikolsburg, and in 1629 he called Mgr. Grammay to put him in charge, transferring the pupils he had at the boarding-grammar school of Count Althan, who continued to contribute generously to its support.

In addition to the grammar school or boarding school for boys, the Cardinal’s foundation also included the so-called Lauretan Seminary, i.e. a choir of nine boys aged between eight and fourteen who had to sing Mass and the Laureto Litanies every day in a shrine built by the Cardinal himself in 1623, which was modeled exactly on the Holy House of Loreto in Italy. In addition, there was another seminary attached to the collegiate church of St. Wenceslaus, also founded by the generous cardinal; a seminary or choir composed of a group of singers, like the Lauretan seminary, whose upkeep was at the personal expense of Msgr. Grammay. These seminaries are not to be understood as today’s “conciliar” ones, i.e. exclusively for the training of the clergy, but in fact priestly vocations for service in the diocese came from there.[2840]

2840 Cf. EEC, p.14-22; 485-486; 617.

in 1630, Cardinal Dietrichstein was in Genoa, accompanied by Fr. Charles Abbate, conventual, music teacher and administrator or confidant of the Cardinal and brother of Cl. Peter Augustine, a Piarist who lived in the city at the time. During his visit, he and the Cardinal spoke with the Provincial of Liguria, Father Stephen Spinola, and warmly suggested that a foundation be established in Nikolsburg to take over the seminaries and schools run by Msgr. Grammay. On his return, the Cardinal instructed the Monsignor to write to Father General and propose the plan for the foundation, which he did on August 2, 1630. In it he said:

“… although the Jesuit Fathers greatly desired to have a school here, both the Prince [Cardinal] and I would prefer that the Fathers of your Order, for reasons not inconsiderable, educate the boys in piety and letters; they would bear immeasurable fruit if they were given a separate and suitable place for their Institute and took care of the little schools in the vernacular and Latin, and if they wished, also in Italian and Spanish, if they had suitable subjects. I say, all the schools you want, that is, elementary schools, grammar, syntax, and more, if you wish, and we will not allow you to lack anything.”[2841]

2841 Ibid., p.481-482.

The Holy Founder accepted the proposal in a letter dated September 11th, to which Grammay replied with great satisfaction, and began to lay down the conditions, requirements, tasks, and other details, especially concerning the long journey of the religious from Rome to Nikolsburg. With meticulous care, the Monsignor wrote, mainly to bishops and Capuchin convents, asking them to welcome the Piarists who would pass through there, and described the various stages of the journey in several letters to Father Calasanz.[2842]

2842 Ibid., p.487-492.

Finally, on April 2, 1631, the first members of the expedition left Rome to assemble in Ancona, from where they set sail on May 8th to enter the lands of the Empire via Trieste, arriving in Nikolsburg on June 2nd. There were eight of them in all: Fr. Peregrino Tencani from Modena, superior of the group; Fr. Antony Rodríguez from Avila; Fr. Ambros Leailth from Bolzano (Tyrol); Cl. Joseph Apa, from Naples; Br. Ambros Ambrosi, Roman; Br. John Verdun, Swiss German; Cl. Novice Alexander Riccardi, Burgundian; and Br. Novice Francis Stossel, German.[2843] As can be seen, the prudent and accommodating Founder tried to select those who, because of their outstanding gifts - like Apa and Ambrosi - and their mother tongue, could respond appropriately to what was expected of them. There were three Italians, one Spaniard, one Frenchman and three German speakers.

2843 Cf. MORANDI, Narratione, p.23-24; G. L. MONCALLERO, La fondazione delle Scuole degli Scolopi nell’Europa centrale al tempo della Controriforma (Alba 1972) p.29. Interesting monograph for the topic at hand. A necessary complement is the volume of Sántha EEC, which, although published in 1969, could not be useful to Moncallero because he had almost finished his work.

Monsignor Grammay wrote to the Holy Founder full of satisfaction: “I dare say that nothing more pleasant has happened to me in my whole life than to have been given to me by divine goodness to have brought such fragrant and fruitful plants into the garden of the Holy Roman Empire, which I will never stop protecting and propagating as long as I can.”[2844] And no less satisfied, the Cardinal wrote to the saint:

2844 EEC, p.493 (dated July 9, 1631).

“I had already intended to write to your Paternity, but burdened by so many extraordinary affairs as the government of this province entails[2845], I have not been able to do so until now; now, therefore, I thank you for having sent these Fathers to my town, and I assure you that they are behaving so well that I am so pleased, not only as a temporal prince, but also as a bishop, by their exemplary lives, virtues and religious qualities, that I could not wish for more. I ask your Paternity to assure you that from now on you may freely and confidently turn to me and regard me in these latitudes not only as your first founder, but also as your Protector and Father.”[2846]

2845 Besides cardinal and residential bishop of Olmütz, he was Prince of the Empire, intimate adviser of the emperor and Protector of all his hereditary kingdoms and dominions, General Captain of the Marquisate of Moravia and President of many imperial commissions or ministries in Moravia (cf. G. SANtHA, Cardinalis Princeps Franciscus Dietrichstein, p.45).

2846 Ib, p.362.

And indeed, he was until his death in 1636.

The first letters written to Rome, especially by the Italians, are very interesting because they describe the town - a typical village at the foot of the stately castle - the people, the customs, the quality of the children going to school, the feelings of admiration for so many strange things, good and bad, which contrast with those in Italy, starting with the climate and then the winter cold, which becomes almost unbearable. Br. Ambrose, for example, writes: “It is August 7th, and I am still waiting for summer, because as soon as it rains a little, you have to put on your coat”; “there are so many Hebrews and on Friday evening, from the window of my room, I can see all the Hebrew houses clearly, because all their chimneys are smoking because they are preparing food for the next day”; “The houses in the town, of which there are about 50, all look like palaces and the whole town is nothing but a street”; “Nikolsburg lies on the border with Austria and at the entrance to Moravia, not far from Bohemia, Silesia, Poland, Hungary...”[2847]

2847 Ib., p.14-16.

No less picturesque is the conglomerate of students who attended the Piarist schools in this early period, as Ambrosi reports. In the so-called seminary, the scholars of the collegiate church of St. Wenceslas lived at Grammay’s expense and the nine Lauretanian scholars at the expense of the Cardinal. Attached to the seminary was another small house for boys from outside who “slept on the bare earth, so that, without moving, they could see all the stars of the sky at night, and they are so badly dressed that they are pitiable....”, and surely they are the same of whom he said earlier, “Those who go to Syntax are five or six outsiders who are here more for the poor bread and something else that the seminary (i.e. count Althan) gives them than for anything else.” These inmates were joined by outsiders, including the Jews: “All the boys who are in Nikolsburg now come to our schools because before, as poor as they were, no one sent their children to the seminary because of the lice....” ; “in my class are all from the Monsignor’s court and some from the [Cardinal’s] castle, but there is no one from the same country, except two who come from Scotland, and none of these pupils sleep in the seminary”; of the Monsignor’s pupils, most are Bohemians and they also have many Poles and Hungarians in the schools. This valuable letter from Ambrose Ambrosi ends with the words: “I beg your Paternity not to forget us habitantes in finibus terrae.”[2848]

2848 Ib., p.16-19.

The Tyrolean Father Leailth expressed similar sentiments in a letter dated August 6:

“The people love us so much that it is impossible to say. They have sent all their children to our schools. Among other things, the Cardinal told us that the town has a special fondness for us and that they think it is wonderful that we accompany the boys to their homes and even the Court was very pleased. He also offered us three other places as soon as we had people, as the Jesuit Fathers were too expensive. He also told us that he hoped that our Religion, just as it emanated from a Spaniard in Italy, would also be spread in these regions of Germania by a Spanish prince…[2849] As far as the number of children is concerned, there are about 180 so far and hardly a day goes by without new ones arriving. Now strangers are gradually arriving and I hope that there will soon be so many that we will no longer be able to look after them all.”[2850]

2849 The Cardinal, in the above-mentioned letter of thanks, begged Calasanz to admit the pleas of Count Francis Magni, who asked for a foundation in his city of Strassnitz - realized in 1633 - and reminded him: “I do not doubt at all that you, as Supreme Leader and Founder and Spaniard, will correspond in this to my requests, that I too am Spanish.” (EEC, p.362) In fact, the Cardinal was born in Madrid on August 22, 1570, where his father, Baron Adam von Dietrichstein, was then residing as ambassador of the Emperor Maximilian II. Moreover, his mother was Spanish: Doña Margarita de Cardona, daughter of the Viceroy of Sardinia (cf. G. SÁNTHA, o.c., p.43-44).

2850 EEC, p.617-618.

This was the beginning of what was to be called the Province of Germania from 1634, after the foundations of Strassnitz in 1633, thanks to Count Francis Magni, and Leipnik in 1634, a new work by Cardinal Dietrichstein intended for the novitiate.

Chapter 20

Temporary generalate: serious matters

It seems unnecessary to emphasize at this point in our narrative that every story and every biography necessarily requires a selection of facts and characters. Not everything that happened over time is of interest to posterity, and historians reflect their own biases in their selective work and are influenced by the cultural preferences and customs of the times in which they write, even when it comes to the core of names and events that are inevitable in any history given a common minimum of objectivity.

And that applies to this long biography as a whole as well as to each of its chapters. And it would certainly be interesting to compare the choices of individual hagiographers and biographers, especially in this decade of the Provisional Generalate, ranging from Gregory XV’s Brief of April 28, 1622 to Urban VIII’s of January 12, 1632.

In our case, we have decided to divide the whole into two blocks, the first of which is more homogeneous than the second. We dealt with the first in the previous chapter under the specific theme of expansion or new foundations; we will deal with the second in the present chapter by summarizing the events that we consider unavoidable or at least very interesting for a proper understanding of the complex figure of Calasanz.

Undoubtedly, many other things have happened in this decade that could be talked about. It would suffice to recall the possibilities or perspectives that emerge from different angles when going through the 1,631 extant letters written by the saint during this period, together with the letters addressed to him. But although all of this is historically verifiable, the selection is unfortunately forced, bringing with it many pretermissions.

There were serious questions in this decade, there will be serious questions in the following decade and very serious questions for the rest of his life. But with so many problems, contradictions and sufferings that make up the framework of his existence, it is sometimes a pity that we cannot take enough time to accompany him in his nightly hours of peace and spiritual rest, in colloquy or monolog with God and his saints, or in the simple interior silence in which he allowed himself to be flooded by grace and the divine presence. It is also a pity that we do not devote more pages to those hours of the day in which he taught the children strokes or beautiful calligraphy “with a trembling hand” - as one of his students recalled - and showed them the way to God with a firm hand.

The Holy Year of 1625

Calasanz anticipated the Holy Year of 1625 with the same fervor with which he had anticipated the previous year at the beginning of the century. Perhaps he regretted in his heart that he could no longer devote himself to as many acts of devotion and charity as he had then, for now his commitments were much greater and his years much longer. Nevertheless, he would do his best and make sure that his religious far away from Rome had the opportunity to earn their jubilee. In fact, on August 30, 1624, he wrote to Father Ottonelli, the assistant general who was staying in Carcare and directing the work at the school: “I intend to bring the novices who are studying there here so that they can experience the Holy Year in Rome and learn to be saints, thus lightening the burden of this house this winter. The manner in which they come here I leave to the deliberations that Father Provincial will conduct.”[2851] And two weeks later he urged again: “I have written that these novices should come to Rome, where we will try to have them to become saints in turn during the Holy Year, and if they cannot come in one group, they should be divided into two.”[2852]

2851 C.243.

2852 C.249.

They had to be divided into not two, but three groups, because on such a long journey with so many obligatory stopovers, it was not easy to find accommodation and food for so many. Fortunately, the novice Vincent Berro traveled in one of these shifts and told of the vicissitudes that befell his group. To us, these odysseys seem like legends, even unpleasant, but in those days, it must have been very common for religious to travel in pairs or groups, poorly clothed, hungry, over bumpy roads, in rain and sun, resigned to spending the nights in the open, in haylofts, in inns or hostels, where all kinds of people ended up, high and low, poor and rich, military, clerics or monks, rogues and beggars. And there was not always room for everyone.

Berro notes that the first group consisted of two novices and one professed, who set out “by land, shortly after the Holy Cross in September”; the second group consisted of six novices and another professed, and they set out by sea and embarked at Savona; the third group traveled partly by land and partly by sea and consisted of seven novices and one professed, and among the novices was Berro. They set sail from the port of Genoa on October 2 and disembarked in Livorno at dawn the next day, continuing their journey on foot. When they arrived in Pisa, they were welcomed by a charitable and unknown canon. In Lucca, they asked the Fathers of Lucca, of the Mother of God, for accommodation, but this was not possible. Berro devotes a long page to this unfortunate encounter, which oscillates between irony and bitterness. They were not accepted at the pilgrims’ hospice either, and although it was already getting dark, they continued on to Pistoia, where they were treated kindly in a country house but slept in the hayloft. In Pistoia they were given shelter by the Fathers of Chiodo, and in Florence they went to the Pious Schools of Fiammelli, who took them in for two days. In Viterbo they were welcomed by the Camillian Fathers and in Campagnano by the archpriest who is so dear to Calasanz. They arrived in Rome on St. Luke’s Day, October 18th.[2853]

2853 Cf. BERRO I, p.127-131.

The fourteen novices that Father Casani had clothed in Carcare on October 4, 1623, had probably traveled the same roads and on the same days the year before. They were led by Father Giovanni Stefano Spinola and by the novice and priest Father Dominic Pizzardo, the former chancellor and notary of Savona. Father Berro wrote a precious anecdote about this journey, which - like a Franciscan flower - borders on truthfulness and wonder:

“It was a very long journey - says Father Berro - and they suffered a lot, but the Lord did not abandon them. And among other things with which he showed himself in their company, one was that one afternoon, when they were very battered and had nothing with which to relieve themselves, they arrived at an inn more dead than alive and asked for shelter for God’s sake. There were 16 of them, dressed in our traditional costume. The innkeeper told them that he could not, and as they did not know where to go because it was night, they stayed outside and hoped that they could at least find shelter in the stable. But even though they were in such bad shape, they did not stop doing their devotional exercises according to our Rules. Then, without knowing where he came from, they were kindly greeted by a young, not unprepossessing man, who asked them where they came from and where they were going; he told the innkeeper to prepare dinner for the Fathers; he himself let them enter and brought them near the fire; in due course he sat down at the table and regaled them in such a way that they were beside themselves. The young man appeared at the table from time to time and encouraged them to eat. The Fathers thanked him and asked him not to bring them so many things, but he replied: “Go ahead and eat, because God will provide what you need.” When the dinner was finished to their complete satisfaction, he let them go to sleep comfortably and was never seen again. The next morning the Fathers went to see the innkeeper to thank the great benefactor, but he replied that he had disappeared after giving him up and that he did not know who he was, as he had never seen him before that night. Our people were astonished and realized that this was true divine Providence, and they continued their journey happily and arrived happily in Rome.”[2854]

2854 Ibid., p.118-119.

Who knows! Perhaps among the poor who trust in God, the angels without winnowing their wings sometimes pass by or, if you like, good Samaritans appear and disappear without even leaving their names.

Father General was also interested in having other religious come to Rome during the Holy Year to earn the Jubilee. Especially his assistants general, who were displaced in the province of Liguria: Father Casani in Genoa, Father Castelli in Savona and Father Ottonelli in Carcare; the fourth, Father Viviani, had died in 1622 and had not been replaced. In this case, the invitation had something enigmatic and mysterious about it; it was interpreted as a prophecy by Father Castelli when he declared in the process of 1652:

“As for the spirit of prophecy, I can tell you what happened to me in 1624. I was then in Genoa with two other companions, namely Father Peter [Casani] of the Nativity and Father Paul Oitonelli of Modena, all three about the same age, for one was four or six years older than I and the other about ten, and I was between 38 and 40, and we three had been sent out to found houses in the state of Genoa. As the Holy Year of 1625 approached, Father General called the first two to go and make the Holy Year, and gave me orders to stay, writing exactly as follows “Fathers Peter and Paul are to come and make this Holy Year; Father Francis [Castelli] can stay, because he will have time to make another Holy Year.” And by the grace of God, I have seen the past “Holy Year” of 1650”.[2855]

2855 ProcIn, p.472-473. Castelli exaggerated the age differences somewhat, for in 1624 he was 40, but Casani was 52 and Ottonelli 58. Despite this, although the younger one presumably lived longer, the prophecy was valid, for Ottonelli died at 60, in 1626; Casani, at 75, in 1647, and Castelli at 73, in 1657. Only Castelli, then, was able to earn the Jubilee of 1650.

The most solemn and moving event for all Piarists, especially for the Founding Father, in that Holy Year was undoubtedly the pilgrimage of the Fraternity of Our Lady of Frascati to Rome to celebrate the Jubilee. This was preceded by the canonical recognition of the said Confraternity, which Calasanz himself began to worry about in his correspondence with Father Cananea, the Rector of the house, at the beginning of March 1625. On April 28th, he still says that the papal Brief was expected to come out from one day to the next, although it was already dated the 21st of the same month.[2856]

2856 Cf. C.292-300. O. MANETTI, Inventario cronologico dell’Archivio Gen. delle Scuole Pie (Rome 1955), p.68, n.12. The Rules of the said Confraternity were composed by the Saint.

In mid-September, the inhabitants of Frascati decided to organize a solemn pilgrimage, taking with them the venerable image of the Madonna to whom the Confraternity was dedicated. In the Holy Years, it was customary for the faithful to come to Rome with their own Confraternities, with their images and banners, dressed in their characteristic vestments and even with boys and girls dressed as angels and saints.[2857] It was a sacred, devotional, emotional spectacle. And that is exactly what the confreres of Frascati intended.

2857 In the Jubilee of 1600, it is estimated that more than 600 confraternities arrived in Rome (cf. PASTOR, o.c., vol. 24, p.154 and 158, n.5).

On September 16, 1625, Calasanz wrote to his great friend Father Garcia in Frascati: “As for the transfer of the image of the Blessed Virgin to Rome by the confraternity, I wish you to think about it and pray for it. There is nothing new here, except that many Confraternities come daily to the Holy Year with great devotion.”[2858] By the beginning of October, he had written him another 12 letters, alluding to the planned Jubilee pilgrimage and recommending that they make general confession, “what one must do to prepare for the Holy Year”; that someone should go a week before to prepare things, that some should stay to care for the sick; he speaks of wings, wigs and materials to dress some children as angels, as well as the cowl and cloak of the confreres and two bearers of the mace, who should be honorable persons of the Fraternity and not simple youths; he has presented a memorial to ask the grace of the Jubilee for St. Michael; he will also seek the Pope’s blessing when they pass in front of the palace; he has obtained a promise from the Confraternity of the Holy Trinity of Pilgrims, of which he has been a member since 1600, to host them all for two nights and to give them dinner and breakfast on the day they visit the four basilicas.[2859] He also announced the arrival of Father Octavio Bovarelli, the son of the man who had donated the miraculous icon to the Pious Schools, who wanted to take part in the pilgrimage, etc.[2860]

2858 C.317. Cananea, rector of Frascati, died on September 12, 1625. The Founder sent Fr. John Garcia to replace him as Superior, although without appointment, because legally he was not yet a Piarist, like Fr. Dragonetti. He turned to him, therefore, to discuss the question of the pilgrimage to Rome (cf. C.452).

2859 Since there was danger of plague, in some periods of the Holy Year it was decided that instead of visiting the three basilicas outside the walls, St. Paul, St. Sebastian and St. Lawrence, three inside the city would be visited: Santa Maria in Trastevere, Santa Maria del Popolo and San Lorenzo in Lucina (cf. PASTOR, o.c., vol. 28, p.257, n.6).

2860 See C.318-330.

The analyst Berro, an eyewitness, left an account of this solemn procession and wrote: “On the Solemnity of St. Michael the Archangel, September 29, Pope Urban VIII granted the Holy Jubilee to the one who visited our church of San Pantaleo, who, together with our Fraternity of Frascati, visited the four basilicas, carrying the miraculous image of Our Lady venerated in the church of that city; there was a very large crowd and nobility, and we were about 30 of our own, with our own habit, and it caused great devotion.”[2861]

2861 BERRO I, p.142. It is striking that for this three-day pilgrimage the grace of ‘winning the Jubilee’ is requested from the Pope, and that the Pope grants it, since the Jubilee was granted to all, since it was a Holy Year. The bull Omnes gentes (April 29, 1624) with which the Holy Year was promulgated recalled the traditional practice, which required the visit of the four patriarchal basilicas (St. Peter, St. Paul, St. John Lateran and St. Mary Major) “once a day for 30 consecutive or non-consecutive days for the Romans or inhabitants of Rome, or for 15 days, if they were pilgrims. (Bull. Rom, 13, p.145) The pilgrimage of Frascati visited the Basilicas only once, on St. Michael’s day. For this reason, they then asked the Pope for the grace to be able to gain the Jubilee in one day, adding the visit to the church of St. Pantaleo to the obligatory ones. Calasanz wrote to García on September 22, 1625: “now I write the memorandum for the grace of the Jubilee for the day of St. Michael; that will be next Monday.” (C.320). I have given the memorandum for the indulgence of the Jubilee.” (C.321).

Probably his contacts with the Confraternity of the Holy Trinity of Pilgrims, to which he belonged, to find accommodation for the pilgrims from Frascati, gave him the opportunity to take care of a group of pilgrims, as Berro recalls, who attributes a certain prominence to himself on this occasion: “There were some men disguised as pilgrims, Italians indeed, but so ignorant of the things of God that they barely knew the Our Father and the Hail Mary, but of the Creed and the Commandments they could not say a proper word. For this reason, they could not find anyone to confess them, and they were in despair when they found themselves in Rome and could not confess. In tears of despair, they turned to O. V. Father, who taught them everything and passed them on to me so that I could teach them further. In a few days they learned everything they needed, and after confessing to O. V. Father, they went to communion in a basilica and, comforted and happy, continued their pilgrimage.[2862]

2862 BERRO I, p.155-156.

On Christmas Day 1624, Pope Urban VIII opened the Holy Door of the Vatican Basilica and marked the beginning of the Jubilee with a very solemn ceremony. Prince Wladislaus, heir to the Polish throne and son of King Sigismund III, was among the personalities who attended the ceremony.[2863] The news was delivered in San Pantaleo by the participants in the papal ceremony. But no one could have guessed that this Polish prince, once been king, would not only be the initiator and benefactor of the Pious Schools in his kingdom, but also one of the most determined and ardent defenders of the Institute and its Founder during the fateful years of hardship that culminated in the reduction of the Order to a simple Congregation without vows.

2863 cf. PASTOR, o.c., vol. 28, p.256-257.

The Apostolic Visitation of 1625: Background

One of the most important events that took place in San Pantaleo during the Holy Year was the Apostolic Visitation in the month of October. Pope Urban VIII, a few months after his election on August 6, 1623, and in order to promote Church reform, decided to announce an Apostolic Visitation to the city of Rome with the Bull Militantem Ecclesiam of March 27, 1624, one month before the proclamation of the Jubilee Year of 1625 for the entire Church.[2864]

2864 Cf. Bull. Rom. 13, p.125-126. The Bull Omnes gentes of the Jubilee is dated April 29, 1624 (ibid., p.145). It does not seem, however, that the Apostolic Visitation was as a preparation for the Jubilee, as it is sometimes asserted, for nothing of the kind is said in these Bulls and in fact the Visitation lasted until 1632.

The Visitators had very wide-ranging powers in relation to all kinds of places and people. They were allowed to visit basilicas, churches and other pious places, regardless of whether they belonged to the secular or regular clergy: they could interrogate any person and receive any kind of documents, memoranda, reports, accusations and denunciations against any kind of person, whether ecclesiastical, secular or regular, regardless of their rank, dignity or constitution. With regard to the religious, they could also inquire about their condition, rules and constitutions, institutes and statutes, regulation and customs, common life, rites, discipline, doctrines, aptitude and observance of both superiors and subordinates.[2865]

2865 The first Bull, Militantem Ecclesiam, of promulgation, was followed by other complementary ones, specifying persons, incumbencies, etc.

The visitation began on April 14, 1624, the Sunday in Albis, in the Lateran, as ordered in the Bull of Proclamation, and the Pope himself visited the Lateran basilicas, St. Peter and St. Paul, as did the cardinals in their respective titular churches.[2866] The following six bishops were appointed Apostolic Visitators: Ulpiano Vulpi, Raphael Invitiato, Octavio Mancini, Ludovico Sarego, Antony Díaz and Alexander Bosco. Of these, Octavio Mancini served as secretary until April 4, 1626. He was then replaced by Antonio Ricciulli, who was appointed Visitator on April 25, 1626, along with four others: Antonius Seneca, Jacob Crescentio, Joseph Anselmo and Father Jerome of Castroferrato, a Capuchin friar.[2867]

2866 Cf. PASTOR, o.c., vol. 28, p.254.

2867 Cf. G. SÁNTHA, Calasanctius et Visitatio Apostolica: EphCal 4 (1959) 161, Of the six Visitators appointed the previous year, R. Invitiato had died on 30 November 1624; L. Sarego died also in October 1625, and A. Diaz, Bishop of Caserta, was appointed nuncio in Naples on 31 March 1626 (ibid.).

On February 11th of that Holy Year, Father Paul Ottonelli arrived in Rome from Liguria to earn the Jubilee. Father General had sent him to Carcare in June 1624 to direct the work of the house.[2868] The other two General Assistants remained in Liguria: Casani as Provincial in Genoa and Castelli as Rector in Savona. Father Ottonelli, apart from Assistant, was appointed General Procurator on September 8, 1624, while he was in Carcare.[2869] It is therefore not impossible that his return to Rome was at the request of the Founder, who needed his efforts. But on August 1, 1625, Father General dismissed Father Ottonelli from his office as Procurator “for just cause”, but we do not know for what reasons.[2870] What is certain is that four days later the dismissed Procurator went to the papal palace of the Quirinal and, in the rooms reserved for Monsignor Antonius Seneca, “hastily and confusingly”, as he himself says, wrote a memorandum with serious accusations against Father General and Founder, which he wrote at the request of the Monsignor, accompanied by a personal letter of explanation that began as follows: “In obedience to Your Excellency, I have hastily, though confusedly, sketched some things that have come into my mind, and if anything else occurs to me, please let me know, for the good service of God I am ready, with Your Divine help, to reveal what I know, publicly if necessary.”[2871] We will come to the above accusations in a moment. But we must add a back story. Father Ottonelli himself had sent an appeal to the Pope a few days earlier, which read as follows

2868 Cf. EC, p.1975 and EGC, c.223.

2869 Cf. RegCal 13,28, f.1.

2870 “At the 1st of August 1625 the office or charge of Procurator General of the Religion was taken away from the aforementioned Fr. Paul [Ottonelli] of the Assumption by the Most Reverend Father Joseph of the Mother of God General Superior for just reasons, all this being at the discretion of the said Fr. General.” (ibid.).

2871 EC, p.1976.

“Most Holy Father. We humbly request Your Holiness to pay a secret visit to the Fathers of the Pious Schools, the poor of the Mother of God, both in the house of St. Pantaleo and in the novitiate, through Msgr. Seneca and Father Ferretti, Capuchin, alone, giving them the order in secret. And God bless you.”

And on the back was written in a different hand: “To Msgr. Seneca.”[2872]

2872 EphCal 2 (1959) 52, n.6.

Ottonelli therefore first approached the pope, asking him for a secret visit to the Pious Schools and proposing two special Visitators who were not among those appointed for the general Apostolic Visitation to Rome. He gave the impression that he wanted a special visit apart from the one that was taking place. And the Pope agreed and accepted the appointment of Msgr. Seneca, to whom he entrusted the matter.

The lack of a date in the petition to the Pope prevents us from knowing when it was made, whether before the first of August or after. It seems more likely to us - as Sántha believes[2873] - that it was before. Ottonelli, the Procurator General of the Order, but on his own account and behind Father General’s back, hands the request to the Pope, who immediately forwards it to Msgr. Seneca. Father General learns from Seneca himself or by other means of the secret step taken by Ottonelli and relieves him of his office as Procurator for obvious abuse of his functions. On the other hand, this request was superfluous, since the Apostolic Visit, which was already underway, would sooner or later arrive in San Pantaleon. Why this urgency and secrecy? Let us add that when Calasanz deposed Ottonelli, the latter had not yet concretized his accusations against him in writing and therefore these were not the reason for the deposition, but in any case, the request for a secret apostolic visitation, apart from the public and official one.

2873 “Facile tamen fieri potest, ut huiusmodi depositio non iam causa fuerit faciendi delationis, sed effectus eiusdem iam factae vel tentatae”, says Sántha (EC, p. 1977, n.1) The contrary hypothesis would increase the malice since not only the wording of the accusations, but also the request for visitation would be a spiteful reaction against a legitimate act of the General, given that the appointment of Procurator like all the others was “a beneplacito” of his. All the more so if there were “just reasons”, which we do not know.

When Ottonelli wrote his indictment four days later, he could not help feeling a certain malicious nervousness and an undisguised spitefulness towards the recent deposition, which was exacerbated by the haste, carelessness and secret concealment. But having taken the first step, he could not so easily avoid the second, even if it was possible to mitigate the accusations, which he did not do. Here is a summary of the three points on which he focused his accusations against the Founder:

1. The extreme poverty professed by the order forces him to live exclusively on alms, but the Father General is thinking of starting a school with a fixed income that comes from Cardinal Nazareno’s inheritance; he charges rent for some businesses; he has taken a small house with a field that has been sown and whose fruits are sold in Carcare; silk and gold vestments are used in the church; he wants to buy a house in Frascati that is half-ruined and forces himself to pay for it within a certain period under threat of excommunication.

2. The General Assistants should be in Rome to help and advise the General, but he keeps them away, and one of them (Ottonelli) has come to Rome with his permission to win the Jubilee of the Holy Year, but he consults him neither in serious nor in trivial matters, “he wants to do everything in his own way, like an absolute prince, as if his subjects and his own companions or assistants were slaves.”

3. Nevertheless, Father General allows himself to be dominated and subdued with great scandal by Father Alacchi, a Sicilian or Calabrian, who, it is said, was expelled from the novitiate of the Capuchins as a man possessed; and when he was our novice, he never obeyed the superiors and committed many extravagances which were judged by him to be heroic deeds. “Everyone is astonished at the little or no respect with which he treats Father General and that the latter constantly exalts him to the skies.”[2874]
2874 Cf. EC, p.1977, n.2; PosCas, p.499-503.

It is not that these accusations were strictly speaking slanderous because they were false, but exposed in this way, “hastily and confused”,” as he says, without clarifications and justifications of Father General’s behaviour, they were simply a gross denunciation, unworthy of an Assistant and former General Procurator. The entire first point consists of trifles of ordinary administration viewed through the magnifying glass of an extreme pauperism to which Ottonelli himself, as founder of the House of Fanano with his personal goods and as Procurator General, would not be immune.

The second point borders on malicious incomprehension and the childish whining of those who believe that their personal rights and values have been set aside. It is true that the Founder had an authoritarian and decisive character, and what he could do himself he did not entrust to others. But it would be a misrepresentation of his intentions to say that he took his Assistants away from Rome to act alone. On the one hand, the few dozen houses that made up the Order did not need the constant advisory or deliberative presence of four Assistants plus the General in Rome. The quality of the personnel and the possible foundations required the old Founder to make constant use of his Assistants as the most valuable and capable persons, both to found new houses and to preside over new Provinces or to control special situations. These positions and tasks made them more valued and worthy than attending official government meetings in Rome. And if the General asks others for advice or help in his absence, this seems more explicable than reprehensible.

The third point is a mixture of malice, envy and undisguised hatred, although the person was indeed extravagant and out of the ordinary. But despite his shortcomings, the Founder knew how to use his undeniably positive gifts by giving him positions and entrusting him with challenging tasks.

It is very likely, however, that Calasanz never could read this accusing pamphlet of Ottonelli and had only a vague idea of the motives that led his Assistant and Procurator to ask for a secret Apostolic Visitation. Regardless of the content of the accusations and their more or less slanderous undertones, the imprudence and strange impatience of asking for such a secret visitation was obvious, while the announced visitation was already underway, which in due course was to pass through San Pantaleo, just as it passed through the other 334 pious places, churches, monasteries and convents of Rome, until it was completed on May 12, 1632.

Calasanz probably received a message from the future Visitators in August, without mentioning the date of the visit, because on the 31st of the month he wrote to Father Cananea: “I am waiting for the Apostolic Visitation and in the meantime, nothing can be changed. I am also waiting for Fr. Peter [Casani], who will arrive in Rome around September 18th or 20th”.[2875] This concern about the announced Visitation and the conversations between Calasanz and Ottonelli on the subject made the latter think seriously until he felt guilty and publicly asked for forgiveness, as Father General told Father Garcia on September 17th: “Last night Father Paul knelt down and asked for forgiveness, acknowledging his pride and past mistakes. May the Lord grant him perfect self-knowledge, as I wish for myself.”[2876] And three days later he wrote again to Frascati, to Father Garcia: “Father Paul has gone to the convent of La Scala to make a retreat. When I know the day of the Visitation for sure, I will ask Your Reverence to come here.”[2877] These brief references to Father Ottonelli’s behavior without further explanation indicate that Father Garcia - and perhaps the others - were aware of what was happening.

2875 C.314.

2876 We do not know if he accused himself only of having asked for a secret Apostolic Visit, behind the back of Father General, or if he added something else concerning the content of his accusations, presented in writing to Mgr. Seneca.

2877 C.319.

The very short Apostolic Visitation

The Visitation came unannounced on October 27th. There were three Visitators, of whom we only know the name of the main Visitator: Msgr. Antony Seneca, Bishop of Anagni, who had been requested by name by Fr. Ottonelli. In the afternoon of the same day, Calasanz wrote to Father Garcia: “This morning we had the Visitation of the prelates; there were only three and Msgr. Vulpio and Msgr. Díaz were absent; all the members of the house were questioned, but with a very brief examination. May the Lord do everything for his greater glory.”[2878] And even more laconically he wrote to him again on the 29th: “We had a Visitation here yesterday. Brother Stephen - whose arrival in Frascati he announces in this letter - will tell you how it went.”[2879] Both messages say that everything went normally, without tension or drama. The only anomaly is that it was not Bishops Ulpio and Diaz, who were the official Visitators and perhaps friends of Calasanz, but Bishop Seneca and two others who remained anonymous. The surprise we can sense in Calasanz leads us to believe that he was unaware of the extent of Ottonelli’s secret move, to whom this change of Visitators was due.

2878 C.346.

2879 C.347. Logically he was mistaken in saying yesterday, the 28th, since on the afternoon of the 27th he said that it had been on the morning of the 27th itself; although, if he signed the letter after the evening Angelus of the 28th, it was already properly on the 29th, and he could say at the same time that the 27th was yesterday.

What is striking is the brevity of the visit, which was carried out in a single morning, after all the people in the house, who according to the files numbered 28, had been subjected to a necessarily brief interrogation. From them we also know that the Visitation began with the church, which was thoroughly inspected, and from there it went on to the house and the schools, where there were “more than 900 students”[2880]

2880 Cf. the Acts in PosCas, p.506-510. C. Vilá also noted “the speed and natural superficialness with which this Apostolic Visitation proceeded…” (ibid., p.506).

In the days immediately following the visit, Father General spoke with Msgr. Seneca, with whose conversation he was very satisfied, as can be seen from his letter to Father Garcia dated October 31:

“I spoke with Msgr. Seneca after the visitation, of which not only the said Monsignor but all the others were satisfied, finding neither division nor any disturbance in the questioning of all, since all were very much in agreement, without having been warned, that they had many desires to serve the Lord, and that there was nothing in the Religion that needed remedy, except one who said that the rooms were very narrow and uncomfortable, and another that it rained in many parts of the house, and who answered with simplicity, thinking that they were asking about material things. Bishop Seneca told me that the Institute could not be better than it is, and that it is necessary that great poverty should be observed, and that the habit should be coarse, and that care should be taken of the little children, and not at all of preaching and confession, as the other Religions do. He wants us both to speak to each other on other occasions to see any inconveniences that might disturb the work in the future, so that our Institute can be confirmed with an Apostolic Bull on the occasion of the Visit.”[2881]

2881 C.349.

The letter reflects the satisfaction and congratulations of the visitators. There is no reference to serious problems or to accusations, complaints or denunciations, not even to the Ottonelli allegation. Perhaps Bishop Seneca did not attach any importance to this because he considered it a “matter of friars”, who always tended to complain about their superiors. The anecdote about the leaks and the uncomfortable confinement of the rooms suggests that there was nothing serious about the interrogations, unless Bishop Seneca kept it to himself by talking to Father General, or the latter hid it from Father Garcia. I do not think either of them was guilty of dishonesty.

The conversations between Seneca and Calasanz continued fruitfully, both looking for difficulties and problems, dangers or present or future deviations and their appropriate solutions. All this can be seen in the letter that Father General wrote to Father Alacchi on December 27, which vividly expresses the satisfaction of the Visitators.

“You should know that the Most Reverend Prelates of the Visitation of Rome came to us on behalf of His Holiness, perhaps thinking to find some disorder or small unit, and they saw everything thoroughly and examined everybody one by one; they were so satisfied that one of them said, “Blessed are you if you have the gift of perseverance.” And then with Mons. Seneca, who is the most experienced of all - he was Vicar General of St. Borromeo - he told me that he considers our Institute to be one of the most necessary in the Christian Republic. And he would like to get the Pope to confirm it with a broad Bull of approval. Among the other points that he thinks could weaken our institute is that we accept too many foundations, because we would then have to resort to people who are not yet suitable as teachers. Then he told me that we should not accept new houses without his permission, but that we should try to prepare good subjects, because then we will be able to expand with joy and to the Pope’s satisfaction. He also warned me of other things that he thought might relax us, and he asked me to tell him others too, if I could think of any, and he would see that they were all included in the said Bull, and I gave him five that pleased him very much.”[2882]

2882 C.380.

Indeed, with the minutes of an official report, Calasanz wrote a memorial addressed “to the Most Reverend Prelates of the Apostolic Reform”, and after summarizing the history of the Order in a few lines, he ended with the request

“…that Your illustrious Lordships may help it in the present by preventing and remedying the inconveniences which in time may weaken the said Institute, so that it may always be preserved in its original fervor and exercise. The main points that could lead to a loosening over time are the following:

1º The non-observance of holy poverty and its rigor

2º The desire to wear shoes and be well dressed, since the Institute requires much mortification.

3º Accepting more places without having suitable subjects to maintain them.

4º Not wanting to accept the little ones of the Holy Cross.

5º Wanting the religious to teach other major sciences and become lecturers, confessors, or preachers, as the other Religions do.”[2883]

2883 C.380a.

These five points are already mentioned by Calasanz himself, as if Mgr. Seneca had suggested them to him: the third in the letter to Alacchi of December 27th and the other four in the letter to García of October 31st, four days after the visit. Surely, they were the result of conversations held after the visit, but everything indicates that it was Calasanz who proposed them to Seneca, since it would be unlikely that the Monsignor would have grasped these key points of future danger in two or three days.[2884] Normally, the Founder of the Order knew the problems and weaknesses of the Order better than Seneca and presented them sincerely in order to get the Pope to give them authority with a new Bull. This would confirm and consolidate the Order and secure it a future of observance.

2884 The Visitation was on October 27th, and on the 31st Calasanz already spoke of his conversation with Seneca, which could have been on the 28th, 29th or 30th.

In order to obtain this new Bull, Father Casani, who had been appointed Procurator General just arrived to Rome[2885], on October 1, 1625 addressed a long memorial in Latin to the Visitators in which he listed the points that should be included in the papal document. We cannot be sure whether he acted on his own initiative or with the suggestion or approval of the Father and Founder. From the content of the document, it seems more likely that he acted on his own, because although he agrees with some of the five points proposed by Calasanz and Seneca, he proposes others that are very personal and come from his enigmatic constitutions (Pusilli gregis idea), such as.: extremism in poverty; the precept that all be called poor and discard any honorific title; that all receive tonsure and become clerics; the insistence on a solid philosophical-theological formation; the renunciation of any kind of personal defense, both individual and communal, except for life and serious wounds, etc. It must be admitted, however, that it would have been ridiculous if some of these minor points had appeared in the desired papal Brief.

2885 “On October 1st, 1625. The R. Fr. Peter [Casani] of the Nativity of the Bma. Vergine by the consent of the very R. Fr. General Minister” (RegCal 13, n.28, f.1). Berro says that Fr. Casani arrived in Rome from Genoa on the vigil of St. Michael 1625 (BERRO I. p. 142).

On other, more serious points, it agrees with the mentality of the Founder, expressed in the five points mentioned above or on other occasions. Thus, his definition of the Piarist ministry is clear when he says: “It consists in instructing children, especially the poor, in Christian doctrine and customs and human letters from their first beginnings to rhetoric, gratuitously and without salary, stipend, prize, remuneration or honorarium.”[2886] He asks that it be forbidden to confess and preach to the people, except in exceptional cases or as an accessory ministry tied to the needs of the principal ministry; likewise, the power of the General to expel from the Order those convicted of certain serious crimes is to be expressly confirmed. However, nothing is said about attention to the little ones and the danger of excessive foundations, which are two of the five points of Calasanz.[2887] It is, however, a clean, dignified, positive memorial, without accusations or complaints, unlike Ottonelli’s. And it would have been a great stroke of luck for the Order if, as a result of this Apostolic Visitation, it had received the desired Brief in which the Pope had confirmed, inculcated or granted the essential points to which Calasanz and Casani had referred in their respective memorials.

2886 Cf. PosCas. p.516. n.3.

2887 Ibid. p.516-518.

There were other documents that Bishop Seneca had undoubtedly asked for, such as the Constitutions or the Bulls of Foundation, as well as a brief report by Calasanz describing the office itself, customs, devotional practices and other features of common life, similar to some other “summaries” or “reports” we have already seen.[2888] All these documents were later used to write the official records of this Apostolic Visitation.[2889]

2888 Cf. ibid., p.520-521. It coincides almost completely with the version that Br. Morandi added to the Memorandum or Historical Report of 1622 (cf. EGC, p.170:172), when composing his Narratione (cf. Archivum 15 [1984] 6 8).

2889 The lack of original documents concerning this Apostolic Visitation caused analysts and biographers up to our time to give it an excessively positive and laudatory vision. (Cf. BERRO I, p.141-142; BARTLIK, o.c.; EphCal 3 [1939] 82-83; TALENTI, Vita, p.176-177; BAU, BC., p.539-540). Picanyol knew the Minutes of the Visitation and several other documents, but ignored, for example, those concerning Ottonelli (cf. EGC II, p.339-344 and 300-301). Sántha found and copied again the official Minutes and a complementary dossier in the Arch. Sec. Vat. (AA. 6941), which belonged to Mgr. Seneca, concerning the Visitation of Regulars, divided into fascicles, of which the 9th is entitled “Scripta pertinentia ad Clericos Scholarum Piarum, 1625” (cf. G. SANTHA, Calasanctius et Visitatio Apostolica… p.165-169 and 194-202) All these documents have been republished in PosCas, p.494-524.

Everything indicates that both the visit and the complementary meetings of Calasanz and Seneca took place in a climate of serenity, understanding, trust and well-founded hope for the consolidation and strengthening of the Order. These were the sentiments expressed by the Founder in his letter to Alacchi on December 27th, exactly two months after the visit, and he said: “To date they have not let us see anything [yet], but we are waiting from day to day for the decrees they will send us...”[2890]

2890 C.380.

The result of the Visitation: disappointment

At the beginning of 1626, Mgr. Seneca fell seriously ill and died in August of the same year without having taken care of the Visitation and the problems at hand.[2891] The hope of receiving the desired apostolic Brief died with him. Father Ottonelli had also died on February 18, 1626. The official secretary of the Apostolic Visitation, Mgr. Octavio Mancini, who was supposed to take care of the visit’s minutes and decrees, was replaced by Mgr. Antonio Ricciulli on April 4, 1626. But Mancini had been very slow in his work, so that in the two years of his term of office (April 24, 1624 to April 4, 1626) he had only written 29 minutes and the associated decrees. When the change took place, the minutes and decrees on the Pious Schools were still undone, which the new secretary Ricciulli had to write based on the documents he had been given.[2892] The haste with which he had to draft the minutes and decrees had an unfortunate effect on them.

2891 Cf. HierCath, IV, 82.

2892 The Visitation of the 335 Places of Rome consists of three volumes with 1,155 pages. In the first vol. the new secretary Ricciulli wrote that his predecessor Mancini composed only 29 Acts and another 40 were due to Alexander Bosco and the others were composed - Minutes and Decrees - by Ricciulli, until the end of the Visitation (May 12, 1632). The Minutes and Decrees concerning St. Pantaleo are in vol. II (Arch. Sec. Vat., Arm. VII, 112), in duplicate, as we shall see. They were, therefore, written by Ricciulli, and in fact are signed by him “Antonius ep. olim Bellicastrensis, nunc vero Umbriaticensis, Secretarius” (Cf. G. SÁNTHA, o.c., p.201, n.4, at the end).

By June 14, 1626, our papers were ready and the notary took a copy of the decrees and gave them to … Father John M. Censunni, monk of St. Basil’s, in the monastery of San Pantaleo ai Monti, and mistook that church for the homonym of the Pious Schools.[2893] It would have been the most normal and honest thing if the Basilian monks had immediately returned these documents to the person who had given them to them when they realized their mistake. It is therefore inexplicable that instead of immediately sending these decrees to their rightful addressees, two long years passed and on September 10, 1628, the same notary wrote these acts and decrees again in the official book and gave a copy of the decree - not the minutes - to Father Jacob Graziani, who immediately sent them to Father General, who was in the novitiate.[2894]

2893 Cf. G. SÁNTHA, o.c., p.199, n.37. Calasanz refers to this monastery in a letter of October 6, 1626: “I will give the letters [from Frascati] to the Fr. Abbot at S. Pantaleo ai Monti” (C.535).

2894 This explains the double wording of the Acts or Decrees in vol. II, f.14-16 and f. 114-116. Cf. n.42 above. In the copy given to Fr. Graziani (cf. original in RegCal 12,41***) the notary wrote: “Fuerunt per me intimata supradicta Decreta cum dimissione copiae collatae in manibus R. P. Jacobi a S. Paulo, die 10 mensis Sept. 1628” (cf. G. SÁNTHA o.c., p.200, n.40). Graziani, on a separate sheet of paper, wrote to the Founder: “Now a Notary of the Visitation has come, who has presented these decrees in the name of the Holy Congregation and has asked for a receipt in my hand; but I submit them to Y. P. M. R. in order that you may see what is to be done and I give you humble reverence, etc. From the house of S. Pantaleo on X 7bre 1628” (EGC 11, p.343-344).

After so long a wait, Father Founder was able to read with astonishment and a certain covert indignation the long, 17-point plea, which recalled neither the content nor the form of the friendly discussions with the Visitator, Msgr. Seneca, and the consensus of ideas. Here Father General was threatened with suspension from office and other penalties at the discretion of the Visiting Congregation if he did not comply with the decrees within the time limit set. And without waiting to reassure himself, he outlined on the back of the letter Fr. Graziani had sent him the response to each of the points in the visitation decree.

The first ten concerned the church and its chapels, altars, relics, tombs, etc., which we will not go into because they are not so important. The remaining seven deal with problems of the Order and are the ones that probably affected the Founder the most. What is surprising for us is that they in no way allude to the issues proposed in the memoranda by Ottonelli and Casani, which the editor of the Acts and Decrees, Msgr. Ricciulli, completely ignored. However, he at least used the summary report of Calasanz, but does not seem to have taken into account his memorandum with the five points of possible future relaxations, although he treats the subject of the last three in a different tone. Nothing is said about poverty, which is addressed by Calasanz, Casani, Ottonelli and Seneca as one of the fundamental points of the demands. In addition to what has been said, it should be pointed out that some of the issues raised had already been resolved or were in the process of being resolved. The secretary did not have the sensitivity or prudence to check whether the situation in 1625, when the Visitation took place, was still the same as in 1628, when the decrees were already obsolete.

Undoubtedly, the new secretary, Msgr. Ricciulli, made use of a protocol in which the Visitators wrote down the questions concerning the church and the seven points of complaints or accusations made orally by the religious questioned.[2895] And to write the 17-point decree, he did nothing more than follow what he had previously written in the minutes, without further clarification or explanation of the current state of affairs. Here are the last seven points of the visitation decree, in a synthesis:

2895 If there had been other memorandums of complaints, they would be next to those preserved.

11.- Teachers who teach grammar and humanities must have studied at least rhetoric beforehand, and suitable people with at least one year of professional experience should be appointed for the more difficult children.

12.- Within two months, a teacher should be provided to train the teachers designated to teach.

13.- Do not admit anyone who is not gifted to teach, and do not let them be so numerous that they cannot maintain themselves in this house.

14.- Let them devote themselves with great care to teaching the poor and not to higher studies outside the Institute.

15.- Without the express permission of the Pope or the Sacred Congregation, let no new foundations and churches be admitted outside Rome.

16.- Infants should not be rejected because of their tender age, and the sick should be treated in such a way that they lack nothing.

17.- Within fifteen days the General is to explain why he has not convened a General or special Congregation during the eight years of his government, and submit a note with the most suitable persons to lead the Order.[2896]

2896 Cf. PosCas, p.523-524; G. SÁNTHA, o.c., p.200-201.

The literal wording of Calasanz’s reply was as follows:

“To 11: All masters who teach humanities and rhetoric will have studied humanities before teaching them.

To 12: A Father has already been appointed to teach those who are to become teachers

To 13: No one will be admitted but according to the approved Constitutions.

To 14: The Fathers of the Pious Schools do not teach major sciences, as this would be contrary to their Institute.

To 15: The General has asked the Pope for a decree so that no more can be founded anywhere in two years, and he has done so in order to prepare suitable subjects during this time.

To 16: Poor children are admitted at the age of 6 or 7 for the first foundations, and not before, because they are incapable of learning and hinder the others. As for the sick, they lack nothing of what the doctor prescribes, nor the necessary service and assistance.

To 17: As for the General Congregation, it was held in the sixth year of the Order, that is, in 1627, according to the Constitutions adopted in 1622, and it can thus be seen that the Sacred Congregation of the Reformation was not well informed in this respect. Father General never had a lay secretary...”[2897]

2897 Cf. G. SÁNTHA, o.c., p.201-202.

The final addendum in n. 17, lamenting the lack of good information, reveals the Founder’s state of mind, bordering on indignation, when he saw what had become of the Visitation after three years of hoping it would bring something positive. Even without addition, he notes the lack of information in ns. 16, 15, 14 and 12, since what is asked for has already been done.

The fact that at least these five points had already been rectified in 1628 led Sántha to speculate that before sending back the wrongly received decree, the Basilian Fathers brought it to the attention of Calasanz, who, as soon as he could, began to take appropriate action before the warnings reached him.[2898] This hypothesis seems far-fetched to us, not only because it would have been a disloyal step on the part of both the Basilians and Calasanz, but also because it would be inexplicable that Calasanz, if he already knew the contents of the decree in mid-June 1626, allowed a year to pass before taking the two important decisions concerning the foundations and the convocation of the Congregations

2898 Ibid., p.190-191. Vilá also admits the hypothesis (cf. PosCas, p.490).

Things proceeded without fiddling, with more normality and legality. Calasanz explains that the first General Congregation was held in 1627, at the end of the first six years of the Congregation’s existence (1621-1627), in accordance with the Constitutions for Ordinary Affairs,[2899] and that the second would be held in 1630 for the election of the Father General, at the end of his term of office (1622-1631). As far as new foundations were concerned, he himself had already described the question as dangerous in his Memorandum of Five Points, and Bishop Seneca verbally instructed him not to accept any new foundations without the approval of the Visitators. However, in order to exert more compulsion and protect himself from future petitions, he addressed a petition to Urban VIII so that “His Holiness may order the Minister General of the said Pious Schools not to accept foundations for two years, so that during this time suitable and practised subjects may be prepared to carry out the said work.” The Pope forwarded the request to the Congregation of Religious, which granted it with almost the same words.[2900]

2899 Cf. CC n.236.

2900 Cf. supplication and concession in G. SÁNTHA, o.c., p.199, n.38.

Father General, however, was not very satisfied with the restrictions imposed on the teachers, or with the number of novices to be admitted, or with the interpretation given to the dedication to infants, etc. And before writing the final answer, he wisely thought to ask for clarification from the Secretary, who was Vicegerente in Rome at the same time, and after the conversation he wrote in Latin at the foot of the page with the decrees: “The Most Reverend Vice-Gerente told me, when I pointed out to him the difficulties in complying with some of these decrees, that they were not prescriptions, but only warnings.”[2901] Perhaps for this reason he did not manage to write the outlined reply, at the end of which was a note with the list of those Father General considered suitable for the government, and these were: Peter Casani, Francis Castelli, Jacob Graziani, Pelegrino Tencani, Dominic Pizzardo, Francis Baldi, Stephen Busdraghi, Octavio Zacharias Bianchi, Antony M. Vitali, Archangel Galletti.[2902] And he concluded the list with this sentence: “When asked about those who are suitable for the government of the Religion, the General replied that they are better suited than himself.”[2903] There is modesty in the answer, but at the same time there is also a certain amount of resentment, because you can sense that they doubt that there are people who are fit to govern.[2904]

2901 Ibid., p.202 n.42; EGC II, p.344: “non esse praecepta sed tantum admonitiones”.

2902 Both Picanyol (cf. EGC II, p.344) and Sántha (o.c. p.192) and Vilá (PosCas, p.491) read Stephen Cherubini instead of Busdraghi. The original note says Stephanum a Regina Angelorum, which was Busdraghi, while Cherubini was Stephanus ab Angelis (cf. RegCal l2,41***).

2903 Cf. EGC II, p.344. Neither the request nor the answer seems to refer exclusively to the aptitude to be General, but simply to be Superiors.

2904 In the Acts, which Calasanz did not even read, it was said: “Abundant laicis et personis ad gubernandum ineptis.” (cf. G. SÁNTHA, o.c., p.169).

After all that has been said, it is clear that the apostolic Visitation was almost doomed to failure. Had Msgr. Seneca continued the visit, the Brief of confirmation and reinforcement of the essential points on which Seneca, Calasanz and Casani at least agreed, would probably have been achieved. And it would have been something positive. Those who drafted the minutes and decrees took things coldly, without understanding the problems and without offering acceptable solutions, apart from the threatening and unpleasant tone and the final clarification that they were only warnings or advice. Perhaps, despite everything, the most positive thing was to recognize the serious and fundamental problems that the Order had and that required constant attention, since it was not easy to find definitive solutions.

The problems of the Visitation undoubtedly had an impact on the atmosphere in the community of San Pantaleo, and the decrees must have been concretely known. And since the threats and complaints were directed against Father General, Berro relates that one day, already at the end of the visitation, the old holy man said in a public spiritual conference, “If the Pope, knowing my faults in this Visitation, would send me to the galleys for penance, it would be a special grace from God our Lord, and I would be happy to suffer in this life what I should suffer in the next.”[2905]

2905 BERRO I, p.142.

But it was not a big deal.

Illness and remedies

Despite his very long life, it cannot be said that Fr. Joseph Calasanz’ health was as all oak and iron bound. He suffered from three chronic illnesses for many years: his legs since the famous fall in Palazzo Vestri when he was repairing the bell in the courtyard[2906]; his hernia since 1623[2907] and his liver since at least 1626.[2908]

2906 Cf. ibid., p.77, n.13.

2907 On September 7, 1624 he writes to Father Cananea: “From the past year I was cracked in one part and from a few days in all two.” (C.247). On December 26, 1620 he writes to Fr. Garcia: “Finding myself a little indisposed of the crack I made Br. John to write.” (C.568).

2908 On February 14, 1626 he says: “there are nine days which I am in bed for the occasion of a heating of the liver”; (C.392) and on February 19, 1626: “I have not yet begun to leave the house.” (C.396) That this evil was already old is proved by Fr. Ottonelti when he wrote on February 12, 1626: “…our Father is well and has no need of anything but rest and refreshment for his frequent fever liver.” (EC IV, p. 198). On July 25, 1630 the Saint writes: “so the weight and heat do not affect me with the warming of the liver, as other years it happened to me and I was sick.” (C.1446). To cool these burnigs he used plates of mountain salt that he applied to his body, five of which are still preserved among his personal belongings, as well as his liver, along with his spleen, heart and tongue, all in a precious reliquary. It is curious that, among others, the Founding Saints Ignatius of Loyola and Camillus of Lellis also suffered from liver and leg diseases (cf. R. GARCIA VILLOSLADA, San Ignacio de Loyola, BAC, p.369; A. PRONZATO, o.c., p.302).

In addition to these chronic ailments, he also suffered from other, more or less diagnosable illnesses that brought him to the brink of death on more than one occasion, to the natural dismay of his religious, who despite his advanced age - and perhaps precisely because of it - were already convinced that he would never die. Two of these critical moments occurred before and after his trip to Naples. Father Berro, an eyewitness, tells us about both in great detail. Let us see what he writes about the first one:

“Once, among other things, in the year 1626, in the month of April, if I remember correctly, when he went begging, it rained and he got his feet particularly wet, and the one who accompanied him thought in his simplicity to do him a favor and filled his saddlebags with bread so that he would return home. As I was the porter and was in the porter’s lodge, I saw our Old Holy man[2909] arrive with a swollen and sweaty face and wet from the rain. I tried to take the saddlebags off his back, but he refused. As I followed him, I tried again to take them from him halfway up the stairs, but he refused and wanted to carry them into the dining room. He dried his feet, said mass and when he cooled down, he was overcome by a severe headache. She lay down on his bed and the pain got worse and worse. The doctors were called and discovered a very high fever, which kept rising and made him lethargic, so the doctors ordered me to talk to him so that he would not sleep. I myself often prolonged the conversation to keep him awake, without our Old Holy man and beloved Father showing any fatigue at my words… He himself understood that his illness was very serious, and he made his confession as he did every morning. He asked for communion, which Father John Castilla gave him, but before the Confiteor he had a conversation with the Lord, who stood before him, with such a spirit and fervor of faith that everyone present was moved by it. And although I cannot remember it all, the substance was as follows, though my words are very inferior:

2909 For many years before his death, it was already common among the Piarists to call their Founder with affection and veneration the Old Holy Man, as he is called here by Berro, or similar expressions. Here are som examples: Fr. Cipolletta to Fr. Cantalucci in a letter dated December 17, 1647: “concessomi dal nostro santo vecchio e fondatore” (EC II, p.969); Fr. Rapallo to Fr. Peri, on March 5, 1644: “il Padre Nostro buon Vecchio, (EC V, p.2216); Fr. Greyssing to Fr. Pietrasanta: “Ne Sanctum Senem molestia aliqua afficiant”; (Ec III, p.1604); Fr. Mazzei to Peter della Valle, August 25, 1648: “obiit enim optimus senex noster, communis omnium Pater.” (EC IV, p.1848. Fr. Mussesti wrote a Life of Calasanz, which remained unpublished (cf. RegCal, n.84-86). A copy was given to Pope Alexander VII (cf; Bibl. Vat., Mss. Chisiana, G V. 135, ff.1-51), in whose dedication he calls Calasanz “Venerando Vecchio”, “Buon Vecchio” (cf. EHI, p.1514-1515). Also St. Ignatius of Loyola was called by some “old holy man”, like his secretary Fr. Polanco (cf. J. I. TELLECHEA, Ignacio de Loyola solo y a pie. p.18.

First, he begged His Divine Majesty’s forgiveness for all his faults and sins and for not returning so many favors he had received, as was his duty. He professed to believe all that the Holy Roman Catholic Church believes and confesses. He said that he was sorry in his soul that he could not prostrate himself on the ground to receive H.D.M. in a sacramental manner. He said that although he recognized that his faults and sins were very serious and that he was therefore unworthy to receive him, he hoped for forgiveness and paradise, trusting in his infinite goodness. He affirmed that he forgave all those who had offended him or the Religion with the same affection with which he wished the Lord to forgive him his sins…. He begged H. D. M. that the work and Religion of the Pious Schools might be entrusted to him as his own and that of the Blessed Virgin Mary, his mother, to whom it was dedicated, since he had taken care of it as something that H. D. M. had entrusted to him for the help of the poor and for his greater glory. He also asked that the Lord would confirm from heaven the blessing he bestowed on all present and absent, wherever they might be, for he loved them all and carried them all in his heart as children in the Lord...”[2910]

2910 BERRO I, p.146-147.

A deeply moving scene, even when read more than three hundred and sixty years later. Fortunately, the dreaded end did not come. It remained a wonderful rehearsal for the final scene of 1648. He slowly recovered. And to be precise, he did not fall into bed in April, as Berro says, but in March or February, if Scoma is right when he asserts that Father Alacchi arrived in Rome on February 28, 1626, and “found our Father General very ill.”[2911] What is certain is that he wrote to Frascati on April 1, while he was still recovering: “If I remember tomorrow, I will have six candlesticks made for the altar of Our Lady, through whose intercession the good Lord will have mercy on me. I have started to get out of bed and I hope that I am getting better and better.”[2912] Even if we do not speak of a definite miracle of Our Lady, it is certain that the saint attributes to her a certain intervention in the healing of this illness and out of gratitude he offers a set of candlesticks for his shrine in Tusculum (Frascati).

2911 SCOMA I, p.111. The attack of the liver of which he spoke in the letter of February 14th (C.392), had already passed by the 19th of the same month, in which he says that he still does not leave the house (C.396), Then it is not about this illness. But since the letter of the 19th there is another on the 23rd and then a long silence until March 16th, followed by others on the 24th, 29th and 31st (cf. C.396-401). It is a clear signal confirming the illness.

2912 C.402.

During this serious illness, Father Jacob Graziani arrived from Fanano, whom, it is said, he appointed Vicar General in the event of his death.[2913] This is likely because Father Casani, who was best suited, had left for Messina on March 19 with two companions to become Rector of this house.[2914] Until then he had been a master in the novitiate since Alacchi had gone to Naples. When he left the novitiate, the sick general had him replaced by Graziani, as he had planned since mid-February.[2915]

2913 Cf. BERRO I, p.147.

2914 Cf. SCOMA I, p.111.

2915 Cf: C.396 and BERRO I, p.148.

Since the arrival of Father Melchior from Messina, he remained at San Panraleo, where he took over the duties of Rector of the house. Berro, who acted as porter, tells us one of those frank anecdotes where you do not know where the coincidence arrives and where the miracle begins. It happened on Palm Sunday, April 5, 1626, when the Old Holy man was still recovering from the remembered illness. It was customary to organize a procession in which all the students carried their branches. It started from the door of the church, which led to the ‘Piazza dei Massimi’, and reached the square of San Pantaleon via the current ‘Vicolo della Cucagna’, making a complete circle. The religious spread out along the rows to maintain order. Father Alacchi ordered everyone who was at home to come and that he would make a list of those present and then give it to Father General. The list was very long: about thirty. Berro took it to Father General, who was lying in bed, and asked him to read it to him. Berro began with the title that Father Melchior had given, which was: “The names of those who took part in the procession this morning and entered Jerusalem with the Lord.” At the end, the holy old man made this comment: “I am happy about the beautiful procession. Tell Father Melchior that I am sorry for those who did not go, because of all those who entered the Holy Jerusalem with the Lord, not one will die this year.” The message was proclaimed publicly and the “favored ones” then sang a Te Deum in the conviction that the Founder’s word would be fulfilled.

And it was fulfilled. They were so sure of the promise that when someone went to bed, they immediately asked themselves whether they had taken part in the Palm Sunday procession that year.[2916] The fact is that we find in the Book of the Dead that six religious died in 1626, two of them in San Pantaleo, but before Palm Sunday, while in 1625 a total of 15 died, 10 of them in San Pantaleo.[2917] We must conclude that the venerable old man with the long white beard, Caspar Dragonetti, also took his palm with him in this famous procession; he waited until 1628 to die of old age at the age of almost one hundred and twenty.[2918]

2916 Cf. BERRO I, p.172-173.

2917 Cf. Defunctorum Memoriae, p.6-8 (RegRel, 36).

2918 Cf. ibid., p.12 where it says that on December 7, 1628, Father Caspar died “anno 119 circiter” of his age.

And finally, it was Father Alacchi’s turn. After Father General was restored, on May 2 he appointed Father Melchior as Visitator of the three schools of Moricone, Narni and Nursia.[2919] But on the 28th of the same month he was back in Rome, very ill and feverish; “the worst thing,” as Father General lamented, “is that he will not pay any attention to the doctors.[2920] A witness on this occasion is Father Berro, a porter at the time, who assures us that the sick man had reached such an extent that “everyone was sure, even the doctors themselves, that he would soon die.” He received the last rites and was cared for as a dying man.

2919 Cf. the text of the appointment in SCOMA I, p.114.

2920 C.432, dated May 28, 1626.

Then Msgr. John Andrew Castellani arrived in a carriage and asked Berro how Father Melchior was doing. “Very bad,” he replied, adding that his brother, Dr. Castellani, was with him and that as a doctor he could give him better information. Berro went up to ask, and the following pseudo-dialogue ensued: “Tell Monsignor - said the doctor - that he is very unwell.” But the General intervened and said, “No, no, tell him that we hope to God that he will soon be well again.” The doctor replied again: “Tell him that he is very ill and that, humanly speaking, there is no hope.” And the General: “Tell him that he is better and we hope that God will leave him to us.” The doctor turned to Father General and said: “Father General, I am telling you that Father Melchior is on his last legs and has very little time left to live.” And turning to Father Berro, he insisted: “Tell Monsignor that Father Melchior is dying.” Shaken by the news, Berro left in tears, but Father General added: “Tell the Monsignor that Father Melchior is cured; the Lord has left him to us in his mercy.” The doctor agreed: “Father’s prayers can do a lot.” Berro went down and told Monsignor what had happened, and the prelate concluded, “It will be as Father General says; tell him I am glad.” And he left.

After half an hour Berro returned to run an errand for Father General, and as he passed Father Melchior’s room, he saw something being taken out and thought he had died. He asked, “Has Father Melchior died?” And they answered him: “He has been healed.” In disbelief, he insisted: “Where have you taken him?” They took him to Father Melchior’s bed and found him healthy and very happy. “Vincent, I am cured,” he said and told him: “I felt as if I was on a very high mountain and was about to fall down. In this feeling of fear, I saw Father General reaching up to heaven from the earth and stretching out his arms so that I would not fall, and when I came to, I found myself healed. A few days later - Berro’s report ends - he was back home and lived for another fifteen years.[2921] The Old Holy man still had twenty-two years ahead of him. And in such a long life there are so many cases and things that we must necessarily omit many in order not to sin of prolixity, as in this subject of miraculous healings or anecdotes about the sick. But we cannot do without remembering the following.

2921 Cf. BERRO I, p.149-151; SCOMA I, p.114-116, citing Berro, Bartlik, Cinnachi; G. SANTHA, o.c., p.27. On June 6th Calasanz writes: “As for the subjects to help these schools [of Narni], as P. Melchior is well, we will try; the doctor says that he is also much better, but still, he is not sure.” (C.442). And the 10th said: “Father Melchior is three or four days without fever but very weak.” (C.446) On July 7th the Marquis of Belmonte wrote to Fr. Alacchi and said: “I have received great consolation with the letter of Y. P. of June 7th, to see you, thanks to the Lord, free from the long and dangerous infirmity, that you have had...” (cf. SCOMA I, p.116). One could conclude that there was something abnormal and unusual in this healing of Alacchi, which borders on the prodigious, but perhaps the narration of Berro, witness and protagonist, is too vivid and exaggerated as to the rapidity of the healing, if one thinks that he wrote it some 35 years after the events. The letters of the Founder suppose a slow improvement, without excluding what could have been prodigious, thanks to his prayers (or.ni, in the original, that Tosti transcribes ordini instead of orazioni that seems to us more accurate).

Another serious illness and its consequences

We read in Berro’s memoirs:

“A few months after his return from Naples to Rome, O. V., Founder and General, as I remember, left the house to accompany the boys to their home, I think it was in the fall of the year 1627. During his absence it rained and he got wet, and since he was already over 70 years old and his leg had been ailing since the first fall - at the Vestri Palace -…. when he returned home, he felt pain in his leg and lay down on his bed; and as the pain was getting worse, it was necessary to call the doctor, who found that it was a very bad erysipelas that covered the whole leg and grew so that the leg swelled up like a man’s waist and became so swollen and red that it looked like a burning fire.”[2922]

2922 BERRO I, p.156-157.

And Berro goes on to extol the virtue of the old holy man who overcame “his natural bilious complexion with the virtue of patience”, but he resolves the case prosaically by saying that he regained his health by applying some bandages developed by Dr. Castellani’s sister.[2923] In everything he seems to be right, but it is very likely that more than the poultices were involved in this recovery process, in which “with divine help - he adds - he calmed down a little that night, improving more and more, and in a few days, little by little, he was completely cured.”

2923 It is curious that Berro recalls the formula, which consisted of “white bread cooked boiled in red wine, the most powerful that could be found and the hottest that was possible, applied over the leg “ (ib., p.157).

One is tempted to believe that Berro is repeating himself, since even before the journey to Naples, in March 1626, he spoke of a very serious illness, at the end of which the saint thought of buying some candlesticks for the altar of the Madonna of Frascati.[2924] However, it cannot be denied that the old saint actually suffered another illness in the fall of 1627. His letters show that his correspondence became increasingly sparse during September, and on October 1 he wrote: “By the grace of the Lord, I am now without fever”[2925]

2924 C.402.

2925 C.704. In August he writes 23 letters and in October 18, all autographs; in September, only 12, of which five autographs on 3rd, 5th, 6th and 8th; the next two bear his signature only and are from 10th and 17th; the remaining five are from 22nd, 24th, 25th and 29th, all autographs again, except one from 24th (cf. c.692-703 and the n. to c.697). Note the gap between 8th and 22nd.

On October 23, 1652, about eleven years before Berro wrote the page we have copied, Father Jacob Bandoni, who had been Rector of San Pantaleo and personal secretary of the Founder in the years 1638-1643, signed a declaration.[2926] And he affirmed:

2926 Cf. EHI, p.160, n.1.

“... I often heard him [the saint] say that he had received all the graces he had received from God through the Blessed Virgin, and during a very serious illness of erysipelas he vowed to have a church built in honor of the Blessed Virgin and, if I am not mistaken, also of Saint Theresa. A few months after this illness, he had the church built in Frascati, where he himself came to lay the first foundation stone and consecrate it to the glorious name of the Mother of God”.[2927]

2927 Documenta Miraculorum etc. Josephi Calasanctii Fund: RegCal 28, p.8-9. In the years 1626-1632 Bandoni was in Frascati, being rector for a while (cf. EHI, p.160, n.1).

Bandoni speaks of a single illness and of a double vow to the Virgin and St. Teresa to build a church in her name. He leaves St. Teresa aside and focuses on Our Lady, asserting that the Holy Founder fulfilled his vow by building the church of Frascati for Our Lady. However, the facts do not prove him right, because the church of Frascati was begun with the laying of the foundation stone on May 9, 1632, not “a few months after this illness”, as Bandoni says, but almost five years.[2928] And in those five years, other churches had already been consecrated, in particular the first two in Naples. In fact, it is recorded that the first of these was consecrated on November 28, 1626, under the invocation of the Mother of God of the Pious Schools, as we saw in the previous chapter. The fulfillment of the vow would therefore take place in relation to the first illness in March 1626, before the journey to Naples. And we have already seen that the saint did indeed attribute this healing to Our Lady, to whom he dedicated six candlesticks in immediate gratitude, but the vow remained in abeyance, awaiting the favorable opportunity that presented itself a few months later in Naples.

2928 On May 10, 1632 Calasanz writes from Frascati to Fr. Garcia, who is in Rome: “Yesterday evening the first stone was laid with great solemnity in the foundation of the new church.” (C.1782). On the first stone was placed this inscription: “Sub Urbano Octavo, Marcello Lanti Cardinali Romano Tuscolano Praeside, hoc Templum, collecta piorum stipe, Virgini Deiparae dicatum, die 9 maii 1632 (La Madonna delle Scuole Pie, Frascati 1967, p.10).

During his second serious illness, he had to seek the intercession of St. Teresa and make another vow similar to the first. When he regained his health, the first opportunity to fulfill the vow was in the church of the second school, which had also been founded in Naples, in September 1627. On January 1, 1628, Calasanz wrote to Naples: “The title of the church should not be St. Felix, as it is not dedicated to the Blessed Virgin, but I would like to give it its title.”[2929] And on February 19, he specified: “This week I received a letter from Pontecorvo, signed by 90 Complateari who want the title to be St. Theresa, in accordance with the vow I made.”[2930] In the end, he was unable to fulfill the vow because the Carmelites, who are very close to the Pious Schools of Porta Reale, opposed it to avoid confusion with them, and the saint gave in and trusted to fulfill his vow elsewhere.[2931]

2929 C.756.

2930 C.791 The complateari formed a kind of society that with their alms favored the Pious Schools, but they tended to interfere excessively in the government and internal life of the school (cf. EGC III, p.192).

2931 With date of March 4, 1628, he wrote to Naples: “I have seen what you write me having negotiated with Fr. Ferdinand [Carmelite] about the title of the church and for being so close to his I believe he will have reason and there will be no need for any letter since Mr. Marchese Tappio to whom I entrusted this negotiation I believe he has already settled it, declaring it to be the title of the Nativity of Our Lady” (C.800). And on March 15, 1628 he wrote to the same: “As for the title of the church I believe it will be only the Nativity of Our Lady… and I will fulfill my vow in another country when I can.” (c.808).

It seems to be true, then, that there were two serious illnesses of the Old Saint, one before and one after his journey to Naples, and that at these times he made a vow to dedicate the first two new churches to Our Lady and St. Teresa, to whom he had entrusted himself, without necessarily admitting that in both cases there was an evident miracle in the cure, but it should not be excluded either.

A new testimony comes to light that confirms the intervention of St. Teresa in the second illness. Armini tells us about it, but his testimony refers to the testimony of Father Peter de Maldis, who was in Naples in 1628. Here is - in abbreviated form - what Armini writes:

“In 1627, Joseph fell ill after his return from Naples…. and as his illness grew worse and worse, he was judged hopeless by the doctors, so he prepared to pass into eternity, completely devoted to the will of God…. While he was absorbed in devout prayer, the glorious St. Theresa appeared to him… and with a cheerful countenance encouraged him and assured him of health and life, telling him that the Lord willed that he should serve him in the propagation of his pious Institute for the good of Christendom; and she foretold him all the labors and persecutions he would have to endure and suffer in order to maintain the work of Religion. And from that moment the illness began to cease and in a short time he was completely cured. In gratitude for his regained health, the Ven. Servant of God decided to dedicate the church of the first foundation to the saint. And since in the same year the second foundation was erected in Naples, outside Porta Reale, he ordered Father Peter (de Maldis) of St. Joseph to open the church under the invocation of the said St. Teresa and to give him the reasons...”

And he tells us that the wish could not be fulfilled, because we already know why. And concludes:

“All this was declared by the said Father Peter of St. Joseph in public in the Provincial Chapter of the Roman province at Narni in October, 1664.”[2932]

2932 ARMINI, Vita, p.239-240. The credibility of such statements is corroborated by the fact that Fr. Maldis was indeed in Naples and intervened in the conflict over the naming of the church (cf. C.1057), and both Maldis, as ex-provincial of Rome, and Armini, as rector of Ancona, attended the Provincial Chapter of 1664 in Narni, and both were elected vocals of the Roman Prov. for the General Chapter of 1665 (cf. G. SÁNTHA, El P. Alejo Armini, septimo General de las Escuelas Pias, trans. [Salamanca 1984] p.12).

The General Chapter of 1627

The third part of the Constitutions of Calasanz begins with the mention of the General Chapter and states that it must be convened for two reasons, either to elect the Superior General or to deal with important problems of the Order. In the first case, there is no specific date, as the General is for life; his successor should only be elected after his death or, in exceptional cases, after his forced deposition. In the second case, the legislator stipulates that a General Congregation must be convened at least every six years. Both general assemblies are indiscriminately called Chapters or General Congregations, and their members must have at least seven years of profession and three years of priesthood.[2933]

2933 Cf. CC, n.217, 219 and 236. Most of these Chapter questions are inspired by or copied literally from the Constitutions of the Society of Jesus, as well as the figure of the General for life. It should be noted, however, that in them the word General Chapter is not used, but General Congregation in both cases (cf. Constitutions of the Jesuits, part 8a. entire).

It was the first time it had been held, but there was a serious difficulty in making it easy to implement. The Order had been founded by the letter of Gregory XV dated November 18, 1621. The General Chapter was therefore to meet after six years, i.e. in 1627. But if the members of the chapter were to have seven years of profession plus two years of novitiate, they would have to wait until at least 1630. That was too long. On the other hand, to meet the initial needs of the foundation, Gregory XV himself had appointed the General and his four Assistants for this critical ninth year to lead the Order giving them active and passive voice, and bringing forward the date of solemn profession.[2934] Of the four assistants appointed, two had already died: Father Viviano Viviani in 1623 and Father Paul Ottonelli in 1626, who had not been replaced, although the General had the opportunity to do so.[2935]

2934 The three things together (appointment, active voice, passive voice, license to profess) are expressly given in the Brief Apostolici muneris, April 22, 1622 (cf. Bull. Sch. P., p.27-28).

2935 CC, n.279. Perhaps he did not name them precisely because they did not have active and passive voice until they had completed seven years of profession.

For a normal General Chapter, it would have been necessary to give all or almost all religious the right to vote and stand for election so that all could run, because each province would have had to elect two vocals in the its Chapter to participate in the General Chapter together with the Provincial, and each house would have had to elect one vocal beforehand to participate in the Provincial Chapter together with the Rector.[2936] All this was very complicated. He probably asked the jurists of the Roman Curia what to do, and they advised him to do what he did. Berro wrote simply that, faced with such difficulties, the Founder “convened it as best he could, because although there were already three provinces, Rome, Genoa and Naples, there were no legitimate members of 7 years of profession and 3 years of priesthood.”[2937]

2936 Cf. CC, n.295 and 298.

2937 BERRO I, p.163-164.

The Chapter members were therefore five: Father General, Fathers Casani, Castelli and Graziani as provincials of Naples, Genoa and Rome respectively, and Father Peregrino Tencani, a simply professed priest. Of the five, the first three had received their voting rights through a concession from Gregory XV, the other two through a dispensation from Father General himself, as recorded in the minutes.[2938] Father General also appointed Father Glicerio Cerutti, master of the novices and rector of the novitiate of Monte Cavallo, where the assembly took place[2939], as secretary of the Chapter. Although he is not mentioned in the official minutes, it seems that Father Dominic Ruzola presided over the chapter, who, according to Berro, “could not be present all the time due to other occupations.”[2940] This would also explain the anomaly of the meeting dates, as the four sessions took place on October 11, 12 and 27 and on November 4, 1627.

2938 Cf, PosCas, p.562. The fact that there were four with vote, besides the General, made Berro already suggest that Graziani entered “replacing Fr. Viviano” and Tencani “replacing Fr. Paul “ (Berro I, p.164). (Berro I, p.164) That is to say, the General Congregation was recomposed with the four Assistants. But it was not, because the Acts do not refer to the four General Assistants, but to the three Provincials. The deceased Assistants were not replaced until 1632 by the Brief Inscrutabili, and they were Graziani and John Garcia. (PosCas, p.863 and 810, n.16) Calasanz says expressly that García “was placed in the number of the Assistants in place of Fr. Paul (Ottonelli)” (C.4077a).

2939 The first paragraph of the Acts says that they met on “11October, 1627 in Rome in the house of S. Pantaleo; the second paragraph notes the appointment of the secretary, Fr. Glicerio, “novice master and rector of this house” (PosCas, F.562). Berro writes that the Chapter was held “in our novitiate in Monte Cavallo.” (BERRO I, p. 164) Perhaps the first session was held in San Pantaleon and then they went to the novitiate.

2940 BERRO I, p.164-165.

A certain historiographical tradition has denied to this assembly the character of a General Chapter and has called it a General Congregation, but not in the synonymous sense in which the Constitutions of the Order and even those of the Jesuits use the term, in which, as we have already seen, they are inspired, but in the restricted sense of an assembly of the five who normally form the General Congregation or central government of the Order. But we have already noted that those assembled were not the General and his four Assistants, but the General, the three then Provincials, and a fifth voting member to avoid a tie, and the Secretary, who had neither voice nor vote.[2941] The assembly was undoubtedly abnormal for the reasons mentioned, but given the circumstances it was one of the possible forms, and as such it acted with full authority to propose, resolve and decide the problems under consideration, considering itself as legitimate as any other Congregation or General Chapter.[2942] Calasanz himself, while recognizing in his letters and in the Minutes of the Assembly the authentic character of General Chapter or “First General Congregation of our Religion”, expresses in certain terms the uniqueness or obligatory limitation of the same.[2943]

2941 Cf. Picanyol in EGC III, p.177; G, SÁNTHA, Majora Ord. Sch. P. problemata praesente S. Josepho Calasanctio in Cap. Gen. annorum 1637 et 1641 agitata: EphCal 10-11 (1972) 266-267; C. VILÁ, in PosCas, p.561. Picanyol is categorical in his refusal, while the other two seem to recognize him as an authentic General Chapter.

2942 The five gathered together recognize its powers: “declared together the said congregation of five fathers to be legitimate and full congregation and that what will be decreed and declared in it has that vigor and force which all General Congregations are usually have.” (PosCas, p. 562).

2943 The title of the Minutes tells: “First Chapter or General Congregation made in the year 1627 at XI October.” See the equivalence between Capitolo y Congregatione. It starts like this: “Congregated in nomine of the Holy Spirit to celebrate the first General Congregation of our Religion…” (PosCas, p.562). Calasanz speaks of this future Capitolo Generale in five letters from August 11th to October 13th (C.673. 677. 707. 713. 709), but in two of them he uses these expressions, which allude to its anomalous situation: “si farâ presto un poco di Capitolo Generale” (Soon there will be ‘a kind’ of General Chapter) (C.677); “havemo dato un poco di principio al Capitolo Generale” (we have given ‘a little’ beginning to the General Chapter) (C.713).

Not many questions were dealt with, which is understandable as the Constitutions had only been adopted five and a half years earlier. Of the 20 points into which the Minutes are divided, the first four are of a protocolary nature, a further six relate to specific persons and the remaining ten to legal provisions. With the exception of the first four points, the others are divided into four chapters, which are not uniform, as the personal cases are intermingled with the legislative matters and even these are not sufficiently similar in content.

The personal cases concerned the elder Caspar Dragonetti, who was declared a perpetual member of the Order and shared in all the graces and privileges as if he were a professed. To Fr. John Garcia del Castillo, who was to be admonished to wear our habit, and who, if he refused, was to be considered a perpetual member like Dragonetti; to the lay man Francis Selvaggi, former companion of Landriani, who was given the option of remaining as lay person or resigning whenever he wished, and who could also be dismissed by the superior. In addition to these three cases, there were three others concerning religious whose particular situation or problem needed to be resolved, such as that of Father Alacchi, who will be discussed later.

The legal topics were primarily concerned with poverty: a decree was issued on the use of money and mutual economic aid among the houses; no. 146 of the Constitutions was interpreted in such a way that legacies and inheritances could be used not only for the restoration of houses and churches, but also for their construction; no. 145 was also clarified by renouncing the natural right to defend themselves before any tribunal, or by themselves or by lawyers, in respect of the fixed goods of which they could not have the ownership but only the use, and these were specifically the churches, the dwelling houses and the schools and the adjoining orchard, the case being communicated to the direct owners.

It was proposed that an apostolic Brief be obtained as soon as possible, explaining the full extent of the supreme poverty professed by the Order and confirming the Religion and the Constitutions in every detail. It was requested that it should be consulted if the General retains the faculty of excluding certain culprits, as laid down in n. 272 of the Constitutions, notwithstanding the recent papal Bull De eficiendis incorregibilibus; and the permanent tribunal required for this purpose by the Congregation of the Council was named. The Provincials were ordered to make a clear distinction in the houses between the enclosed area reserved for the religious and the premises for the schools; they were also to regulate better the manner of collecting alms. Regulations were also issued against those who traveled to Rome without the written permission of their superior or the General.

The institution of the Cleric Brothers

Of all the resolutions passed at this General Chapter, the following was the most important:

“As for the wearing of the clerical biretta by the brothers, it is granted to all those who are capable of receiving the first tonsure, who shall henceforth be called Cleric Brothers (Chierici Operarii), and who cannot claim to be in charge in any other kind of schools except those of reading, writing and arithmetic, and only to those who are found fit by the Provincials. Should any of these cleric brothers notoriously or scandalously refuse to perform the temporary [domestic] duties imposed by obedience, this license shall ipso facto be withdrawn from him.”[2944]

2944 This is Item XIII of the Minutes, published in full for the first time in PosCas, P.562-565.

This introduced a third class of religious into the Order, between the two classes traditionally permitted in all religious Orders, namely priests or clerics and brothers or lay people. It was therefore a genuine innovation in religious life and would have been a real success if it had been able to survive within the limits and under the conditions in which it was founded. However, the envy and mistrust of some and the pride and ambition of others soon exceeded the limits and created a tense situation that lasted for many years.

It seems that the first author of this innovation was Father Casani, because in his mysterious and hidden Constitutions called Pussilli Gregis Idea, which we already know, he admitted three classes of religious: the priests and clerics, the brothers and the intermediate class, which he called Scholastic Brothers, assigning them the teaching duties of the brothers now called Cleric Brothers.[2945] As a result of the Apostolic Visitation of 1625, Casani asked the Pope in the memorial he presented to issue a new Brief confirming the Order and its Constitutions. Among the many things that had to be included in it was that, honoring the title of Clerics Regular, all should receive the first tonsure and wear a clerical biretta, even those who did not have to go to Holy Orders, as the teachers were chosen from all of them.[2946]

2945 Cf. PosCas, p.540.

2946 “Quoniam nomine clericorum non veniunt laici, sed potius excluduntur, decet, ut omnes nostri, etiam qui sacris initiandi non sunt, quia ex his magistri eliguntur, clericali militiae sint ascripti per primam tonsuram et corona pileoque clericali decorentur” (PosCas, p.5 16, n.2).

Perhaps this petition already reflects the actual reason for the General Chapter’s decision in 1627. Both the clerics who aspired to the priesthood and the brothers taught. The latter, who were generally less educated than the former, were not as respected by the students as the clerics who wore the tonsure and biretta. This, in addition to the humiliation they suffered in classrooms, fostered a certain envy towards the clerics and disturbed the atmosphere of charity and fraternity in the communities. For this reason, in Liguria, the Brothers who had class began to be allowed to wear the biretta, even if they were not tonsured. It is likely that such an innovation was not introduced by Father Provincial Castelli without the permission of Father General. This is evident from a letter that Calasanz wrote to Savona, to Fr. Julius Pietrangeli on July 2, 1627, three months before the beginning of the General Chapter: “As for the order that the brothers should wear the biretta for greater unity, but without wanting them to go beyond the first tonsure, you would have done well to believe that the superiors are enlightened by God and allow to be guided by them.”[2947]

2947 C.649.

The experience in the Province of Liguria was apparently positive, so that the General Chapter thought it appropriate to extend it to the entire Order, with the appropriate restrictions and precautions. However, it seems that the idea did not come from Castelli, but from Casani, who had already expressed it twice before in writing and had certainly discussed it with Castelli and Calasanz.[2948] And that Calasanz himself received this idea from Casani and Castelli with great satisfaction can be seen from this paragraph in a letter from him to Cárcare dated November 13th, nine days after the capitular decision was adopted:

2948 This is also Vilá’s opinion (cf. PosCas, p.540-543).

“Tell Brother Francis that not only he, but all the other brothers who are suitable, should receive the first tonsure, but I do not want them to learn Latin, but to be content with the title and biretta of clerics, so that all may be more conformed and united as clerics in holy charity, for I love one of these, if he is a good servant of God, as much as any other of the clerics who would come to say Mass.”[2949]

2949 C.726 The stable situation of tonsured clerics without aspiring to the priesthood was not exceptional in the time of Calasanz, and even less in previous times, above all to be able to enjoy ecclesiastical benefits, a purpose totally excluded in the case of the Cleric Brothers. One of those stable clerics who never aspired to major orders was Caspar Dragonetti.

Unfortunately, these good wishes and hopes were in vain, and the unrest that ensued forced the Founder and his Assistants to leave the resolution of the conflict to the Holy See.[2950]

2950 Cf. R. MARTÍN, Tercera clase de religiosos en la Orden de las Escuelas Pias: AnCal 5(1961)35-101.

Serious accusations against Fr. Alacchi

At the General Chapter of 1627, the case of Fr. Melchior Alacchi was dealt with in these very serious words: “With regard to Fr. Melchior of All Saints, the Provincial of Genoa in particular and the others in general should see new proceedings and processes, and Fr. General, having sent him on a long pilgrimage so that he might no longer disturb or infect the Religion by the things of which he is accused, shall in his turn, on the pretext of the necessity of his house or something similar, try to obtain from the pope the grace to leave the Order; and should he return without having made the pilgrimage to Santiago [de Compostela], legal proceedings shall be instituted against him.”[2951]

2951 PosCas, p.565.

What had he done? It is not easy to know for sure. Despite the abundant documentation in this matter, it is wisest to suspend judgment on the veracity of the facts of which he is accused. It is clear from the same decrees of the Chapter General that things were not very clear, since it ordered the Provincial of Genoa, Fr. Castelli, and the others to carry out new processes and investigations. This means that the investigations carried out up to that point were not entirely convincing. Nevertheless, he was punished with a penitential pilgrimage, his expulsion from the Order was demanded and he was threatened with new legal penalties.

The matter was serious, but perhaps too much weight was given to the initial accusations without coolly assessing the credibility of the accusers. There is no doubt that the founder held Fr. Alacchi in high esteem and had entrusted him with responsible offices and tasks. But it is also true that Father Melchior was disliked, not to say hated, by many because of his particular character. We remember Father Ottonelli’s accusations against him, which prompted his unfortunate request for an Apostolic Visitation in 1625. At that time, there were clear signs of jealousy in the Assistant General because of the Founder’s expressions of confidence in the extravagant Father Alacchi, who had come to Carcare with a Visitator’s license and who, on previous occasions, had incurred the wrath of the Assistant General and Master of Novices, Father Castelli, through carelessness or imprudence. And there is more than malice in the long letter that Castelli writes to Calasanz on July 2, 1627, in which, between insults and outbursts of anger, he sets out Alacchi’s alleged crimes, without the slightest doubt as to their veracity, however serious they may be. But let us take it one step at a time.

When the foundation of Naples was already underway, the holy Founder lay out Father Alacchi and sent him to Carcare with the patent of the Visitator General signed on January 24, 1627.[2952] He was accompanied to Rome by Br. Ambrose Ambrosi. After a few days in Rome, he continued his journey by sea, again accompanied by brothers Ambrosi and Joseph of Messina as well as clerics Peter Augustine Abbate and John B. Poli. During the crossing from Rome to Livorno, Peter Augustine felt at night, while they were sleeping, that someone had placed a hand where it should not be. It was not known at the time whose hand it was, but months later someone accused Father Melchior and a trial was brought against him, promoted by the Provincial Castelli with the alleged permission of the General. The matter soon became more complicated, because the first accusation of nocturnal sin was joined by others, much more serious, concerning the revelation of the confessional secret.

2952 Cf. Full text in G. SÁNTHA, P. Melchior Alacchi ex Omnibus Sanctis (1591-1642): Archivum 13 (1983) 29, n.61.

Father Scoma reports in his Memoirs, citing the missing Annotationes Siculae of Father Alacchi, that the morning after the event, Cl. Abbate told Father Melchior, who incidentally had not slept with the four young men, but “upstairs, next to the helm” When he heard the story, he exclaimed, “Traitor, why did you not cry out?” And he replied: “So as not to shock others.” Father Melchior thought it advisable to secretly interrogate Brother Ambrose, “whom he doubted because he remembered a slip he had committed in the novitiate, as Father Nicholas Maria Gavotti reported to the said Father. But after ten years, this Brother accused Father Melchior of having betrayed his confession because of this fact.”[2953] Ambrose’s accusation could have been repeated after ten years, but it is certain that Alacchi was already accused of both crimes in this first trial.

2953 Cf. SCOMA I p.121-122. The sinful act is simply described as follows: “Brother Peter Augustine was touched in the pants”.

Strangely enough, on February 20, 1627, before he had received any notice of the arrival in Carcare, the Founder wrote to Father Melchior: “Keep your eyes open for the brothers you have taken with you, for I have no very good references about them.”[2954] Of the two brothers, the one from Messina was expelled from the Order as soon as he returned from Carcare - without our knowing why - as he wrote in mid-June[2955]; and Ambrose, apart from what Scoma reveals to us, is quite compromised in a sibylline paragraph Castelli dedicates to him in his long incriminating letter against Alacchi, in which we read between the lines much more than what is expressed.[2956]

2954 C.587.

2955 C.638.

2956 “After having examined him [Ambrose] against Father N [Alacchi] he is a little worried because he has discovered himself, if only in general without limitation of time what I procured to keep him covered as much as I could, if well I fear very much that he for the same respect of not discovering himself leaves to say many other things, but it doesn’t matter much while it is enough for what we pretend, what is recorded until now. I have told him not to have trouble, that none of us can use against him such things that derive from the sagramental confession (EHI, p.567). In 1641, in letter to the Founder, Alacchi includes Ambrose among “those who relax in the vice of the flesh” (EHI, p.45).

What happened on this trip remained a mystery until a few months later. However, there was another serious event. In mid-May, Father Melchior, accompanied by five novices, traveled from Carcare to Alba to speak with the bishop, Don Ludovico Gonzaga. He took the opportunity to ask the bishop to allow Cl. John Baptist Poli to receive his first tonsure and minor orders on the Feast of the Ascension, May 13. The next day, they set off on foot on the way back, with the exception of the newly tonsured man, who was on horseback because he did not feel well. As they approached the river Monesiglio, the cleric let the horse run free, jumped into the river and was swept away by the current. Melchior took off his cassock and threw himself into the water to save him, but it was useless. Moreover, he felt himself in great danger of drowning and entrusted himself completely to the Immaculate Conception. At that moment, he was caught by a branch and one of the young men reached out his hand and pulled him ashore. Poor John Baptist sank into the water and his body was found three days later. And Father Scoma, referring to the case, concludes: “Father Melchior then vowed to go to Santiago de Compostela in thanksgiving as soon as obedience would allow him to do so.”[2957]

2957 Cf. SCOMA I, p.122. On May 29, 1627, Calasanz communicated the misfortune to Fr. Cherubini who was in Narni, where the deceased novice was from, asking him to tell his mother (C.623).

It is likely that this unexpected misfortune stirred the conscience of some of the young companions of the poor man who had disappeared, and they looked for reasons and moral responsibility where there was none, and the events of the sea voyage came to light. It is also likely that Father Castelli, as provincial of Genoa, traveled to Carcare to attend the funeral and learn in detail what had happened, and then he received the first accusations against Father Melchior and immediately began an information process against him. It seems that everything proceeded with excessive speed and nervousness, because on May 29, when the founder informed Fr. Cherubini of the accident, he expected Fr. Alacchi to arrive in Rome “in a few days”.[2958] But before he arrived, the General had already been informed of the serious accusations against him, so he decided not to receive him and to move into the novitiate while Alacchi stayed in San Pantaleo.[2959]

2958 “The said Fr. [Alacchi] has written to me and I think in few days he will be here (c.623).

2959 Alacchi wrote to Fr. General: “The Lord has inspired you to order Fr. Antony Mary [Vitali] to tell me not to go to meet you, as I have done and will do” (EHI, p.23).

In those scant two months - June and July - that Alacchi spent in Rome, he did what he could to defend himself against the many accusations contained in the process and other supplementary reports. And since he could not explain himself orally, he did so in writing. Five undated letters from Alacchi to Calasanz, from San Pantaleo to the novitiate, have survived and cannot be read without shock.[2960] They are a dramatic attempt at self-defense. He admits with astonishing sincerity his many faults committed before and after entering the Order, but he categorically refuses to admit the two most serious ones attributed to him by Castelli, namely carnal sin and the abuse of the secrecy of confessional, invoking the justice of God. About the first he writes:

2960 Cf. ib., p.7-25.

“From the things that have been told me, written from Genoa, testimonies, trials, reports, believe me that I could have done much more if I had not had the hand of the blessed God on my head, and of this I can boast, for not only in Religion, but also in the world, neither a woman nor a person can ever boast of having touched me, or even of having looked at them, giving them bad thoughts. I leave the defense in the hands of the blessed God… Being here feels like being in hell. Besides, the devil suggests to me that everyone says to me: the man who so exaggerated the sin of the flesh is now a slave to it. I defend myself against this with my innocence.”[2961]

2961 Ib., p.22-23.

Regarding confessions, he writes:

“They have accused me of having spoken of the confessions of Fr. Peter Andrew [Taccioni] and others whose names they have not given me. I do not answer them, but I say to your Paternity: I have never revealed anything I heard in confession, since the penitent could be known.”[2962] And in another letter: “If they have attacked me in my honor, as Father Jacob [Graziani] insinuated, I leave that to the justice of God, because in a matter that enters into confession I cannot speak; in a matter that is known outside of confession, I have already said it orally. But for them to do two thousand devils deeds under this pretext and then tell me in confession, what should I do? Although this happened at a time when it could not be undone because of the scandal.”[2963]

2962 Ib., p.21.

2963 Ib., p.19.

The situation must have been tense and painful for both Alacchi and Calasanz, because despite the Founder’s harsh and hostile attitude, Alacchi recognizes the deep esteem he has always felt and continues to feel for him, and he himself confesses his affection and almost kisses the hand that punishes him. Thus begins one of his letters from this period: “I have read with great pleasure the (letter) of your Paternity and understood what you have ordered, and from such an order I have discovered the love you had and have for me. Blessed be the Lord...” And he concludes: “Your son who loves you, Melchior of All Saints.”[2964] For his part, Calasanz wrote to Father Garcia on June 28: “Father Melchior is very lonely in the schools and needs the help of your prayers. He has not behaved as I expected on this trip to Carcare. May the Lord help him.”[2965] Apart from the two great accusations, against which he desperately rebelled, Alacchi committed other imprudences in connection with the administration and government of the House of Carcare, aided by his office as Visitator, and clashed with the Provincial Castelli, as he had foreseen before his arrival.[2966]

2964 Ib., p.15-18.

2965 C. 646.

2966 “I did not want to go to the Carchere, knowing who Father Francis [Castelli] was, and if I did not know to govern, Your Paternity would not have sent me. There were evils among them to their detriment. And if they have touched me in the honor as Fr. James told me, I leave the justice to God. (EHI. p.l9). Calasanz writes to Cárcare el 2 de julio de 1627: “Now that the impediment of Fr. Melchior is gone, let all of you see to it that things proceed very quietly and that you all know that from it proceeded all disorders.” (C.650).

For these and similar mistakes, Alacchi initially decided to impose the canonical penalty on himself of renouncing the active and passive voice.[2967] But Castelli’s claim against him was much more serious. He demanded that the Founder expel him from the Order as ‘infected’ and undesirable.[2968] Alacchi himself admitted that he wished and even asked to find another Order as soon as possible that would accept him favorably, because continuing among acquaintances and well-informed of the affair was hell for him.[2969] However, he would not allow himself to be accused of these two serious sins, and he did not think it was right for him to be sent to another religion because that would also be a lack of prestige to it. He therefore demanded that new trials and investigations be carried out and that he be punished appropriately according to the results.[2970]

2967 Cf. EHI, P.7-8.

2968 Castelli’s impetuous genius vibrates with indignation in the letter he writes to the Founder on July 2nd, revealing an excessive credulity in all that he has been told against Alacchi, without a single attenuating shade of doubt. Let us see some paragraphs: “Dear Father, it is not enough for our Religion that the plague [Alacchi] should leave, but we must see to it that it does not return; but it is not enough that the infected hold their breath in their mouths, but we must close them in such a way that they can no longer open them; especially if it is true what the infected has told them that he wants to go from novitiate to novitiate of other Religions until the death of Y.P., to return then to ruin ours. However, even though I believe that the process that has been sent is sufficient to expel him without leaving this diabolical hope, I nevertheless send you the enclosed letter, where, in addition to proving better the facts of the first one, as well as some of the new ones, there is a point that I believe to be more important than all the others and worthy of imprisonment, which is the revelation of the Confessions… I would be very happy not to find him in Rome, because if God keeps these humours in my head, it will be difficult not lay my hands on him where I find him.” (EHI, P. 565-566).

2969 “Staying here seems to me to be in hell” (EHI, p.23); “I do not intend to stay here any longer but to retire ad strictiorem” (ibid., p.24).

2970 “Father James [Graziani] told me that Your Paternity told us to send it in execution as soon as possible to transfer me to another Religion, otherwise he would be forced to proceed against me in the worst way, because there is information that at least I will be perpetually imprisoned. I have replaid, as I reply Your Paternity, that it is not good to defile another Religion, having done such a crime that it deserves this; therefore, make all the trial you want and know and punish me. And if it is great, great be the punishment and if it is small, small. I am already with my face uncovered and I doubt that justice can be taken before God.” (ibid., p.19).

It is likely that Alacchi himself was alluding to the vow to go on pilgrimage to Compostela, although it is not mentioned in the five Roman letters mentioned above. And this must have been the best solution to the problem, since it offered the possibility of new investigations and trials during his absence; it avoided the danger of a hasty judicial condemnation; it removed Father Melchior from Italy for a time; it appeased the wrath of the provincial of Genoa; it saved Alacchi’s public honor by presenting the journey as another of his extravagances, and it also left expulsion from the Order as a final and desirable solution.[2971]

2971 From the paragraph of the General Chapter of 1627, referring to Alacchi, with which we have begun this section n.9, it could be deduced that the pilgrimage to Compostela was a punishment or penitential measure for the crimes attributed to Father Melchior, which is confirmed by the threats of Father General in case the trip is not carried out, as we will see in the following. But in the obediential letter or license it is seen that it is a mandate, but that it responds to a journey highly desired by the pilgrims, whose goal remains largely undefined within the dominions of the King of Spain, without excluding the Indies or Italy: “mandamus vobis, ut omni cunctatione postposita Compostellam ad sepulcrum S. Jacobi Apostoli et alia sacra loca in Ditione Regis Hispaniarum veneranda, ut summopere vos optare novimus, contendatis, sub nostra obedientia” (cf. G. SÁNTHA, P. Melchior Alacchi , p.33 ).

On July 24, 1627, the General signed the license for the journey and named Father Sebastian Montagnani and a aggregate brother who died of tertiary fever (malaria) in Finale (Liguria) as his companions. Melchior was also afflicted by such a fever, which forced him to first stay in the hospital in Finale and then seek help in Carcare and Savona, where he was very badly received, as he was accused of faking his illness in order to get rid of the pilgrimage.[2972] The truth is that the two pilgrims continued their journey and unwisely prolonged it until the end of January 1629, when Father Alacchi set foot on Italian soil alone again and disembarked in the port of Caller, the capital of Sardinia.[2973] His companion Montagnani remained in Spain and ended his days in Zafra (Badajoz).

2972 Cf. ibid., p.35. Scoma, always relying on the Memoirs of Alacchi, describes with bold strokes the adverse attitude with which they were received in Carcare and Savona and the distorted reports that they sent to the General, with the permission of the Provincial Castelli (cf. SCOMA I, p.128-129). The General again abides by what they write to him and even advises them to go back to the secular branch and put them in prison if they refuse to continue the pilgrimage (cf. C.708). But he demands that they be treated with charity if they are really sick (cf. C.709).

2973 Cf. SCOMA I, p.129-130, 135-137. Alacchi’s entire biography is a constant adventure, dominated by contrasts from beginning to end: it contrasts in his own character and psychology and in his personal relationships with the Founder and especially with the other religious. The best biographical study to date is the one cited above by Fr. Sántha, although he was probably not yet satisfied with it because, having already completed it in 1965, he left it unpublished when he died in 1975 and it was published in 1983 (Archivum 13 [1983] 14-75). Another recent sketch is aptly entitled ‘Una paradoja en la vida de Calasanz: P. Melchor Alacchi’ (cf. M. A. ASIAIN, ‘Calasanz y sus hijos. I. Cinco facetas del Fundador: AnCal 38 [977] 512 534).

The unfortunate case of Father Cherubini

We do not know whether new investigations or trials were held into the presumed guiltiness of Father Alacchi, as had been agreed in the chapter of 1627. Everything indicates that “the case” was practically dropped and that the future attitude of the Founder slowly changed until the suspicions, which should have been recognized as calumnies, were dispelled.

The same did not happen with Fr. Stephen Cherubini, whose “case” and consequent trial chronologically followed that of Fr. Alacchi in the last years of the Founder’s temporary Generalate. The disastrous prominence Cherubini gained in the most dramatic moments of Calasanz’s life - and that of his Order - was the cause of what had until then been kept relatively secret becoming public and scandalous. It was an unfortunate event, but it remains a page in this story.

Stephen Cherubini donned the Piarist cassock in 1617, at the age of 17, the same year as the Founder. His father, Laertio, was a famous jurist and auditor of the Roman Curia and had published the so-called Bullarium Magnum Cherubinorurm in 1586, the second edition of which appeared in 1617. Two more of his sons contributed to the dissemination of their father’s work: Flavio published a Compendium Bullarii in 1623, and Angelo Maria, monk of Montecasino, helped prepare the third edition of the Bullarium, which appeared in 1634-1644, after their father’s death in 1626. Although Laercio Cherubini was born in Nursia, he was a citizen of Frascati. As such, he was involved in the founding of the Pious Schools in this town and maintained a deep friendship with the Holy Founder until his death.[2974] These brief introductory details can show us, on the one hand, the special esteem in which Calasanz always held Father Stephen Cherubini and, on the other, the enormous weight that, in the drama of the scandal, the fame of Cherubinis had in the Roman Curia.

2974 Cf. EHI, p.627, n.1; also, chapter 15, n. 1911 of our work.

Stephen of the Angels, as he was known in Religion[2975], took his solemn vows in 1624 and was ordained a priest in 1626. He was an excellent administrator and what we now call “public relations”. He was aware of what his surname meant in official circles and sought power and prominence accordingly. Perhaps his most successful vocation would have been an ecclesiastical career in the Roman Curia, not only because of the opportunities to prosper thanks to his personal gifts and the splendor of his surname and family, but also because of his pompous character, his fine manners, his ambition for honors, titles and distinctions, his inclination to lead a regal life without excessive ascetic demands, all of which openly rivaled the hardships, privation and misery of regular Piarist life at the time.

2975 In the absence of a critical study of this personage, see: EHI, p.629-633, n.1; DENES, II, ‘Cherubini Stefano’, p.180-181 (C. VILÁ); M. A, ASIAIN, ‘Calasanz y sus hijos’. II. ‘Dos polos en la vida del Fundador’; AnCal 39 (1978) 236-274.

Shortly after his ordination he was appointed rector of Narni at the age of 26. In the year and a half he spent there, he carried out his duties with relative normality, judging by the 64 letters the Founder wrote to him, sometimes complaining about the poor observance of some rules that were not duly admonished by the rector, such as the curious letter that reads: “Make these words be written in large letters on the door of Father Ciriaco’s room: ‘Ciriace piger ad quid venisti’ (Ciriaco, lazy one, why have you come to religion?). And the same on the door of the brothers Stephen, Dominic and Archangel, so that it may be a serious testimony before the tribunal of God.”[2976] And on another occasion he warns him: “There are some there who care much more for the body than for the spirit; see that they do not tempt you to be liberal in the things of eating and drinking, but to be very careful in doing so, for the little superfluous things or the affection for them darken the mind and make you lose the knowledge of mental prayer; and the religious who does not know how to perform mental prayer is like a body without a soul and gradually comes to give off bad odors by being disobedient or by transgressing in little things and then in great things.”[2977]

2976 C.570.

2977 C.664.

There is also a very interesting letter dated 22 May, 1627, in which the founder lists the main errors of regular observance in nine points and summarizes the conversation he had with some people who had arrived from Narni. Among the frequent errors, he deplores the lack of silence in the house; the neglect to perform the disciplines of the Rule, the Chapter on faults and the Sunday conferences; the systematic omission of one of the prayer times twice a week in order to use the time for washing clothes. Moreover, there are those who tend to neglect prayer, “among whom is the rector, who sometimes converses with some layman at the door, and it would be a good example to the laity if they were dismissed with the remark that it is the hour of prayer and the rector should be the first at prayer; and they tell me that he is not as quiet and devout as he should be.” He adds two more complaints against the rector: “that he wears a cassock that is longer in the back than in the front, like a tail, which scandalizes many”; “that they do not sing in the choir according to the tone of the Capuchins, but sometimes the fauxbourdon is used and the rector usually sings at the organ with a falsetto voice, which is scandalous, not only because of the tone he reaches with his voice, but also because we should sing according to the tone of the Capuchins.”[2978]

2978 C.621.

In November 1627, Father Cherubini was transferred to Naples to the school of the Duchesca, where the Provincial, Father Casani, resided, to help him in matters of administration and organization of the house, in which the Provincial was not very skilled. In May 1628 he was already rector (minister) and is called so by Father General, although he only sent him the official certificate at the beginning of August.[2979] During the first two years of his stay in Naples, he demonstrated his gifts and increasingly gained the trust of Father General, who openly used him as the right and active arm of Father Provincial Casani, whose passivity and indolence he sometimes complained about[2980], although he recognized him as a man of God.[2981] All this gave Cherubini importance and prestige as well as esteem and respect among that large group of lay people, the complateari, who were like benefactors and protectors of the Pious Schools in Naples.

2979 C.727, 843, 911; EHI, p.630.

2980 See some complaints in letters to Cherubini: “I write to the Provincial that it is necessary to show that he is in fact the superior and to make those who go off the road return to the road” (C.797); “it seems to me that the Provincial shows himself very alien and even incapable, however Y. R. will try to make up for this in whatever way is necessary… since the said Father Provincial has the authority, everyone should show him the respect that is due, especially the young people who, I mean, are not too obedient to the said Father” (C.819 ); “Since the Father Provincial does not know how to intervene in the things necessary for the support of the house, Y. R. will see to supersede by other means” (C.825); “it seems to me that Father Provincial discharges himself of every problem and consequently of every merit. And if Y. R. will be able to overcome in many things that are lacking in Fr. Provincial, you will have your merit.” (C.866)

2981 “I will write to the Provincial who, as a good servant of God, will immediately agree in this desire.” (C.1147) The attitude of the Saint regarding the incapacity of Casani and the ability of Cherubini has been harshly criticized by C. Vilá (cf. PosCas, p.570-578, 602-651), who presents Casani as a victim of the intrigues and accusations of Cherubini and of the despotic centralism of Calasanz. We believe that it is a judgment not only mistaken, but unjust (cf. Juicio historico-critico, p.101-113, 214-221). The impression of Cherubini’s excessive prominence with respect to Casani depends largely on the fact that Cherubini kept about 200 original letters that the Founder wrote to Naples during this period, while Casani kept only two and of another 12 only a few paragraphs remain, all of them published in EGC. But in the letters to Cherubini and others, there are frequent references to the letters that the Founder wrote to Casani, as Provincial of Naples, and that must have been many.

Everything was going reasonably well and normally when a scandal suddenly broke out in the fall of 1629. But it is not surprising that a year earlier, without any specific reason, almost like a premonition or a nightmare, the Holy Founder wrote this letter to the Provincial Casani:

“For two or three months a doubt has been creeping over me, which has increased until now, and that is that the enemy does not set out to disturb our Institute there in various ways, but that only the lousy vice annoys me, for it alone is enough to ruin our Institute, while the other defects can always be given satisfaction and remedy. Therefore, if you have not declared it reserved, by receiving the present, declare it reserved case to you,... … and exhort all not only to beware of such a plague, but also to pursue it with all diligence as soon as they have any suspicion, so that the Institute may be preserved in all purity. Therefore, I say truthfully that if I discover anything, I will pursue what deserves so grave a fault. May the Lord grant that this doubt or suspicion may disappear from me and may he always grant us his most holy grace. From Rome, September 9, 1628.”[2982]

2982 C.942*.

Unfortunately, this was not the case. And what he suspected came true. In the fall of 1629, Father Casani learned of certain sinful acts of Father Cherubini with one or more boys. He immediately informed Father General, who wrote directly to the person in question. When he was discovered, he did not have enough time to appear indignant before the Provincial and accuse him of having slandered him. On November 9, Casani wrote a long letter to Father General, from which we learn the first scenes of this long and lamentable drama. He wrote:

“As soon as he had received and read Y.R.’s letters, the friend came to me, quick and furious, hurling venom, and asked me out of the blue whether I had written to Father General on the matter. It seemed convenient for me to conceal the truth, because I know all about by Mr. Salvatore[2983], which neither wants to be discovered nor is convenient; besides, the priest from whom Mr. Salvatore took all this does not want to be discovered either; and also, because I know the circumstances of this person, who would rather be cut to pieces than confess the truth. Then he began to rant that he wanted to tell and write to his brother Flavio and order him to clarify the truth about who had slandered him. I do not know what else to say… I told him, to reassure him, that we could not and should not verify this nonsense, even if it were true and certain, and finally he concluded that since I knew of his innocence… i should apologize to your Paternity, and he exaggerated in many words and with a very contrite face that such a thing was not possible. I promised to write to your Paternity in good faith, but I told him to behave in such a way that no such suspicion could fall on him.” And further he added: “We are bound in conscience to preserve his honor, since the fact has not been divulged, especially as it is uncertain and he can deny it bare face, as he denies it.”[2984]

2983 Salvador Cesario was the father of Bro. Charles of St. Dominic and lived as a guest in the Duchesca house, not without protests because neither the General nor Cherubini complied with his wishes, and he was also being persecuted by the law (cf. C.1226, 1231, 1237, 1267).

2984 EHI, p.540-541

The solution Calasanz proposed was to get him out of Naples as quickly as possible and take the opportunity of his brother Alexander’s forthcoming wedding in Rome before winter set in with rain and bad weather, which would make the roads difficult.

The day after the date of this letter from Casani, Cherubini also wrote to the General, expressing his “great displeasure, which tears my heart” at the accusation leveled against him in Calasanz’s letter, asserting that “it was only a mere murmur without any foundation, as I will show - he said - if you want it.” But at the same time, he added: “I beg you, by the heart of Jesus Christ, and by all the blood he shed on the cross for the health of souls, and especially for yours and mine, to have regard for the honor of the Religion and for mine, which is the same, since I am one of its chief servants, being the head of such a principal house in Naples. You will do me the favor not to discuss this with anyone, lest my reputation be destroyed along with that of the Religion.”[2985] Two weeks later, Cherubini wrote again to the General, insisting on the same ideas and asking him once more to give him the name of the accuser, since he suspected the very priest from whom the first rumor originated, as Casani affirmed.[2986]

2985 Ibid., p.634-636. Cherubini, so solicitous to preserve the letters received from the Founder by hundreds, did not preserve, however, this one, so important, in which he was accused, and to which he alludes in the present.

2986 “This hearsay and imposture I judge to be nothing more than what our Provincial has already written to Y.P. of that secular priest disdained by me for not having wanted to lend him twenty ducats, as I will be able to prove whenever he wishes.” (EHI, p.638). It is not plausible that for this reason the priest took revenge with such a grave calumny; it is plausible, however, that he took revenge “by revealing” what he knew about Cherubini, and that no preserved text tells us concretely what it consisted of.

The worried Founder wrote to him on December 1st and assured him of his good will with these words:

“There is no one in the world who wishes more than I do that this rumor should disappear and that it should no longer be spoken of; I have the honor of the Religion and its individual members more at heart than anything else, and how sorry I would be if something similar were to happen. The malice of men is great, and we must always be careful so that everything we do is justified, because often you see false accusations that cannot be cleared up later, but in the meantime, they do not cease to cause grief to those who suffer them; and in this case I would be the first to feel it deeply. May the Lord grant that all may disappear, as I desire and pray to His Divine Majesty.”[2987]

2987 C.1267.

In the months that followed, there was an acceptable silence on the matter. But Casani and Calasanz persisted in their desire to get Cherubini out of Naples, who did the impossible of not leaving, perhaps in the belief that his departure would be interpreted as a tacit admission of his guilt or that only with his presence could the secret be kept. At the same time, he convinced the complateari that there was no one worthy to succeed him as rector of the Duchesca. However, he was too nervous and obsessed with the fact that everyone knew and talked about it and saw suspects everywhere.[2988] In addition to this tension, the rector was also guilty of other misconduct, such as frequently missing communal prayer, serving food in the dining room that was different from that of the others, allowing excessive interference from the laity, etc., which the General complained about in his letters.[2989]

2988 On November 16, 1630 a Father of Naples wrote to the General: “Your Paternity should urge this matter (the departure of Cherubini), because otherwise I do not know how virtue will last with such a continuous fever, you know what I am talking about. I cannot now speak to anyone at home or abroad who does not show outwardly that he suspects that I am talking about him (Cherubini) and uses the same seculars to discover the matter, assailed by a thousand suspicions.” (EHI, p.525).

2989 Cf., C.1537 (Nov. 30, 1630), 1542 (Dec. 7, 1630); EHI (Nov. 16, 1630), p.524-525.

Finally, at the Provincial’s suggestion[2990], a solution customary in ecclesiastical circles was found: promoveatur ut amoveatur (promote him in order to dismiss him), and he was appointed General Visitator of the schools of the Roman province (Nursia, Narni, Moricone, Poli and Frascati), a task he could perform without haste until the beginning of summer. He would return to Rome and think about what to do in the fall. The General suggested all this to him in a letter dated January 4, 1631, in which he lamented that a certain restlessness and indecision had arisen again in his community, probably related to the scandal.[2991] Nevertheless, he delayed his departure for some weeks.

2990 Cf. C.1549 (December 28, 1630).

2991 Cf. C.1556.

A controversial process

The fame of the Cherubini surname, the seriousness of the affair and the fact that, despite the precautions taken, too many people knew about it, not only among the Piarists but also among the laity belonging to the Neapolitan school, such as some of the complateari, moved the General and the Provincial to act decisively and prudently. It would have been even more regrettable if the rumor had reached the ecclesiastical authorities of Naples and Rome, because then the case would have come before their Courts, with unforeseeable consequences, as the Founder feared.[2992] For this reason, once Cherubini left Naples at the end of February 1631, Calasanz sent Father John Garcia with instructions to carry out the process of clarifying the facts incriminating the former rector and to calm the minds of the community.[2993] However, the process would to be under the direction and responsibility of Father Provincial Casani, as Father Garcia was not yet officially a Piarist.[2994]

2992 After the process was completed, Calasanz wrote on April 19th: “you can send the trial here to put an end to this negotiation and to make sure that the cause does not go into the hands of the superiors but remains between us, because if it were known in Rome as there (in Naples), God knows what would be of the Religion specially in this Pontificate, and it seems to me convenient that since we can be judges of the cause, do not allow it to go to the hands of strangers” (C. 1603).

2993 In letters of February 15th and 20th Cherubini’s absence from Naples is recorded (C.1573 and 1578), and on February 21st Garcia is still in Frascati (C.1579).

2994 On December 12th of that year 1631 he would begin his novitiate (cf. RegCal 12, 123*). In the declaration of February 23, 1644, of which we will speak later, Calasanz says: “I ordered, however, the said Fr. Peter Provincial to take secret information about it.” (cf. EphCal 9-10 [1960] 270 n.7).

In addition to the Provincial and Father Garcia, Fathers Charles Casani, Joseph Fedele and John Baptist Andolfi took part in the trial; and were also questioned “some children and young people in relation to the Rev. Father Stephen Cherubini] of the Angels, former local superior of the House of the Duchesca of Naples, against whom there were many indications of impurity and a not good reputation among the Fathers of the said house, which - Calasanz assured us - had been communicated to us several times in several letters.”[2995]

2995 PosCas, p.832.

By the end of March, the delicate process had already been completed and the Provincial sent it to Rome with due caution, addressed to Don Felix de Totis, Notary of the Apostolic Chamber, who also offered his services to the Order free of charge. As soon as he received the consignment, he went to San Pantaleon to hand it over to Father General. In a certificate dated 1644, Calasanz declared:

“He found out that I was saying Mass in our church of St. Pantaleo at the time, and as he had no time to wait, he handed the said consignment precisely to Father Stephen [Cherubini] so that he could place it in my hands after Mass. However, suspecting what the package contained, he took it to his home and opened it. After seeing the report or the process, Mr. Flavio Cherubini and Mr. Félix de Totis brought it to me opened in the afternoon of the same day and excused the fact as best they could. When I saw that the matter had been exposed, in order to avoid greater inconvenience if the matter were made public, I issued a certificate out of respect for their House, in which I declared that Father Stephen was in no way disturbed by the said trial or anything of the kind, but I did not certify that the things contained in the said trial were not true.”[2996]

2996 Cf. EphCal, 1.c.

The Old Holy Man’s shock was great, Mr. De Totis’s imprudence deplorable especially if deliberate, and Father Cherubini’s disloyalty and impudence unspeakable. But there was no remedy. And although everything proceeded with the utmost discretion and secrecy, the accused knew the names of all those who had interfered, as well as the accusations with all their details. To avoid greater evil, Father General, perhaps out of excessive generosity and benevolence, made a solemn declaration on April 5, 1631, annulling the trial entirely, absolving Father Stephen of all that he had been charged with, freeing him from any discomfort or dishonor on account of the process, and ordering that the original version of the process and all copies be burned or destroyed.[2997]

2997 “…tenore praesentium dictum Processum tanquam nullum et nulliter factum, nulliusque valoris esse, cassamus, annullamus et declaramus, ipsumque Patrem Stephanum vigore dicti Processus nullo modo molestari, nec aliquam labem ob dictum Processum eius honori inferri posse et ab omnibus in dicto Processu contentis absolvimus et absolutum esse dicimus, et tam praedictum Processum originalem, quam quascumque illius copias ad Nos transmitti mandamus seu Neapoli coram R. P. Castiglio et Joanne Aurilia et Vito Jacobo (who were complateari) comburi seu in minimas partes scindi volumus sub praecepto et in virtute sanctae obedientiae” (S.GINER, El Proceso de Beatificación…’ p.275, n.179).

Such a declaration of annulment and acquittal was met with resentment in Naples, for in a sense it seemed that the accusers had become defendants or forgers and the accused was recognized as innocent. Both the Provincial and Father Castille informed the General of this, as can be seen from two letters from Calasanz to the latter dated April 17 and 19. The first stated:

“I have seen what you have written to me in the mail that arrived yesterday, and I want you to know that what I have done in this matter that you have tried to resolve is only to cover up this great disgrace so that it will not reach the ears of the superiors, by which the Religion, which to this day enjoys a very good reputation, would lose much, and as soon as this matter is silenced to put an end to it, it will be handled with prudence and secrecy, since it will be much better than to break it now. And in order that both Father [Provincial] and the others may be free from any contradiction, I will make a very full statement showing that the one I made in favor of N. [Cherubini] served to cover up this matter, and that these Fathers did not act out of passion, but for the good of religion and on the instructions of superiors.”[2998]

2998 C.1602. He repeats the same ideas in C.1603, recalling that he has just written about it both to Fr. Garcia and to the Provincial.

Despite Father General’s acquittal at the beginning of April, Father Garcia remained busy with the matter in Naples. And Cherubini wrote to him on the 11th of the same month that he was innocent, that it had all been a great imprudence on the part of the superiors, that he should show the complateari the declaration annulling the trial and acquitting him in order to restore his fame, and that he should be his defender: “Be my defender,” he said, “do not let yourself be convinced by the reasons of others if you have not yet heard mine.”[2999]

2999 EC II, p.702.

In late April or early May, Father Castille returned to Rome, taking the final report of the process with him. In the middle of the month, Casani wrote to the Procurator General, Father Stephen Busdraghi, informing him that the Fathers who had intervened in the trial asked the Procurator General for the promised explanation in his favor and that he “should not destroy “this original (of the process) but bury it in his archives, since the memory of this event would certainly disappear completely, as we see here that after Father Castilla’s departure, not a word is heard about it, as if it had never happened.”[3000]

3000 Ibid., p.543 (May 17, 1631). Before Fr. Garcia leaving Naples, Calasanz wrote to him clarifying that if he had ordered the original to be burned, it was for fear that it would fall into the hands of secular judges, but the purpose of the process was that “each one would be left with the opinion that his works deserve” (C.1609). We do not know if he actually kept the process in the Archives. And if so, it would later end up in the flames, in the fraudulent expurgation of documents that took place during the generalate of Fr. Scassellati (1659-1665) (cf. S. GINER, o.c., p.102-103).

Perhaps the peace and tranquility achieved in Naples must be attributed to Father Garcia himself, as Calasanz sent him primarily for this reason, and he always enjoyed a reputation as a good man and peacemaker.[3001] It is likely that the parties involved in the trial once again insisted that Father General wrote the promised declaration and defend them against possible complaints or accusations from Cherubini. And finally, on October 31, 1631, the Founder signed the desired declaration in which he assured that the provincial, Peter Casani, and Fathers Charles Casani, Joseph Fedele and John Baptist Andolfi, “moved only by the honor of Almighty God and the zeal of religion, by our mandate, ... had intervened so that a process came about and that some children and youths were questioned about Father Stephen of the Angels...” He therefore ordered that they should not be disturbed for this reason, but that they should be given the honor they were entitled to before the process.[3002]

3001 Cf. G. SÁNTHA, La fidelidad a Calasanz. El P. Juan Garcia del Castillo, Segundo General de las Escuelas Pias (Salamanca 1982).

3002 Cf. Latin text in PosCas, p.832.

With that, the delicate matter was closed without being leaked to the outside world. Cherubini continued to work under the direct instruction of Father General and dealt mainly with questions of administration in various houses, not without sometimes fearing that someone might awaken the dormant bad memories.[3003] And these were finally awakened when, out of ambition for command and prestige, he allowed external powers to unwisely elevate him to the supreme leadership of the Order, to his misfortune.

3003 On February 12, 1633, Calasanz wrote, reassuring him: “Y. R. can stay without annoyance because I will defend well what I have done in your favor” (C.1971).

The General Chapter of 1631

On April 28, 1622, Gregory XV designated Joseph Calasanz as Superior General of the Pious Schools for nine years, thus confronting the legal situation of that time, because in order to be elected to the General Chapter, according to the Constitutions, the electors had to show “at least seven years of profession and three years of priesthood”.[3004] And since the Congregation had been transformed into a religious order and the simple vows had been converted into solemn vows, it had been decided to repeat the two years of the novitiate as preparation for solemn profession. Logically, it was necessary to wait nine years so that there were members of the Chapter who were in a position to legitimately elect the General for life.

3004 CC, n.2l9.

Although the appointment by papal bull expired on April 28, 1631, the future Chapter members could have completed the required nine years as early as the second half of November 1630, as the Bull approving the Order was dated November 18, 1621, when the two-year novitiate had officially begun for all. When the first General Chapter was held in 1627, the next one was therefore convened for 1630, without specifying the date[3005], but undoubtedly a few months before the exact completion of the nine years of government.

3005 In the answer given by Calasanz to the observations of the Apostolic Visitation of 1625, he clarified: “As for the General Congregation, it was done on the sixth year of the Religion, which was 1627, according to the Constitutions approved I’anno 1622 and three years after the first one, another General Congregation was convoqued, which will be l’anno 1630”, that is, the ninth year of the Order (Cf. Ephcal 5 [1959] 202). It is to be remembered that in the Constitutions Congregatto Generalis and Capitulum Generale are used as synonyms (CC, n.217 256).

When the Founder called Father Casani and Father Castelli, both General Assistants, to Rome in early 1630 to discuss the question of the foundation in Florence and the appointment of personnel, some interpreted the purpose of the meeting maliciously, telling friends and strangers and even revealing that Father General wanted to resign. However, he made it clear that there would not be a new election until the nine years of the Bull had expired and that by then - for the first time - the four Provincials of Genoa, Naples, Rome and Florence would meet, each with two companions, not only to elect the Father General for life but also to deal with matters of interest to the Order.[3006]

3006 Cf. C.1359, 1361, 1366, 1373.

Nevertheless, in the months that elapsed before the celebration of the Chapter, he did not fail to express several times his desire that another should be elected so that he could free himself from the burden of government and retire in peace to Naples, which had stolen his heart. In April 1630, in two separate letters to Naples, he wrote: “I hope when I have the opportunity to leave this house, which is in the presence of the Pope and so many cardinals, under the government of a suitable person, and if the Lord gives me health, I have a great desire to retire to Naples; but that should be when the house of Rome is left with a suitable government, which the Lord may grant us.”[3007] These wishes and plans for the future were also expressed in Rome and reached the ears of the high hierarchs of the Roman Curia, who advised against it, but, he insisted, “time will show what is to be done.”[3008] And time said no. He would never return to Naples.

3007 Cf. C.1359 and 1361.

3008 “As for going there - he writes to Naples - some Prelates and some Cardinals have heard about it and they have advised me against it for now, but time will tell what we will have to do.” (C.1375. Date April 27, 1630).

In August of that unfortunate year 1630, the dreaded “Manzonian plague” reached Florence. We have already seen the concern with which Calasanz followed its progress from north to south. In September, the Florentine schools were closed and security measures were tightened to the utmost by breaking off all contact between Tuscany and Rome. Months passed without the infection receding. There was no question of convening the General Chapter until the danger had been averted. And in Rome, they continued to maintain strict control at all the city gates.[3009] In view of the imminent expiry of the nine-year reign on April 28, 1631, they decided to ask for an extension until the end of October so that the General Chapter could be held during the autumn vacations and before the start of the new academic year. And the Pope granted it.[3010]

3009 Here is an entry permit for Fr. Garcia, who came simply from Frascati: “To the Lords Custodians… Deputies of the Doors for the care of Sanitation. Rome. They will be pleased to allow Fr. Castiglia bursar (?) of the Pious Schools with Fr. Bernardino of the Visitation to pass… the permission of the Emmo. Cardinal Ginetti...Today 18 February 1631. (C.1577) The original is very damaged.

3010 In a memorandum addressed to the Pope in November 1631 we read: “for having expired since the last day of past October, not only the nine years of the election, made by the H.M. of Gregory XV in the person of the said Father Joseph as Minister General of the said Religion, but those few months still, that Your Holiness wanted to add to the said nine years, the said Religion remains, from the first of the present month on, without head and without any official” (PosCas, p.841).

The extension strengthened in the old holy man a sincere desire to place the reins of government in other hands, and so in November 1630 he wrote to his confidant Cherubini: “Many times I have wished to be janitor or nurse in some house instead of having the office I have, and God is my witness that it is so.”[3011] And to his soul friend, Fr. Garcia, he said in April 1631: “I only hope for the consolation of making the General Chapter and getting rid of this constant burden that only the Pope can force me to carry.”[3012] And indeed, it would not be the Chapter he had hoped for so much, but the Pope who would force him to continue carrying the burden. And in mid-October 1631, he wrote to Father Alacchi: “I hope that the General Chapter will be held at the end of this month to settle the affairs of religious administration tam in capite quam in membris.”[3013]

3011 C.1516.

3012 C.1609.

3013 C.1693. Date of October 11, 1631.

Indeed, on October 22nd, the Provincial of Naples, Father Peter Casani, arrived with two companions[3014], Father Charles Casani and Joseph Fedele. At that time, the Provincial of Genoa, Fr. John Stephen Spinola, and his two companions, Fr. Ottavio Zacharias Bianchi and Peter Paul Berro, were already in Rome. The Provincial of Rome, Father Jacob Graziani, was also there, and perhaps his two vocals were Father Esteban Cherubini, Visitator General, and Father Mathew Rigale or Reale, Rector of Nursia, who arrived in Rome on October 27th3015. They were joined by Father Stephen Busdraghi, Procurator and General Assistant since March 28, 1631.[3016] The other three General Assistants were Father Peter Casani, Jacob Graziani[3017] and Francis Castelli. The only one missing was the latter with his emissaries, who did not arrive because they were prevented by the plague.[3018] They waited for them longer than they should have, because on October 31st the extension granted by the Pope for the appointment of the general and the assistants had expired.

3014 C.1704.

3015 Cf. BERRO I p.181-182, with confusions clarified and completed by BARTLIK Annales: EphCal 3 (1942) 74 75. Neither one nor the other says who were the vocals of Rome.

3016 Cf. the appointment in BARTLIK, o.c., 1 (1942) 10.

3017 So Berro assures us. (L.c., p.182) In fact, he will be confirmed in office in 1632.

3018 On July 12, 1631 Calasanz wrote: “in Florence the plage came back again and in Tuscany more grows than diminishes “ (c.1644). And on November 22nd his entry in Rome was still feared: “In Rome there is a great lack of people who have left to go to their own villages and neither foreighners nor merchandise comes there “ (c.1718).

The juridical situation was embarrassing, since the Order was without a legitimate head; of the current vocations, some had not yet completed seven years of solemn profession or three years of priesthood, as required by the Constitutions[3019]; most of them had been appointed by the Provincial and not by Provincial Chapters, which had not taken place, except in the province of Naples, but even in this case one of those elected, Father Fedele, had not yet completed two years of priesthood. The Chapter members of Genoa, who had begun the new course at the beginning of November without a sign of the beginning of the Chapter, returned to their Province, as they seemed indispensable to their respective houses, and Fathers Andrew Sorbino and Vincent Berro, who were in Rome, were appointed as replacements, but neither of them had completed the seventh year of profession and Berro the third year of priesthood.[3020]

3019 Fathers Bianchi, Busdraghi and Peter P. Berro had not yet completed their seven years of profession; nor had Frs. Fedele and Berro completed their three years of priesthood.

3020 BERRO I, p 182 and BARTLIK, o.c., 3 (1942) 74. Berro ignores the pontifical extension of six months (cf. n.3010 above) and supposes that the Order was without a legitimate head since April 28, 1631.

The ten or eleven capitularies present realized that under these circumstances the Chapter could not be lawfully held and the General could not be elected. And there was no other option but to appeal to the Pope. Moreover, it was necessary to propose to him explicitly a name for the General, which according to the constitutions was to be for life. They talked among themselves and came to the conclusion that it had to remain the same: Fr. Joseph of the Mother of God, the Founder. It was not appropriate for Fr. Joseph to appeal to the Pope and propose himself. Therefore, Fr. Peter Casani, the first former assistant, seemed to be the most suitable person. He did so with a memorandum in November.[3021]

3021 In his exaggerated eagerness to exalt the merits of Fr. Casani, Fr. Vilá writes, in regard to this recourse to the Pope: “it is very clear that the said memorandum was the private and personal initiative of Fr. Casani, in his name and without mentioning others. So it is his and no one else’s merit to have obtained the generalate for life for Calasanz and to have pulled the Order out of the impasse in which it found itself”. (PosCas, p.808) And he repeats the same thing in other pages (cf; ibid., p.807 and 840). Such a hypothesis seems absurd, since the urgent solution to get out of that situation should have been sought and concretized among all the Capitulars present and not passively wait for it to come to them by surprise. Casani could not present himself as a representative of the Chapter, since such a Chapter did not exist in reality, but, in fact, he appealed to the Pope asking him for the Generalate for life for Calasanz “a nome dell’Ordine” (in the name of the Order), as Picanyol rightly said (cf. EGC V, p.22). On the contrary, Talenti exaggerated, supposing that only the capitulars of Naples were present in Rome, and therefore Casani wrote to the other three absent Provincials (Graziani, Castelli and Spinola) asking them to each vote with their respective two vocals and to send him the votes. And it turned out that “the votes of all were in agreement with those of the Priests who were in Rome”. And then Casani sent the memorial (cf. TALENTI, Vita, p.224). There is not a single text to support this hypothesis. Casani’s memorial is not dated, but speaks of the last day of October and the first day of the present month of November (cf. n.3010 above).

However, it is very likely that Father Casani wrote the memorandum at his own discretion. Without taking into account the general opinion of those present, he added some requests in which he implicitly criticized the way Father Joseph was governing, and called for a control by the Assistants that went beyond what was prescribed by the Constitutions.[3022] After Urban VIII received this memorandum, he wisely wanted to find out the capitulars’ opinion on the election and the other problems. To this end, he left the matter to Cardinal Vicar Marzio Ginetti, who - according to Berro - gathered the Fathers several times in his palace “and listened to the opinion of all and passed it on to H. H., from whom he received verbal permission (oretenus) to announce… that His Holiness confirmed our Ven. Fr. Joseph, the Founder, as General for life… and the said distinguished Lord again summoned our Fathers to his palace and said that it was the will of His Holiness that O. V. Fr. Joseph of the Mother of God should be our General for life...”[3023]

3022 Here are Casani’s proposals: 1) that he should appoint Calasanz General for life; 2) that he should elect himself four Assistants; 3) that each Assistant should have special care of one of the four present Provinces; 4) that the General ‘be obliged’ (sia obligato) to have always with him the Assistants, who are to reside in Rome, except when there is need to visit their respective Province; 5) that the General is obliged (sia tenuto) to consult with the said Provincials (sic) in all matters pertaining to his office; and every act which he may attempt to do without the advice of the said Assistants, or at least of the greater part of them, being invalid, null and void and of no weight and value; 6) that he choose one of them as his personal admonitor (cf. the memorandum in PosCas, p.841).

3023 BERRO I, p.182-183.

The appointment would have to be confirmed by an apostolic Brief, but Calasanz was already General for Life, and as such he presented Cardinal Ginetti with a petition asking him to ask the Pope for a letter appointing the four Assistants, who were: 1. Peter Casani, “theologian of 49 years”; 2. Francis Castelli, “Doctor of Law, 46 years old”; 3. Jacob Graziani, 60 years old; 4. John García or Father Castilla, 46 years old.[3024] This resolved the most important matter for which the Chapter had been convened, namely the election of the Father General for life and his four Assistants. The apostolic Brief would come later.

3024 The memorandum, undated, began as follows: “The Superior General of the Pious Schools beseechs Your Emm.” (see in full in EphCal 2 (1961) 68 n. 37). The appointment of Father Castilla was an exceptional case. He had been working with Calasanz for 20 years, but he had not entered the Order, although he had tacitly made his profession. In order to appoint him as General Assistant, they had to legalize his situation. For it, on December 12, 1631, Calasanz made an attestation, as Minister General, accepting Father Garcta as a novice (cf. 1.c., n.39). And then he presented him to Cardinal Ginetti as 4th Assistant, clarifying: “Fr. Castilla, from Segovia, now called John of Jesus Mary (then he was already a novice), 46 years old, who from more than 20 years has served in different tasks with great benefit of the students, and ordained priest under the title “mensae”, and will make his solemn profession when Your Emm. order …” (l.c., n. 37) He made solemn profession on April 18, 1634, specifying: “facio meam solemnem professionem, confirmando tacitam a multis annis iam factam in Religione Pauperum Matris Dei Sch. P.” (1.c., n.45). See the attestation of Calasanz regarding the curriculum vitae of Fr. García in c.4077a. Probably it is due to transcription error the age of Casani, since he was 59 years old and not 49, having been born on September 8, 1572 (Cf. PosCas, p.27-28).

However, the presence of the Chapter members was used to discuss some important points for the good of the Order in the presence of Cardinal Ginetti, even though the Chapter had not yet been canonically celebrated. Calasanz recalled this a few months later in a document dated 1632, in which he said:

“Last October there was a meeting of some Fathers to hold a General Chapter, but as some of the most important could not come, out of respect for the Chapter, in the presence of His Eminence the Vicar, the election of the General and Assistants was discussed and carried out and confirmed with an Apostolic Brief. It was also discussed and decided that from now on no new houses would be admitted without the consent of His Holiness; it was also decided that the novitiate would take place only in Rome, where the novices would be formed according to the Constitutions, which has been done and is being carried out. It was also decided that studies would be opened for the young people of the Religion, and this has been put into practice, for there are already seven young people studying humanities without engaging in anything else, and four studying logic and another four philosophy, all with teachers within the religion.”[3025]

3025 Cf. EGC V, p.23.

According to this statement, which is so close to the facts, both the appointment of the General for life and that of his Assistants were dealt with in a meeting before the cardinal and it was neither a personal initiative of Casani with regard to the General nor of Calasanz with regard to the Assistants, despite the apparently personal memoranda.[3026] Of the other topics discussed, the first is of particular interest because it shows once again the clear awareness that the excessive and rapid expansion of the Order was harmful, and attempts were made from within to curb it, each time requesting the Pope’s express permission or, in other words, invoking his prohibition, as had already been done for two years in May 1627.[3027] The Roman novitiate and the juniorate were also of great interest for a better formation of the candidates, and both projects are the subject of a promise in the memorandum to Ginetti, which seems to have been already done, according to this report. In the same memorandum Calasanz gives the names of the Assistants who were to be appointed by the Brief.[3028]

3026 Cf. n.3021 above. In the attestation of 1643, quoted above, Calasanz still recalled: “in a congregation made before His Emm., the Card. Gineti, Vicar of O. L. having examined the subjects who were there at the time by order of the said Cardinal was placed (Fr. Garcta) in the number of Assistants (C.4077a).

3027 Cf the request of Calasanz to the Pope, dated May 21, 1627 and the corresponding decree of June 27, 1627 in EphCal 5 [1959] 199, n.38.

3028 “And once the Brief has been published, the novices will move to Rome, and likewise, the study will be put in place for the young professed able to make a profit in the letters “ (EphCal 2 [1961] 69 n.37).

The subject of the General Assistants was also discussed in the “Chapter” before Ginetti, but in a very different tone from that used by Casani in his memorandum to the Pope. For Casani, the Assistants should always be in Rome to control and supervise the General’s government, and anything he did without their advice was null and void. Calasanz, on the other hand, says in a letter dated February 13, 1623, that “in our Chapter, by order of our Lord, it was decided that the General be confirmed for his lifetime and that four Assistants be appointed to reside in Rome and help the General bear the burden of government.”[3029] Even more: if Casani proposed that the Assistants should not only control the General, but also be Provincials, the “Chapter” decided the opposite, namely that the Provincials, without authority as such, should be Assistants, so that the central government would command directly in the Provinces. Calasanz himself put it this way:

3029 C.1749. This is the concept of Assistants according to the Consitutions (CC. n.276). Faced with the crudeness of terms and concepts used in Casani’s demands (cf. point 5 of n.3023 above), the Constitutions simply said: “Insuper et consilio in rebus dubiis discernendis (ei assistant); quorum sententiis quoad fieri poterit, utetur (CC, n.277). Only that.

“As to the government, in order to remove the authority of the Provincials, it was ordered before the Vicar of Our Lord that three of the Provincials who were outside [Casani, Castelii and Graziani] should come to Rome with the title of Assistants, who, together with the General, would look after the common government, and some of whom would in due course visit the places most in need.”[3030]

3030 EGC V, p.24. Cf. C.1747.

These decrees, although they were not capitularies, confirmed and strengthened the authority of the central government, especially that of the General, who freely disposed of all the religious and constantly changed the houses according to need, without taking into account the geographical boundaries of the various Provinces.

But neither these questions concerning the government nor the others, which were dealt with by the members of the Chapter in the presence of Ginetti, were dealt with in the papal Brief of January 12, 1632, in which Urban VIII simply nominated the “Minister General of the said Congregation, as long as he lives, the beloved son Joseph of the Mother of God, cleric and Founder of the same, who has already commendably exercised the office of Minister General of the said Congregation.” And he named the four proposed General Assistants, namely Fathers Casani, Castelli, Graziani and García.[3031]

3031 Cf. the complete Brief in BERRO I, p.183-184. The Bullarium Sch.P. (P.37) abbreviates the introduction. It is to be regretted the oversight of the secretary Maraldi, who without asking for pertinent information, alludes in the Brief “to those who in another time were Ministers General of the said Congregation”, being so that since its foundation there was no other than Calasanz.

Thus ended the nine-year period of provisional government[3032], during which the number of religious had reached 300, the number of houses was 23, four provinces had been canonically constituted and the Alps had been crossed, laying the foundations for the future provinces of Central Europe. What was much was Father General’s age: he would be seventy-five next September.

3032 Practically it had been almost ten years: from the Brief of Gregory XV, of April 22, 1622, to the one of Urban VIII of January 12, 1632.

Chapter 21

Generalate for life: expansion as problem

It will be almost exactly eleven years of Generalate for life. Not without a certain appropriation of the words of Job could the Holy Founder have said with regard to the Vicar of Christ: “The Lord has given it to me, the Lord has taken it from me, blessed be his holy name” (Job 1:21): The same Urban VIII who had appointed him general for life in the letter of January 12, 1632, would suspend him from his office by decree of the Holy Office on January 15, 1643.[3033]

3033 EGC IX, p.115-116.

Eleven years of growing expansion and reputation, at the end of which seventeen more houses of the Pious Schools would remain open, but many more would remain unopened due to lack of staff, and the requests would continue to be pressing. “I remember - Berro writes of this time - hearing our Ven. Father Founder and General, say that if he had had ten thousand religious, he could have employed them in less than a year. That was the reputation that the Pious Schools and their religious enjoyed.”[3034] And he was right, though he still came up short, for the Saint said that he would distribute them in a single month, and not without a certain human vanity he compared his own Order with the others in the way it established itself in so many places:

3034 BERRO I, p.220.

“…wherever our work goes, -he wrote on April 29, 1633- it is not a burden either to the public or to the individual, for it demands no more than mere sustenance and clothing, poorly, for the love of God. And if I had ten thousand religious now, I could distribute them all in a month to the places where they ask me for them with a very great petition. Our Religion, then, is not like so many others which try by various means to introduce themselves into the cities, for ours is asked for and sought after by many cardinals, bishops, prelates, great lords and important cities, as I can prove by various letters…”[3035]

3035 C.2027.

This should be said at the beginning of this chapter, in which we will deal with internal problems of the Order, which are undoubtedly serious and worrying, but which are only part of the historical reality, which does not alter the essential rhythm of life and the dedication of the Institute to the real task. In a sense, they are crises of growth, attempts at sedimentation, necessary reactions to the deprivations and demands of the early founding period, which were always more or less heroic and unstable. The normality of life has hardly any history. The anomalies attract more attention and can give the impression that it is they who dominate the situations.

The non-observants and their memoranda

A year before the end of the nine-year period of the temporary Generalate, Calasanz wrote to Father Cherubini in Naples:

“Here there had been a meeting, not to say a diabolical gathering, of five or six of our young men whom I should have punished for past faults. Their leader was Francis Mary, called Pavese in the world, who came from there with much duplicity and who did not succeed in his attempt to go to Genoa. He had written several memoranda, in the name of this house in Rome and other houses outside, and from what they say, he sent them to other houses through some of his correspondents. They even spoke to lay people about it and published that I wanted to resign the office and that a visitation was necessary, etc. and I, by the grace of the Lord, remedied it with too much meekness and sent for Father Provincial so that a new election would not have to be held after nine years...”[3036]

3036 C.1361.

The devilish thing about this meeting was apparently that five or six young men, still clerics, pretending to be the critical conscience of the Order, had come together to examine the situation and propose a suitable solution. But the problems or the denunciation of concrete facts seemed so serious to them that they came to the conclusion that only an Apostolic Visitation could solve them and that Father General would resign before the time indicated in the papal Brief had expired. It was assumed that Fr. Casani’s appointment to Rome was connected with the announced resignation. But not content with the conventicle or as a practical result of it, they spread their accusations and proposals with various memoranda sent to several houses of the Order and even outside it.

The leader of the group was the cleric Francis Mary Pavese, who must have arrived in Rome from Naples in the first half of January 1630.[3037] In Naples at this time there was a group of non-observant young men, some of whom distinguished themselves in the following years as followers of Cl. John Francis Castiglia[3038], who carried his protests much further than those of Pavese with slanderous memoranda. In addition to Pavese, these included the clerics Benedict Verucci[3039], John Baptist Carleti[3040], Peter Antony Barone[3041], Nicholas Mary Gavotti[3042] and the brothers John Castiglia, brother of the aforementioned cleric John Francis, and Thomas Mary Masturzo[3043].

3037 Cf. EHI, p.1632, n.1. On December 21, 1629 Cherubini announces his forthcoming departure from Naples (cf. EHI, p.642), but on January 5th he has not yet arrived in Rome (cf. C.1288).

3038 Cf. EHI, p.550, n.1. He is not related to the Spaniard Fr. John Garcia del Castillo, commonly called “Fr. Castiglia”.

3039 Cf. EHI, p.535, n.3.

3040 Ibid., p.1031, n.31.

3041 Ibid., p.539, n.15.

3042 Ib., p.1227, n.1.

3043 Ib., p.579, n.29 and p.537, 549 and 1089, n.6.

Provincial Casani said of them in general terms: “These people here are in urgent need of reform, and I fear that it can only be carried out in virga ferrea.[3044] The pious Father Joseph Freixo, a Spaniard, wrote to the Founder in his typical Spanish: “If you, as your Paternity has removed Reverend Br. Francis Mary [Pavese] from this house, you would also remove Br. Nicholas Mary [Gavotti] and Br. John of St Stephen [Castiglia] from this house, I think it would be a great service to God, for I see that they need the help of mortification because of their shamelessness and behaviour.” And he added in reference to Father Provincial: “Since Father Peter [Casani] is never at home and when he is at home, he sees very little, things happen that if God does not fix them...”[3045] Nor was the rector, Fr. Cherubini, any stricter, as the young Fr. Charles Casani recounted when commenting on a letter Calasanz had written “in which he warns him [Cherubini] that he is too strict in the mortification of those at home, which I could never have imagined, nor did I believe, because in the year I have been under his obedience I have not seen him impose mortifications, but only very light ones; on the contrary, I should have thought you should censure him for excessive condescension.”[3046]

3044 Ibid., p.536. Date: October 16, 1629.

3045 Ib. p.1199. Date: December 8, 1629.

3046 Ibid. p.522. Date: November 3, 1629.

Even Calasanz alluded to them all before the conventicle, especially to Pavese: “Br. Francis Maria [Pavese], who has departed for Genoa [but this was not true], I will try to have him return into my hands, to strengthen him a little in obedience, which some there also have great need of, but the time will come for all.” And about Gavotti he said in the same letter to Cherubini: “As for Nicholas Maria’s little spirit, I know that one can only expect relaxation if he does not mend his ways.”[3047]

3047 C.1275. Date: December 15, 1629. He complains again about Pavese, accusing him of being a thief among other things, as well as of the passivity of Fr. Casani (C.1288. Date: January 5, 1630).

Neither the Provincial nor the Rector dared to demand obedience from this group of restless young men. But we must not forget that it was precisely in October of that year 1629 that Cherubini’s secret sinful desires with children were discovered, and although they tried not to let them leak out, it was hardly possible that they did not come to the knowledge of all the members of the community. Those most affected by the scandal were probably the young clerics, who expected drastic decisions from their superiors. And in this atmosphere, it is easy to understand why the ideas of the necessary apostolic visitation and the expected resignation of Father General arose among them. On his arrival in Rome in January, Cl. Pavese told some of the clerics there what the young people in Naples were thinking. It is likely that among the participants in this “diabolical conventicle” was Cl. John Francis Castiglia, who in those years divided his presence between Frascati and Rome.[3048]

3048 Cf. EHI. p.550, n.1.

These cries of protest and the demand for an Apostolic Visitation, especially with the so disproportionate method of the memoranda campaign, were particularly regrettable because they came from those who were more in need of reform at the time and who, in the years to come, continued to provide evidence of a lack of spirit, forcing some to leave the Order because of their scandalous lives. But we will talk about that later.

The “Memorandum of the Inconveniences”

None of the memoranda published by the “diabolical conventicle” that Pavese presided over have survived. However, an anonymous memorandum has survived from this period, which Calasanz called Memoriale delli Inconvenienti.[3049] It begins with a general sentence setting out the essence of the accusation, followed by two series of statements: the first part presents the inconveniences, i.e. an analysis of the situation; the second part proposes remedies. Both parts revolve around three concepts: Homes, Individuals and Government. Here is the synthesis:

3049 See full text: F. GUILLEN, Memoriale delli Inconvenienti Archivum 6 (1979) 245-248; PosCas 761-765.

General proposition

“If the religion of the Pious Schools had kept to itself in its beginnings, contented itself with a few places or houses, and attended to the education of its subjects and the maturation of the first it had, it would have advanced in spirit and in letters with greater edification and greater benefit to itself and to others. But because it thoughtlessly wished to spread and enlarge herself in so many places, it has exhausted itself, not to say frittered itself away, so that it can hardly be built up again. However, if it were to receive help from a mighty hand, it would close the door to the unrest and prevent it from going any further.”

Analysis of the situation or inconveniences

1. Regarding the houses:

- they are too numerous;

- they are too far apart: from the mountains of Genoa (Carcare) to the Cape of Otranto (Campi) and Calabria (Bisignano);

- most of them are located in insignificant villages;

2. As far as people are concerned: to take care of so many houses, many people are needed and therefore:

- lowly and incompetent persons are taken in;

- most of them are lay brothers who are superior or equal in number to priests and clerics;

- “in this province of Naples” the novices begin to teach after one or two months of the novitiate, contrary to the Rules;

- they get into the habit of ordering the children, punishing them or doing what they want with them, and so become insolent. And they cannot be taken out of school to correct and punish them because there is no substitute for them;

- Necessity forces unworthy people into the profession.

3. In terms of government:

- little practice and little authority;

- lack of agreement between the General and the Provincials;

- superiors are chosen at whim, even those just out of the novitiate, and elders are marginalized;

- both the General and the Provincials give excessive power to the lay brothres, which they abuse against Rectors and subordinates.

Suggested remedies

1. Regarding the houses:

- not to accept new houses for a long time;

- if they are accepted, it should not be the General alone, but the General Chapters should decide unanimously;

- with the exception of the houses of Rome, Naples and Genoa, most other houses should be closed;

- in the aforementioned houses of Rome, Naples and Genoa, the classes should be reduced; better a few with good teachers than many with bad ones.

2. With regard to individuals:

- those of the closed houses, let them concentrate on the remaining ones;

- the novices, they should finish the two-year novitiate;

- the professed should be instructed “in the letters” and the priests “in the study of cases” (morals);

- As soon as they are well trained, the closed houses will gradually be reopened;

3. As for the government:

- let the General govern with the advice of the Assistants;

- the Provincials should not admit to the habit or to the profession without the opinion of the votes of the house, with the exception of the lay brothers;

- the most effective means: that the Pope appoint an Apostolic Commissioner who will apply these means with full authority and govern the Order for a time until it is consolidated.

Before we wonder about the author and the timing of the writing of this memorandum, let us look at the Reply that Calasanz gave to the one who had requested it, after January 12, 1632, the date of the letter about the appointment as General for life to which he alludes in the first paragraph of the same.[3050] Part of the Reply refers to the resolutions of the meeting or kind of General Chapter, which was chaired by Cardinal Ginetti and preceded the above-mentioned letter. The parallelism between these chapter resolutions and the essential points of the Memorandum on the inconveniences suggests that the memorandum was considered in its three perspectives: in relation to the foundations, the formation of persons and the government.

3050 Full text in EGC V, p.23-24.

In fact, Calasanz states in his Response that in this meeting held in the presence of Ginetti it was decided:

1. not to accept any new houses without the Pope’s approval;

2. that the novitiate in Rome would be common to all provinces to ensure the fulfillment of the Constitutions. And this has already been put into practice;

3. that there should also be a common study house for the professed in Rome. And it was already in operation;

4. as far as the government was concerned, the Provincials had been practically abolished, so that three of them were Assistants (those of Genoa, Naples and Florence) and resided in Rome and governed jointly with the General (tacitly Provincial of Rome).

To these decisions Calasanz added a series of replies to the other points of the Memorandum, showing the falsity or inconsistency of its accusations and the inconvenience or even impossibility of applying the proposed remedies. Specifically:

1. the distance between the houses was not an obstacle, since it was easy to travel by sea from Genoa to Calabria.

2. the houses of the small towns provided a greater abundance of vocations than the cities by way of compensation.

3. It was wrong that the majority of the religious were lay brothers, because of the more than 300 people the Order had, not even 20 were laymen or lay brothers.[3051]
3051 Perhaps he is exaggerating, pulling low. However, in a list of Casani, apparently autographed, 48 novices are listed, admitted from December 24, 1627 to May 19, 1630 in the Province of Naples, where the Memorandum in question was written and in the immediate time of its writing, and of them 18 are clerics, 14 are cleric brothers, 6 are priests, only 6 are Brothers or laymen and 4 others do not know what they are (cf. PosCas, p.652-657). Naturally, in Calasanz’s calculation the cleric brothers are not considered laymen.

4. “It is a great error” to say that “all kinds of people” are admitted to profession for the care of so many schools, because it is required that they have talent at least for the lower schools (the Cleric Brothers).

5. Only in Naples was a novice sent to teach to replace a sick professed; elsewhere all are professed;

6. Likewise, all the superiors of the houses today have at least six years of dressing and many even ten or twelve, as can be seen from the attached list of local superiors;

7. those who are impudent are punished, both in Rome and in Naples, where there are retreat cells for special penitential exercises;

8. The closing of houses and the concentration of religious in a few would not only provoke the justified protests of those who spent the money to found them, but would also be absurd because there is no room in the houses and no means of subsistence for so many;[3052]
3052 Around the same time that he writes this Response, he says in a letter dated April 3, 1632, regarding the house of San Pantaleo: “Here, thanks be to God, we have health, but great scarcity of alms and all things are extremely expensive” (cf. 1768). And on October 16, 1632, he writes: “this morning there is only one ‘giulio’ [a Roman coin equivalent to a tenth of an escudo] in the house, and tomorrow, Sunday, if no alms come, it will be necessary to eat on credit” (c.1895). Let us add that in the house of San Pantaleo in 1629 there were 60 members of the community and 51 in 1633 (cf. G. SÁNTHA, 350 anni a condita domo S. Pantaleonis exacti: EphCal 9-10 [1962] 274). How could they receive those of other closed houses?

9. It is also impossible to see why the schools in Rome, Naples and Genoa should be reduced; on the contrary, since there are teachers, they should be increased (to care for so many poor children who want to learn);

10. as for the appointment of an Apostolic Commissary, it does not seem that the Order is so relaxed as to need such a remedy.[3053]
3053 And, indeed, in the Memorandum there are no complaints of inobservance and relaxation.

And the Holy Founder ended with this bitter reproach: “It is very certain that the author of the memorandum needs great remedy, for he is one of the elders in religion, but by reason of his arrogance and obstinacy he is unworthy to hold the office of superior.”[3054]

3054 This Response of the Founder, although extant in the General Archives, was practically unknown until our century (cf. EGC V; p.23). However, the Memorandum of Inconveniences was known in a copy attributed by all to the Saint himself, on the last blank page of which there are remarks by at least six or seven archivists. Some of them came to think that Calasanz was also the author of the writing and noted: “Humillimus humillissime contra se loquitur et scribit”. Others, like Talenti, deny him the authorship adducing reasons, but without giving another name, except Picanyol, who proposes as author Fr. Cherubini although he later crossed out the paragraph, justifying the change of opinion (cf. PosCas, p.726, n.161).

From these last words it can be concluded that the Saint knew who the author of the deplorable memorandum was, but he had reasons to conceal his name and, as far as is known, he took no reprisals against him. Everything indicates that it was Father Stephen Cherubini, “one of the elders of the religion”, who was annoyed by the atmosphere that had been created against him in Naples since the end of October 1629, when “his case” had been uncovered and attempts were made to remove him from the city. Psychologically, this explains why he wanted to cover up his “supposed crime” with the general situation of the Order, the seriousness of which, in his opinion, required nothing less than the supervision of an Apostolic Commissioner.[3055]

3055 Picanyol supposed that Cherubini reacted indignantly to the process that was made against him in Naples. But noting later that in early January 1631 he left Naples and the process did not begin until the arrival of Fr. Garcia in February, he concluded that Cherubini could not be the author (cf. n. above). However, he again went back on his opinion without new arguments (cf. EGC V, p.22). Vilá rejects Picanyol’s last opinion, also relying on the dates of the process and Cherubini’s absence from Naples (cf. PosCas 727). But the reaction of Cherubini is not necessary to suppose it precisely against the process, but against what of him is spoken in Naples since October 1629 and will be the matter of the process (cf. EHI p.540-545). And from those dates until January 1631, he had time to mature and compose the well-plotted memorandum.

If Calasanz concealed his name despite the offensive seriousness of the memorandum, this could be due to the same reasons for which he was forced to annul the process recently initiated against him, i.e. “out of reverence for his house” so as not to denigrate the honorable surname of the Cherubinis. Nevertheless - as he will say in a famous declaration of 1644 - “I have never wanted to give him an office of jurisdiction, such as that of Provincial or Rector, although important people have asked me to do so.”[3056] And this decision, which refers to the facts that triggered the trial annulled on April 5, 1631[3057], coincides with the last sentence of the Reply to the memorandum of inconveniences that we have just seen: “…unworthy to hold the office of superior.” The Reply was written in the first months of 1632, but Father Cherubini had already been removed from his rectorship in Naples in January 1631.

3056 Cf. EphCal 9-10 (1960) 270, n.75.

3057 Cf. S.-GINER, The Process of Beatification p.275, n.179.

Despite what has been said, it could be that Calasanz only suspected that Cherubini was the author, but that it had in fact been written in the circle of those young clerics whose most important head, Pavese, presided over the “diabolical conventicle” in Rome and who later joined forces with Cl. Castiglia and his campaign of memoranda.

What does not seem admissible is that the author was Father Casani, as Vilá suggests.[3058] It would be cynical to criticize the situation and the government of the Province of Naples while he himself was Provincial superior, or to complain about so many foundations in small towns, which he had defended and praised in an earlier memorandum because they particularly benefited the poor.[3059] It would be equally cynical for the same person who wrote this memorandum to condole two years later with Father General, who complained about the slanderous memoranda of Cl. Castiglia, as Casani did.[3060] And it would be absurd to suppose that Calasanz was thinking of him when he said that he was “one of the elders”, and made the very serious accusation of being “unworthy to exercise the office of superior”, for Casani remained at the General’s side as First Assistant until his death, in cordial and fraternal collaboration, enjoying the full confidence of the “Old Holy Man”, who even wanted to appoint him Vicar General by abdicating himself, but he did not want to be.[3061]

3058 Cf. PosCas, p.727-729; EC VI, p.2771-2775.

3059 Cf. PosCas, p.514. EC VI, p.2745.

3060 Cf. EHI, p.847-849.

3061 Cf. Juicio historico-critico…, p.79-83.

As for the place and time of its composition, a cursory reading of the document tells us that it was written in Naples in the last months of 1630, perhaps with a view to the next General Chapter, which could not take place.[3062] However, the memorandum was probably addressed to the Holy See, and certainly Cardinal Ginetti presented it to Father Founder so that it could be considered at that kind of General Chapter[3063] and so that he could then give an appropriate response in an official manner.[3064] And both were done.

3062 In the Memorandum we read: “in this province of Naples …”; the uses of Naples and Rome are contrasted: “in Rome money is touched, in Naples, one cannot touch it…”; the foundation in Montella (Avellino), undertaken by those of Naples, is criticized. Of this foundation Calasanz speaks to Cherubini on January 4, 1631 as of something already begun (cf. C.1556). Speaking of the extreme distances between foundations, there is no mention of Nikolsburg, so far away, for which the first Piarists left Rome on April 2, 1631, among them Cl. Joseph Apa, Neapolitan, and therefore the news as a project in progress should have been known in Naples. Therefore, the Memorandum had to be written before the news was known. It is also striking that, when speaking of closing houses, he only mentions the three great cities of Rome, Naples and Genoa and does not mention Florence, which was officially accepted in May 1630. Perhaps the omission is due to the fact that the schools were closed and the community dispersed from September 29, 1630 to November 2, 1631, due to the plague. It should be added that Cherubini, the probable author of the Memorandum, left Naples at the beginning of January 1631. On the other hand, there is no argument to date the Memorandum in 1631 or later.

3063 We have already noted the coincidence of the decisions made before Ginetti and the substantial demands of the Memorandum regarding new foundations, formation of novices and clerics, and uniformity of government. The idea that Ginetti was urging the decisions regarding the complaints of the Memorandum is corroborated by the fact that Calasanz, when presenting the names of the Assistants who should form with him the government for life, added at the end of the plea addressed to the Cardinal: “And once the Brief has been sent, the novices will be withdrawn to Rome and likewise the study for the professed young men will be put into effect.” (cf. EphCal 2 [1961] 69, n.37). It was a promise that he later declared to have been fulfilled in the Response to the Memorandum.

3064 Not everything requested in the Memorandum of Inconveniences was taken into account in the “capitular” meetings before Ginetti, but only the essential questions. But apparently, the Founder had to give an exhaustive response to all the points of the Memorandum, as he once did with the long request originated in the Apostolic Visitation of 1625 (cf. EphCal 5 [1959] 201-202).

New campaign of memoranda

Not a year had passed since the above-mentioned reply had reached its destination when the third onslaught of memoranda began, more violent and slanderous than ever before. It came from the same small group of restless, rebellious and troublesome young men previously led by Pavese and now decidedly by John Francis Castiglia of the community of San Pantaleo, whose largest contingent of followers, however, was in the Neapolitan school of the Duchesca.

On January 26, 1633, Calasanz wrote to Father Cherubini:

“I have already written to you about the memorandum of the cleric John Francis [Castiglia] of Carcare, which has brought our Order into disrepute before the Cardinals of St. Onofrio [Antonio Barberini] and Ginetti, and even before the Pope; and the Vicegerent [Monsignor Antonio Tornielli] has been ordered to report on the things contained in the said memorandum. And now this scoundrel is at home looking for testimonies to prove his calumnies, and I have also learned that he has written to his acquaintances who are in other houses of ours. And although I have forced him not to leave his room unless it is for communal events, he has no shortage of companions who secretly go for him wherever they want.

And two days later, he returned to the subject:

“…this scoundrel does not let up in his insolence, he wants to prove with several witnesses that he tells are in several houses of the Order. And these superiors accept it complacently, saying that the faults of the Religions are never better known than by the discontented. It is therefore necessary to make it clear to the Superiors that what this one man says, who slanders the whole Order, is not true. He writes to his companions outside that they should send memoranda to the S. Congregation of the Regulars to request a General Visitation. See how zealous he is for the punishment of others, since he himself perhaps deserves it more than anyone else. We will see what happens, and we will try to defend the honor of the Religion.”[3065]

3065 C.1957 and 1959.

In fact, a letter dated January 22, 1633, which Cl. Castiglia wrote to his friend Clº. Peter Augustine Abbate, informing him that two weeks earlier he had sent him a series of accusations to have them confirmed by some of his community in Savona, because “after I - he said - had submitted a memorandum to the S. Congregation asking for a general visitation of our Order to remove the daily inconveniences, they would see that I had not proceeded without reason.” These accusations were to be copied again so that his own hand could not be seen, and sent together with a memorandum to Monsignor Vicegerent Tornielli, who was to present them to the Congregation of the Regulars. He even gave him the text of the memorandum for them to sign, adding that “some serious disturbances had arisen” Everything was to be done with “great prudence and secrecy” In the postscript, he recommended that the memorandum be addressed not to the Vicegerent but to the Cardinals of the aforementioned Congregation.[3066]

3066 EC, p.664-665.

When Father Casani learned of the events in Naples, he began to investigate the circumstances and those behind what he unhesitatingly described as a ‘conspiracy, insurrection and mutiny’.[3067] In mid-January, he wrote a letter to Father General, giving him the details he had been able to elicit from a novice and, above all, expressing his sympathy and his desire to help him in this difficult time. He writes:

3067 EHI, p.549, 561 and 562.

“I pity the impudence of this poor cleric, who has been deceived and blinded by his great pride. I hope, however, that God Our Lord will turn all this on him and his accomplices. Tell me what I can and must do against such impudence, even if it be to fly there as soon as possible, which I will do.”[3068]

3068 EHI, p.549. On the same date, January 15, 1933, he also wrote to Fr. García, stressing the sorrow he felt for the displeasure Father General has received (cf. EC, p.550). Whoever wrote these letters could not have written the Memoriale delli Inconvenienti, as we noted above.

As details of his request, he informed him that indeed Clº. Castiglia was indeed in audience with Card. Antonius Barberini and that he had also given memoranda to other cardinals after speaking with them; that he had given the first memorandum “as soon as he had returned from Frascati, where he had been with Fr. Campanella”, that is, in the first half of October 1632[3069]; that he had sent two sealed memoranda to the Pope by calling the relatives of Cl. Benedict Verucci; that besides this cleric, Br. Thomas Mary Masturzo, both in Naples, was also in the circle; as well as Fr. Santino Lunardi, with whom Cl. Castiglia was seen several times on the way to the Palace[3070]. In another letter dated February 15th, Casani added more information about the conspiracy and gave more names of accomplices of the Naples group who, he says, “did not have time to sign or agree.” He mentions seven names already given to the Founder in previous letters, and now adds the names of Fathers Thomas Carello and Francis Rubbio, as well as Brothers John Antony Porri and Ottavio Barbieri, and he insists on the guilt of Brs. John Castiglia and Thomas Mary Masturzo.[3071] In a later letter, dated February 22nd another name appears, that of Cl. Peter Antony Barone, who had just maliciously denounced Father Casani before the Holy Office.[3072] All the persons named were living in Naples at the time.

3069 Campanella arrived in Frascati between October 4 and 8, October 1632 (cf. c.1886 and 1889) and on the 11th of the same month Calasanz wrote to Fr. Bandoni, in Frascati: “Y.R. will send back to Rome Brother Francis, the engraver, and John Francis [Castile], who went with him” (c. 1893). They may be the two whose arrival he had announced to him on September 28th (cf. c.1878).

3070 Cf. EHI, p.549.

3071 Ibid., p.559-560. The seven mentioned could have been the two Castiglia brothers, the clerics Pavese, Carletti and Verucci, Fr. Lunardi and Br. Masturzo.

3072 Ibid., p. 562.

None of the incriminating memoranda have been preserved, nor has the list of denounced abuses or accusations, which Calasanz and Casani were certainly aware of as well as the conspirators.[3073] The nucleus probably coincided with the aforementioned Memoriale delli Inconvenienti,[3074] as can be seen from the many letters that the Founder wrote in these months to Father Cherubini, who was waiting in Ancona for him to send him three fathers to establish this foundation. The saint apologizes, saying that he could not send them to him because the Holy See had refused him due to Cl. Castiglia’s regrettable memorandum. And he said:

3073 In the aforementioned letter of February 22, 1633 Casani wrote to Calasanz: “Regarding the mutiny here we have nothing new, except that apart from the i capi (points or chapters) sent by Fr. Stefano [Busdraghi] to Y. P., I feel that there has been added that I began the church of Possilipo without license from the Ordinary.” (EHI, p.562) Identical terminology is used by Cl. Castiglia in his letter to Abbate: “sottoscrizione de capi mandati” (EC, p.664-665).

3074 There is even a certain reminiscence of that Memorandum in a letter of Cl. Castiglia in which he says to have requested “universal visitation of our Religion, so that it would remedy the inconveniences that daily occur” (EC, p.664).

“Having done all I can to obtain papal permission to send to Ancona the promised Fathers, who have been ready for some time, I do not know what to do, because this difficulty arises from the memorandum presented by this cleric, for he says, among other things, that so many new Pious Schools are being accepted and opened that those already opened cannot be provided with sufficient subjects and good qualities, as would be fitting, much less can the newly founded ones be well established. And the superiors have extraordinarily swallowed this point.”[3075]

3075 C.2011; also, C.2008, 2015, 2018, etc.

The brazenness of the memorandum on this point was irritating. At that kind of General Chapter in October 1631, “it was discussed and decided,” wrote Calasanz, “that from now on no new houses would be accepted without the pope’s approval.”[3076] Only a year later, the restless cleric Castiglia presented his first memorandum, as if in that year they had continued to accept foundations without authorization and thus disregarded the promises made to Ginetti. In the meantime, Calasanz wrote nervously in April 1633: “although the schools in Ancona were accepted in 1630, difficulties are being made with them because of the extravagances complained of in the memorandum that V. R. [Cherubini] knows; also, the schools in Cosenza have not been opened, as Y. R. believes.”[3077]

3076 EGC V, p.23.

3077 C.2015.

To this core, which coincided with the Memoriale delli Inconvenienti, was added a slanderous criticism of the superiors and a denunciation of alleged abuses, especially of the central government, whose seriousness and distorted aims the troubled Founder made clear in a letter of February 19, 1633, saying

“With the Lord’s help we will defend the Religion, which it is said these wretches wish to destroy utterly, in order to turn to the world; meanwhile I pray for this matter, which contains in itself the most grievous dishonor ever committed against the Religion.”[3078]

3078 C.1974.

In the absence of further details about the personal intentions of the accomplices in this conspiracy, we will examine them and see from their behavior and their final decision to leave the Order that the good of the same interested them least of all; on the contrary, they wanted to muddy the waters and provoke an Apostolic Visitation in order to justify an honorable exit through the front door.

As for the person most responsible for this storm and who caused it, Cl. John Francis Castiglia, there is not enough evidence to fully establish his case, but perhaps there is enough evidence to conclude that it was an unworthy reaction to the actions of the Founder in relation to a personal crime of his, which he felt was a great injustice against his offended honor. In defense of the accused Founder, it could be argued that he kept the crime of Castiglia so secret that we do not know it to this day, although we can surmise that it is of the same nature as those he repeatedly committed later on. Read this suggestive paragraph from a letter the Saint addressed to Cherubini on February 2, 1633, when he learned that among the scandals and disorders denounced in Castiglia’s Memorandum was the “Cherubini case”:

“In the matter of John Francis [Castiglia], I know that no one has yet been interrogated, but I see that the superiors want to know the truth of what is confirmed in the memorandum presented. As for the absolutoria of Y. R., everyone knows it, because in Naples even the laity have heard of it; also those who were in Naples at the time, such as Benedict [Verucci] of St. John Baptist and many others, have published it. He [Castiglia] wanted another [absolutoria] like this one, and when I did not give it to him, he decided to present the said memorandum. Nevertheless, I hope we will do justice to all the calumnies contained in it.”[3079]

3079 C.1962.

It is very likely that he adhered to this last word and wrote an appropriate reply to such calumnies, as he did in relation to the Memoriale delli Inconvenienti or to the complaints of the Apostolic Visitation of 1625. But if there was, it has disappeared. But has been preserved a very revealing letter from Castiglia to Cherubini, in which he tries to apologize for bringing his case to light, not to denigrate him, but to portray him as a victim of Father General’s injustices, in a display of falsehood and irresponsible distortion of the facts. He also reveals the motive for his denunciation, which is none other than his own offended honor, but without daring to lift the final veil: the General’s denied acquittal of his own crime and perhaps secret process. Here are some other important paragraphs:

“You must know that because of an injustice done to me, I decided, after consultation with a prudent person[3080], to give said memorial with the best of intentions, requesting a visit. And since I knew from the reports of our superiors that this had already been unsuccessfully requested on other occasions, so that they would not refuse it, I included in the memorandum disturbances and injustices that superiors often commit. And since he once told me, when I spoke to Father General about your case in Naples, that the reason he had recalled you from there was because, after you had been accused of serious things, you tried to justify yourself by having the witnesses you had heard recanted to the detriment of the accusers, I understood then that you had been accused without cause, for which I would plead in your favor if the opportunity arose. Therefore, in order to make the Sacred Congregation aware of the injustices really committed, I cited your particular case, among others, not to your detriment but to your benefit, since I was sure that Your Reverence, having begun to justify yourself, would bring the matter to a happy conclusion with great honor…. I would like to know how Father General informed you, since he tried with all his might to turn against me as many religious as possible, by writing that I had tried to destroy the Religion. I never intended anything of the kind, but wanted to remedy the disturbances, whose seriousness of which is known to all; and that people should not be so easily slandered, without the opportunity of justifying themselves, as every honest man seeks to do. That was my idea, not the destruction of the Religion as he propagated it. But I hope that on the Day of Judgment many altars that are now covered will be uncovered. We all want to live in freedom without anyone being able to say to us: Why are you doing this? Sapienti pauca… I have protracted myself a little because your honor is very dear to me, as well as my own, which I value more than life itself...”[3081]

3080 It would not be daring to suspect that the person consulted was Fr. Thomas Campanella, given the clarity with which Fr. Casani specifies that he gave the first memorandum on his return from Frascati “where he had been with Fr. Campanella” (EHI, p.549). Then, did he go precisely to speak with him? That it was not for reasons of studies is deduced from the letter of Calasanz of September 28, 1632, in which he says: “Fr. Campanella will come as he did last year, but the students will not.”, and he says it on the occasion of announcing the arrival to Frascati of “two of our good children” (C.1878), of which one could be Cl. Castiglia, whose return to Rome he claims on October 11th (C.1893).

3081 EC, p.666-667. Date: March 7, 1633.

Indeed, he valued his honor not only more than his life, but also more than that of the Religion. Casani rightly lamented “the impudence of this poor brother, deceived and blinded by his great pride.”[3082] The slanderous denunciations must have been serious, but one of the most disturbing was undoubtedly the denunciation of the “Cherubini case” to the Congregation for Religious, to the cardinals and to the Pope. The case itself was serious, and therefore the General tried to cover it up by all means and - as he wrote at the time - “to ensure that the matter did not go to our superiors, but remained among us, because if it became known in Rome as it became known there [in Naples], God knows what would become of the Religion, especially in this pontificate.”[3083] And it became known in Rome, with the aggravating factor of the informant’s version, in which he doubted the truth of the facts and accused the Holy Founder of having listened to the accusers and of having acted unjustly against the accused Cherubini.

3082 EHI, p.549.

3083 C.1603.

Cherubini himself was no less disturbed, knowing that his name had reached the Roman Curia, which was involved in the scandal. His brother Flavio was also worried, although he was confident that things would be sorted out: “Mr. Flavio - Calasanz wrote to Cherubini on 12 February 1633 - has come to me and hopes that everything is all right. At the moment Mons. Vicegerent is busy with the affairs of another Religion and cannot attend to ours. I intend to defend our affairs with all truth against the calumnies of poor John Francis, who God knows how many times he has regretted having embarked on this venture. When I speak to the Vicegerent I shall be able to say something more definite on the points [of the allegations] which seem to be very serious. Y.R. can rest assured that I will put up a good defense of everything I have done for you.”[3084]

3084 C.1971.

And then it was time to speak.

The accused and the accusers

If, for the malicious Cl. Castiglia, Father Cherubini “had been accused without cause” and Father General had therefore committed “true injustice” against him, the clique of mutineers of Naples, who were undoubtedly better informed, presented “the case” from a different perspective. Starting from the truth of the facts, they regretted that Father General had left the guilty man unpunished and had annulled his trial, but had not forgiven the mistakes, carelessness or liberties of others. This was unjust in their opinion.

Both versions portrayed Father General as the guilty party, and the gravity of Cherubini’s crime remained shrouded in the fog of doubt. For this reason, Cardinal Antonius Barberini, who, as we have seen, was confused by word and writing, finally reacted with a certain explicable vehemence and called the elderly Founder to him. One cannot read this page of Berro without being deeply shocked:

“Through this incident [the Cherubini case] the devil intended a greater evil, for when O. V. Founder and General wanted to mortify other religious who were not very mortified and had some defects, they joined, priests and clerics, and since they wanted to cover up their faults, they gave His Emm. Cardinal Antony Barberini, Capuchin, then Provicar of Pope Urban VIII, a memorandum against O. V. Founder, as if such a grave matter had gone unpunished. His Eminence sent for O. V. Founder, and when he reached him, in spite of the fact that there were many people, courtiers and strangers, in the hall and antechamber, without regard to the age or dignity of a General and Founder of a Religion, His Eminence turned to O. V. Founder like a serpent and said such words to him that they could be called insults more than religious mortifications. When Father O. V. heard this, he went down on his knees and remained in the same place with a humble attitude and the face of an angel, without uttering a single word, and listened to what the Cardinal reproached him with. His Eminence’s attitude towards Father O. V. was very displeasing to everyone present… After the rebuke, His Eminence made him stand up with similar words and led him into another room, where O. V. Father opened His Eminence’s eyes with all submissiveness, saying in particular that everything that had happened in this case had been done by Order of His Eminence Cardinal Francis Barberini and that it could not have been otherwise because of the great favor that the delinquent had received from Casa Ludovisi. Therefore, His Eminence was not only correctly informed and satisfied, but also edified by the patience and humility as well as admiration for the wisdom of O. V. Father Founder and General.”[3085]

3085 BERRO I, p.22I-222.

When did this scene take place? It is not easy to place it in time. In February 1633, two ideas are repeated in Calasanz’s letters: 1) the hope that Cl. Castiglia would publicly and in writing retract all the slanderous accusations he had made in his memoranda submitted to the Holy See; 2) Calasanz’s desire to speak with the Vatican authorities in order to clarify the facts and deny the slanderous accusations.[3086] On February 23, he informs his confidant Cherubini that one of the accomplices has already recanted before Msgr. Vicegerent.[3087] And on March 2, he writes to him with satisfaction:

3086 Cf. C.1964, 1967, 1971, 1974, 1977, 1980.

3087 Cf. C. 1977.

“As for my journey to the Holy House [of Loreto] and then there [Ancona], it now seems impossible to me, for I must convince the superiors of the truth and prove that what this unfortunate subject wrote was slander, even if he himself, having acknowledged the error with a public memorandum signed by his hand, recanted what he had written; so I think I must not leave a bad impression of our work with the superiors, and this cannot be done in a short time.”[3088]

3088 C.1984.

And he was right. Despite the retraction of the “faction leader”[3089], they still did not give permission to send the three religious promised by the general to Ancona. At the end of May, the representatives of Ancona had a conversation with Card. Ginetti, who instructed them to turn to Cardinal Antonio Barberini. On Calasanz’s advice, the Ancona representatives wrote a memorandum to the said cardinal, the result of which Calasanz was still waiting for on June 2nd. On the 9th of the same month, the deputies of Ancona thanked the Cardinal for having commissioned Father Cherubini to open the schools, and on the 11th the same Saint wrote again to the Cardinal: “At last we are satisfied with regard to the schools, as I have already written to you twice.”[3090] This benevolent and approving attitude of Cardinal Barberini after so many months of struggle brings to mind a clarifying conversation between Cardinal Barberini and the Founder, which began with the Cardinal’s abrupt admonitions and ended with the granting of the request, as Berro recounted in a dramatic tone.

3089 C.1987, 1994.

3090 Cf. C.2059 and 2050, 2052; EHI, p.73-74 and 67.

A month later, on July 6th, he wrote to Father Cherubini full of satisfaction, as if he wanted to put an end to a nightmare that had lasted more than half a year: “The Lord has freed us from the evil concept in which the malice and cunning of the devil had placed us before the Higher Superiors.” [3091]This joyful expression was undoubtedly reminiscent of what Calasanz wrote to Card. Dietrichstein on June 25th, informing him that a letter from him had been read at the last meeting of the Congregation for Propaganda Fide: “Our Institute was praised with the joint applause of all the Cardinals and also of the Pope himself.”[3092] In fact, the slanderous memoranda of Castiglia had as an immediate consequence the prohibition of sending religious not only to Ancona, but above all to Moravia. But we will come back to this later.

3091 Cf. C.2071.

3092 C.2068.

The slander was thus overcome, but the slanderers only gradually showed their true colors, which had little reformatory character, until they left the Order. Berro speaks of two of them, the main protagonists, i.e. John Francis Castiglia and John Baptist Carletti, alluding to their nocturnal escapades in search of amorous adventures.[3093] Berro’s novelistic news is amply confirmed by the testimony of the Founder and others. With regard to Castiglia, Calasanz laments the shady friendship he maintained with a married woman in the Abbey of San Salvatore Maggiore in 1634-1635. And again, he complains of new scandals with another Neapolitan widow in 1638. Attempts were made to persuade him to leave the Order, which finally succeeded in 1640. In one of his letters, the Founder said with derision to Father Alacchi: “You see what great honor this man has always done to the Religion.”[3094]

3093 Cf. BERRO I, p.222-223.

3094 C.2485. Cf. also C.2485, 2798, 2799, 2800, 3177; CCP, p.248-249; EHI, p.550, n.1, 1007, 1017, 1023.

Even more deplorable was the behavior of Father John Baptist Carletti, who was removed from Rome in 1636 for his indecencies and sent to Campi, from where he had to leave because of scandals with women and other misdeeds. In October 1638, he received permission from Cardinal Antonio Barberini to leave the convent as a secular priest to help his sisters, but after only two years he died on February 23, 1641 in the Roman Hospital of the Brothers of Mercy as a result of his excesses, eaten away by syphilis. Because of his repulsive appearance, there was no parish priest willing to bury him in his church, so Calasanz managed to have him buried in a cemetery behind the Vatican.[3095]

3095 Cf. EHI, p.1013, 1025; SCOMA I, p.128.

In similar adventures was, it seems, that Clº. Francis Mary Pavese who left the order in August 1635.[3096] Brother John Castiglia, the restless, garrulous and scheming brother of Clº. John Francis, traveled through Naples, Sicily and Rome and finally approached Calasanz to obtain licenses to leave. He wrote in January 1637: “I will help him with all my strength to leave the Religion, for it is much better that such subjects should be out, for in the Religion they serve only as a scandal.”[3097] But he had to put up with him until 1642, when he left the order[3098]. In 1635, Br. John Antony Porri also left[3099]; Cl. Benedict Verucci died in Naples in 1633[3100]; and Cl. Peter Antony Barone, who even accused Fr. Casani before the Holy Office for a trivial reason, left the Order in 1636.[3101]

3096 Cf. EHI, p.1632 n.1; SCOMA 1, p.127-128; C.2557.

3097 C.2663.

3098 Cf. EHI, p.579, n.1, 1854; SCOMA 1, p.115; CCP, p.222-229.

3099 Cf. EHI, p.2188, n.3.

3100 Ibid., p.535, n.3.

3101 EHI, p.539, n.15, 562.

After this storm, Fr. Peter Augustine Abbate, from 1638 became one of the promoters of another, known as the rebellion of the “claimants”, which was much more serious than the one just investigated. His abuses and excesses aroused the indignation of Cardinal Protector Cesarini, who ordered his imprisonment in 1640 after a proper trial. He fled Rome and was declared an apostate and excommunicated. He tried unsuccessfully to change to another Order or to have his profession declared invalid. Finally, in 1646, he received an indult for secularization.[3102] No less eventful was the life of Father Thomas Carello, who was accused by Casani in 1633 of complicity with the Neapolitan group of memorialists and by Calasanz in 1638 as an accomplice of John Francis Castiglia in his nocturnal dalliances proper of picaresque novels.[3103] In Campi he even slapped the Rector in 1638, was imprisoned and managed to escape after three days. in 1639, he was expelled from the Kingdom of Naples and ended up in Fanano, from whose school he fled and was arrested and imprisoned again at the end of 1640. In 1641, he underwent a canonical trial and was expelled from the Order as incorrigible. In 1646, he managed to re-enter the Order with a mandate from the Archbishop of Naples, but in 1655 he left the Order again with a papal decree.[3104]

3102 EEC, p.4, n.1.

3103 “…the said Father [Tomas Carello] several times together with another priest went out through the same window for similar dishonesty”; and he has just spoken of John Francis Castiglia, of whom he says “it would have been better to keep him there [in Naples] well locked and guarded to make him feel that it was necessary to do for so many crimes committed by him than to send him so freely to Palermo” (C.2799 Date: January 30, 1638).

3104 Ct. EHl, p.510, n.1.

And that’s not all of them. There were still some of this sort whose blows forged the sanctity of the Founder, like another patient Job, but brought the Order to the brink of disaster. The most effective remedy was undoubtedly the timely expulsion of the undesirables, and this was laid down in the Constitutions as a power of the Father General.[3105] However, this power had already been abolished for the entire Church in 1624 by Urban VIII’s Bull De apostatis et eiectis. Nevertheless, in the following years and before the situations and deplorable cases that occurred in the Order, both the General and his Assistants and the General Chapters will try to obtain from the Holy See the validity of what is prescribed in the Constitutions, even if they did not achieve it completely.[3106]

3105 Cf. CC n.272.

3106 Cf. EC, 508-511; G. SANTHA, Majora Ordinis Sch. P. problemata praesente S. Josepho Calasanctio in Cap. Gen. annorum 1637 et 1641 agitata: EphCal 10-11 (1972) 269.

On the other hand, it is not necessary to tear off one’s clothes when one discovers the presence of such undesirables in the bosom of Pious Schools. Normally, the printed histories of religious Orders are not reminiscent of obscure pages that remain unpublished in annals, chronicles or letters. Only from time to time does a name emerge whose misdeeds must be revealed, like shadows that enhance the light of famous men, especially the saints. They are part of the stains and wrinkles that inevitably disfigure the face of the Church on its pilgrimage through this world.

Without going any further, in that decade of the 1930s, and specifically in Rome, there were two conspiracies against the life of Urban VIII involving some friars and a priest. The first, between 1633 and 1635, was instigated by Jacinth Centini, the nephew of Cardinal Felix Centini, and involved the disreputable hermit Diego Guiccilione of Palermo, the Augustinian Dominic Zancone of Furmo and the Franciscan Querubin Serafino of Ancona. The attempt failed, the conspirators were arrested and put on trial. Centini was beheaded and the two monks were hanged on April 23, 1635. The second case was uncovered in 1640, when the priest Francis Orsolini and the Augustinian Dominic Branza planned to poison the Pope. Both were also executed. Among those condemned by the Roman Inquisition in those years was the rector of the church of San Carlo al Corso, who was accused of sacrilege, inmorality and necromancy and handed over to the secular arm for execution in 1635. Similarly, in May 1642, a Franciscan conventual was condemned to the stake because he had repeatedly said mass and confessed without being a priest.[3107] Men after all!

3107 Cf. all these cases in PASTOR, o.c., vol. 28, p.283.284.

The disturbing problem of expansion

Of all the excitement stirred up by Cl. Castiglia’s memoranda, that which worried the Founder most about its immediate consequences was expressed several times in his letters, including this one of April 2, 1633: “They are so confident in the Palace that we accept more houses than we can manage, this being one of the points of the memorandum that they have restricted the granting of the license.”[3108] And this point of the memorandum the saint described as “the greatest disgrace ever committed against the Religion.”[3109] Indeed, it was one thing to note the growing demand for foundations and the consequent danger of disintegration of the Order through too many foundations, and quite another to claim that an excessive number of foundations had in fact already been accepted. Had this been the case, the logical solution on the part of the Holy See would have been not only to prevent further foundations, but also to call for the closure of some or many existing foundations, which it never did, not even at the time of the reduction of the Order to a Congregation without vows, and it was a measure explicitly requested by the Memoriale delli Inconvenienti, to which the Founder had responded with good reasons.

3108 C.2008; cf. n.3075 above.

3109 C.1974.

It is clear that Father General and his Assistants, as well as the Order itself, were well aware that excessive expansion was a great danger and that the constant demand for foundations was a temptation. Suffice it to recall that during the Apostolic Visitation of 1625, one of the points that the Founder himself identified as a danger to future relaxation was “accepting more places without having suitable subjects to maintain them”[3110]; that in March 1627 he asked Urban VIII, that in view of the persistent requests for new foundations, the Pope should forbid the General to deal with the requests for two years, and the Pope agreed[3111]; that again in October 1631, those summoned to the General Chapter decided before Cardinal Ginetti that “from now on, no new houses should be accepted without the consent of His Holiness.”[3112]

3110 C.380 a.

3111 Cf. G. SÁNTHA, Calasanctius et Visitatio Apostolica 1625 habita: EphCal 5 (1959) 199, n.38.

3112 Cf. EGC V, p.23.

In the course of 1633, when the conflict triggered by Castiglia arose, the Founder recalled in his letters the usual reasons that prevented him from accepting new foundations, in addition to the absolute restrictions of the Holy See that were issued as a consequence of the defamatory memoranda. To Father Cherubini, who was thinking of founding in Loreto, he said on January 12, 1633:

“It is not possible to think of accepting a house in Loreto at the moment, because it is necessary to establish very well those already established before opening new ones, since there are many people, but they are useless, either because of their age or lack of knowledge; therefore, it is favorable to train good disciples and have a reserve.”[3113]

3113 C.1950.

And to Mr. Horacio Gaetani, who asked for a foundation in Anagni:

“…I feel great displeasure at not being able to fulfill the proposal made to me to found Pious Schools in this city because, among other things, I have these two difficulties: the mandate of His Holiness not to accept new houses without his prior consent or that of Cardinal Barberini, and the lack of personnel, which is such a problem for us that it is difficult for us to take care of those already founded.”[3114]

3114 C.2029.

And to Fr. Alacchi:

“…since the Pope knew that we are few in number and that the requests coming to us from everywhere with recommendations from princes, dukes, cardinals and other prelates cannot be ignored, since we are unable to carry out our work as we should, he has therefore imposed this prohibition on us; so, we cannot think of Cesena or Lugano or anywhere else.”[3115]

3115 CCP, p.179.

The requests must have been very numerous, judging by the general expressions that appear from time to time in Calasanz’s letters. Let us take just two examples from the letters to Father Alacchi, who had tried for three years (1630-33) to found in Venice without being called, and in the end received a clear refusal. In contrast to this negative attitude of the Venetians, Calasanz wrote to him on December 11, 1632: “As far as the work of the Pious Schools in Rome is concerned, everyone can say what they like, but if it were not popular, it would not be so much desired every day by many cities and princely countries, and sometimes bishops come to ask for it for their dioceses.”[3116] And four months later he wrote to him again: “If I had ten thousand religious now, I could distribute them all in a month to all the places where I am asked for them with great insistence, because our Religion is demanded and sought after by many cardinals, bishops, prelates, great lords and great cities, as I can prove with various letters.”[3117]

3116 C.1928.

3117 C.2027.

Expressed in this way, it might sound like boasting and exaggeration. But the letters existed, and in abundance. Perhaps many of them have disappeared because they were requests or projects that were not dealt with. Nonetheless, the surviving letters and the allusions that appear in the letters of the Founder himself or in those of his contemporary correspondents provide an impressive list of rejected foundations, including those from small and “poor” populations who were prepared to support themselves or pay for the costs of the foundation and its upkeep. And in the case of “rejection”, it is impressive that the Saint had the audacity to refuse cardinals, bishops, counts, dukes, marquises and other personalities who generously offered him their contribution, their protection or their interested recommendation.

It was not possible to take care of so many people

Here is the list of rejected foundations from 1624 to 1646, when the Order was reduced to a Congregation without vows with the prohibition of founding new houses and accepting novices. We believe, however, that the list is incomplete and could be supplemented by other references, but it is sufficient to understand the bravery of this man - and his Congregation - who knew how to assess the forces at his disposal, limits his commitments and prudently refrains from rapid and excessive expansion that would have ruined his work. On the other hand, this incomplete list of requests proves that so many towns and communities wanted to set up a teaching and education system that they certainly lacked. Therefore, the Pious Schools were a real novelty. But it was impossible to answer them all.

From 1624, we only know of the request of the Syndic of Lanciano (Abruzzo), which was not granted.[3118] In 1625, the priors of Cori (Lazio) asked for a foundation for their city, and the Doge (Duke) of Genoa, Jacob Lomellini, for Borzonasca (Liguria)[3119]. In 1628, the syndics of Saluzzo (Piedmont).[3120] In 1629, they ask for Cuneo (Piedmont) and Biella (Piedmont); Cardinal Maurice of Savoy asks for Rocca di Baldi (Piedmont) and Turin (Piedmont); the Count of Acerra, Alphonse de Cárdenas, for Acerra (Naples), and for Ragusa (Sicily) their own jurors.[3121]

3118 Cf. EHI, p.92.

3119 Ibid., p.738-743 and 1337.

3120 Ibid., p.1924-1926.

3121 Cf. EC, p.73, 2247, 2248; C.3876; EHI, p.815, 1729.

In 1631, the syndics of Montella (Naples), Teramo (Abruzzo) and Alba (Piedmont) asked for a foundation[3122]. In 1632, the parish priest and the town asked for Cutigliano (Tuscany); for Castel S. Pietro (Romagna), a private individual; for Colle de Val d’Elsa (Tuscany), the local bishop and the town; for Città Sant’Angelo (Abruzzo), the jurors; for Gaeta (Naples), the Marquis of Belmonte, Charles Tapia; for Loano (Liguria), John Andrea Doria Landi, Prince of Amalfi; for Fara Sabina (Lazio), its priors; for Cherasco (Piedmont) and Manta (Piedmont), Card. Maurice of Savoy; for Fuscaldo (Calabria), the Marquis Francis Spinelli; for Cittá Ducale (Lazio), the local bishop; and for Nardò (Apulia), his own bishop.[3123]

3122 Cf. EHI, p. 1477, 1303, n. 1; CCP, p.129.

3123 Cf. EHI, p. 1184, 377, 848, 715, 860, 893, 916, 1843, 1844, 2109, 2112, 2218; C.1734, 1838.

In 1633, the year of the Castiglia memoranda riots, in addition to the particular interest in meeting the demands of Ancona and Cardinal Dietrichstein, the following foundations were rejected: Montepulciano (Tuscany), requested by the Confraternity of S. Stephan; Brisighella (Romagna), requested by Cardinal Augustine Galamini; those requested by the famous general of the imperial troops, Albert von Waldstein, for his territories in Bohemia and Silesia; for Belvedere Marittimo (Calabria), requested by its syndics; for S. Donato d’Orta (Naples), Cardinal John Baptist Pallotta; for Nicastro (Calabria), the bishop and the cathedral chapter; for Pistoia (Tuscany), the city itself; for Nocera (Naples), the syndics; for Matera (Naples), a private gentleman; for Cortona (Tuscany), the city; for Prague, Lugano, Padua and Cesena, we do not know who asked for it; for Sant’Angelo in Vado (Marche), the population; for Anagni (Lazio), the nobleman Horace Gaetani and the bishop; for Caltanisetta (Sicily), the viceroy, together with Palermo and Messina, who were accepted; for Bologna, the cardinal-archbishop Colonna.[3124]

3124 Cf. EHI, p.1467-1474; EC, p.1473; EEC, p.252, 1571, 743, 806, 1451, 1550, 1582, 607; C.2027, 2044, 2032, 2029, 2034; CCP, p.194-198, 190.

In 1634 he asked for Gurk (Austria) his own bishop and Cardinal Dietrichstein; for S. Cesareo (Modena), Card. Alexander Bichi; for Castroreale (Sicily), the jurors; for Cotrone (Calabria), the syndics; for Matelica (Marche) we do not know.[3125] In 1635 the towns of Monte Pagano (Naples), Agnone (Naples) and Ozieri (Sardinia) asked for foundation; for Brindisi (Puglia), the Spanish bishop and friend of Calasanz, John Falces; for Sospello (Liguria), its syndics, and for Trevignano Romano (Lazio), its priors.[3126] In 1636 they ask for foundation in Rapallo (Liguria) and Mondoví (Piedmont); in Marsciano (Umbria), their priors; in Pescina (Abruzzi), the bishop of Marsico and the syndics; in Occimiano (Piedmont), the consuls; in Rende (Calabria), the syndics and the cathedral Chapter; in Castelnuovo di Garfagnana (Tuscany), the town itself.[3127] In 1637, the marquis of the same name asked for a foundation for Spilamberto (Romagna); for Eboli (Napoli), the Duchess Victoria Doria, and for Popoli (Abruzzo) we do not know.[3128] In 1638 he asked for Trani (Puglia) an Oratorian priest; for Rotonda (Calabria), a knight; for Moncalieri (Piedmont), its syndics, and for Polizzi (Sicily), its jurors.[3129] In 1639 he asks for Acireale (Sicily) the bishop of Catania; for Noia (Puglia), the archpriest; for Novi (Naples), the bishop of Capaccio; for Sambuca (Sicily), the jurors.[3130]

3125 Cf. EEC, p.374-375; EHI, p.416, 614, 797 and 793, n.6.

3126 Cf. EC, p.463; EHI, p.6, 192, 913; EEC, p.2520; EHI, p. 2201.

3127 Cf. EHI, p.946, 962, 1419, 1423, 1551, 1771, 1793.

3128 Cf. EC, p.2l66; EHI, p.983, 933.

3129 Cf. EHI, p.237, 1064, 1466, 1708.

3130 Cf. EHI, p.454, 1729, 1581, 1926.

In the 1940s: in 1640 the town of Roccasecca (Naples) and that of S. Marcellus Pistoiese (Tuscany) asked for a foundation; Duke George Ossolinski asked for Leoburg and Klimontov (Poland); D. John de Salamanca, Major Chaplain of the Kingdom of Naples, asked for Altamura (Puglia), and the Marchioness of Campi, Mary Paladini, asked for Schinzano (Puglia); for Roccamonfina (Naples), the town, and for Bologna, a private gentleman.[3131] In 1641 the city of Como (Lombardy) requested a foundation; for Solofra (Naples) it was requested by the Duchess of Gravina, Dorothea Orsini, and the local trustees; for Vercelli (Piedmont), the local bishop; for Gubbio (Umbria), the delegate of the town; for Bevagna (Umbria), the consuls; for Motta d’Affermo (Sicily), Gregory Castelli, Count of Gagliano, and for Walladish (Moravia), Anna Proskova, Countess of Mezritz.[3132] In 1642 the towns of S. Pietro in Galatina (Puglia) and Andorno (Piedmont); the bishop of Vercelli for Villanova d’Asti (Piedmont); the bishop of Avignon and Nuncio in Poland, Mario Filonardi, for Avignon (France); for Rossano (Calabria), its syndics, and for Camaiore (Tuscany), a local lord.[3133] In 1643, the cities of Mazzara (Sicily), Alghero (Sardinia) and San Remo (Liguria); for Cava dei Tirreni (Naples), their trustees; for Porchia (Marche), some private benefactors and for Jászó (Hungary), the archbishop of Eger.[3134] In 1644, a chaplain of the Emperor requested a foundation in Feldkirchen (Switzerland); a private gentleman, for Taormina (Sicily); Count Ferdinand Kurz, for Horn (Austria); and the Duchess of Terranova, for Caccamo (Sicily).[3135] The Marquise of Quirra and Nules wanted a foundation in Valencia (Spain), and the bishop and Chapter of Bosa (Sardinia), in that city.[3136] Finally, in 1646, the cities of Foligno (Umbria), Sessa (Naples) and Pesaro (Marche) wanted Pious Schools; for Aversa (Naples) the Chapter asked for one; for Finale (Liguria), the consuls, and for Conversano (Puglia), a benefactor.[3137]

3131 Cf. EC, p.1703, 1104, 1627; EHI, p.1156, 1567,1798; EEC, p.139, n.7.

3132 Cf. EC. p.981; EHI. p.2081, 1275, 253, 376, 613: EEC. p.208.

3133 Cf. Ec, p.1719, 2136-2138, 2453; EEC, p.242; EHI, p. 1816-1818, 1576.

3134 Cf. EC, p.1242, 1507-1508, 2180, 688-690, 943, 1442.

3135 Cf. EC, p.449, 1049, 1631; EHI, p.2154.

3136 Cf. EHI, p.1883 and 1886.

3137 Cf. EHl, p.792, 1241, 1642, 314, 1670 and 1704. More information on these and other foundations not realized from 1619 to 1646 can be found in AGEP, Hist.Bibl., n.129.

So many petitions could be a cause for satisfaction and even pride, but also for worry and “diabolical temptation”, as the ever-pessimistic Casani wrote to the Founder from Nikolsburg on September 20, 1640 after the petition from Bologna: “Since I know that we have no men and that those we have are like only God knows! I fear very much that so many petitions are the work of the evil one.”[3138]

3138 EEC, p.137. In its beginnings the Society of Jesus also had similar problems in opening its colleges to the public. Their expansion was also vertiginous and they were unable to meet the requests for foundations due to their lack of suitable subjects for teaching. General Claudio Acquaviva (1581-1615), in thirteen years alone, rejected 150 proposals: Cf. L. GIL FERNÁNDEZ, Panorama social del humanismo español (1500-1800) (Madrid 1981), p.357-358; R. GARCÍA-VILLOSLADA, Manual de Historia de la Compañía de Jesus (Madrid 1954), p.239-240, 275-279.

In contrast to this very long list of 115 foundations that were not accepted, the number that were made it is very short, and not exactly the best for their prestige and benefits. Even in the selection of places, some small places were accepted and maintained with affection and fondness, in miserable and almost unknown villages, but rich in Piarist vocations and at the service of poor children, who exist culturally and economically more in villages and towns than in cities. And the preference for them was conscientious, as we could see on occasion.

From the birth of the Pauline Congregation of Pious Schools until the beginning of 1633, when the troubles of Cl. Castiglia began, the following houses were founded: four in Rome, namely: San Pantaleo, Novitiate, Borgo and Collegio Nazareno; two in Naples, i.e. the schools of the Duchesca and Porta Reale; one in Florence, although the schools and the professed house were housed in different buildings; and one house with schools in each of the following towns: Genoa, Savona, Carcare, Frascati, Narni, Moricone, Fanano, Nursia, Poli, Campi Salentina, Bisignano, San Salvatore Maggiore and Nikolsburg. There were also very short-lived foundations that only lasted a few years and were abandoned for various reasons. Thus, Mentana and Magliano (1618-1621), which were accepted and maintained during Cardinal Giustiniani’s lifetime out of consideration for him; Somma Vesuviana (1630-1631), which was destroyed by the eruption of the capricious Neapolitan volcano; the novitiate of Oregina-Genoa, which then passed to the house school inside the city (1624-1631). In total there were 24 houses, of which 20 were still open at the beginning of 1633, among which the Roman novitiate had no school.

There was also the residence of Posilipo (Naples) for the sick, convalescents and occasional retreats, which had not yet been legally founded and was not yet organized for its purpose; the residence of Cesena (Romagna) for the administrators of the goods of Collegio Nazareno, which had been inherited by Cardinal Tonti, and the four new foundations of Cosenza (Calabria), Ancona (Marche), Venice and Strasnitz (Moravia), which had already been accepted but not yet founded and in which some members of the Order were in charge of the accommodation work and were waiting for the foundation procedures to be completed.

In 1632, according to Calasanz’s declaration, the Order already numbered more than 300 religious, not counting the novices[3139], of whom perhaps a hundred or slightly more belonged to the four communities in Rome and the two in Naples.[3140] This left around 200 religious for all the others. If you assign a few of them to each of the six residences or houses being founded, that leaves about 188 religious to be distributed among the remaining 14 houses and their schools, an average of about 13 per house.[3141] Was this an excessive burden? Were there really too many houses for such a number of religious? Or had an appropriate balance been maintained despite the establishment of new foundations? The most pertinent answer was given by the troubled Founder, who said that “the gravest disgrace ever committed against religion” was to claim “that we take in more houses than we can manage.”

3139 Cf. Respuesta al Memorial de Inconvenientes: PosCas, p.835.

3140 Cf. G.-SÁNTHA, 350 anni a condita domo S. Pannleonis; EphCal 9-10 (1962) 274. The statistics of 1637 can give an idea of the correlation between houses and religious, although the number of both had grown (Cf. PosCas, p.933).

3141 The calculation proposed by Vilá (cf. PosCas., p.761-762) does not seem acceptable, because not even in 1637 did the number of religious of all the houses of Rome and Naples reach 150 (7 houses and 133 religious) (cf. PosCas, p.933 ) and because the remaining 150 religious (there were 300 in 1632) were distributed among a series of houses, of which in 1632 Mentana, Magliano, Oregina and Somma Vesuviana had already been closed, as we have said, and Paverano would be founded in 1676.

The seriousness of the papal prohibition

When Calasanz lamented this most serious disgrace in mid-February 1633, he did not yet know the practical decisions that had been made “in the Palace”. He only hoped at that time to be able to answer the slanderous memoranda before the Roman Curia in order to save the honor of the Order. Even when Cl. Castiglia recanted with a public memorandum at the beginning of March, he perhaps thought that the problem had been solved. However, this was not the case.

In the numerous letters written to Cherubini in particular, we can observe the Founder’s reactions to the attitude of the Holy See as a consequence of Castiglia’s defamatory writings. And the trigger was the founding of the Pious Schools in the city of Ancona. There was talk of this in the first months of 1630, and from then on, the city council never ceased to take an interest in achieving this goal.[3142] From the end of October 1632, Father Cherubini moved to Ancona to direct the works in the school. Father General’s plan is the one he sets out very clearly in a letter dated January 19, 1633: “I intend, with the Lord’s help, to send three or four Fathers at the end of March to start three schools, i.e. one for grammar, one for writing and arithmetic and one for reading, but with the condition that they should not insist about increasing the number of classes until the work is completed.[3143]

3142 Cf. C.2015 and EHI, p.64, n.1.

3143 C.1955. And he expected the works to last two years (C.1974).

In the first months of 1633, both Cherubini and the Deputies and Elders of Ancona tried to bring forward the dates and increase the number of classes and religious, but the Saint stuck to his plan that there should only be three; that they would not go before Easter and that those of Ancona should obtain the necessary authorization from Cardinal Ginetti.[3144] Everything seems to be normal, even the founding permission, as the General writes in his letter of March 26th, the Easter Vigil: “We will also try on our part to obtain Our Lord’s approval, about which these Elders need not be surprised or regret it, for such permission has always been necessary, since they especially asked for it at His Emm. Card. Ginetti a few months ago.”[3145]

3144 Cf. C.1950, 1974, 1980, 1984, 1987.

3145 C.2001. Particularly it began to be necessary since the decision taken before Ginetti in 1631 (cf. EGC V, p.23).

From mid-March, however, he begins to allude to obstacles to authorizing foundations, but in such a veiled way that Fr. Cherubini does not quite understand what is going on, and the General begins to improve his tone by clarifying his ideas: “V. R. continues to insist on the promise I made to the city of Ancona to send you three at the end of March - he writes on the 30th of this month - and you do not see, or do not seem to know, that the obstacle comes from the prohibition of His Holiness, which I cannot oppose or contradict.”[3146] The Founder himself begins to discover that this firm papal prohibition is a consequence of the Castiglia memoranda. Although he publicly withdrew them, the idea remained fixed in the Palace, which he himself aptly described in mid-February as “the greatest calumny”[3147]

3146 Cf. C.2002 and 1990, 1994, 1999.

3147 “…they are so sturborn in the palace that we take houses in a greater number than those that can be serve for…” (C.2008. Date: April 2, 1633); “the Superiors have swallowed this point extraordinarily” (C.201 l. Date: April 6, 1633); “they have got into their heads that other remedy therefore is not found if not to prohibit us to open new houses” (C.2018. Date: April 6, 1633).

These complicated circumstances clearly reveal the character of Calasanz as he would later appear in the last great tribulation of his life. And these are his attitudes:

1. Obedience to the orders of the Holy See, which must be obeyed voluntarily or by force, even if it is known that they are based on slanderous reports, in this case the memoranda of Castiglia. Father Alacchi and his companions left Venice in mid-May and reached in Ancona. Cherubini thought that he could open the schools with them without having to insist on papal authorization, which held back those who came from Rome. Calasanz, however, decided not to open the schools with the Venetians until he had obtained the pope’s or the Cardinal Vicar’s license, because that would be counterproductive;[3148]
3148 “I cannot tell Y. R. to open the schools with those subjects who have come [from Venice], but you should have patience for now” (C.2038. Date: May 14, 1633); “it is less convenient to open the schools with those who are there, so as not to irritate the Superiors more” (C.2042. Date: May 21, 1633).

2. He heroically resigned himself to endure this trial, which he believed was permitted by the will of God, with patience, and recommended it to others: “As long as God our Lord does not open his heart to those who can help us, it is necessary to be patient”; “if the blessed God allows obstacles in the execution of good intentions, it is necessary to be patient, if not out of love, at least with force”; “it is necessary that we all recognize in these difficulties the will of God as it really is.”[3149]
3149 C.2022, 2035, 2041.

3. Convinced that all this is the work of the devil - because it stems from slander and injustice - to destroy the Order, he fully trusts in the help of God and his most holy Mother. Here is an eloquent paragraph: “I have firm hope in God, who can do more than all hell, which has been unleashed against us and wants to bring us down to earth, fearing that our Institute, if properly practiced, will go directly against its arts. May Our Lady, our Mother, help us and provide us with everything we need.”[3150]
3150 C.2046.

4. Persistent and without losing heart, he is determined to use the appropriate means to get the supreme authorities of the Church to retract their wrong and unjust decisions: “I hope so much to insist - he writes with a certain evangelical resonance - that they will take the trouble from us”; “we will strike hard without growing weary, so that I am sure we will succeed in breaking the hard stone of the obstacle.”[3151]
3151 C.2018, 2028.

On May 26th, Calasanz still complained in a letter to Cherubini that Ginetti persisted in his refusal. Two days later, however, he wrote to him again and said: “I have the best hope that we will soon be allowed to send the three promised to Ancona.”[3152] What had happened?

3152 C.2047 and 2046.

The mediation of Cardinals Dietrichstein and Ginetti

At the end of September of the previous year, before the storm of the Castiglia memoranda, Father General had sent six religious to Moravia, including Father John B. Costantini as the first novice master. The new house in Strasnitz was already prepared to receive the first Piarists. Cardinal Dietrichstein wanted more religious, and knowing that the General would refuse them with the usual excuse of lack of trained personnel, he wrote a letter to the cardinals of the Congregation for the Propaganda Fide, on which depended not only the regions of unbelievers but also those of heretics, as was the case in Moravia (Germania). The Cardinal’s long letter was an extraordinary praise for the work of the Piarists in their countries, and for this reason he asked: “I beg Your Eminences to impose on Father General not to stop sending workers to continue the zeal they have begun, so that they may dedicate their work in the vineyard of the Lord and cultivate the new plants in our afflicted countries, and if it is necessary, to ask His Holiness to order this, because in truth one sees every day the great fruits that these good Fathers produce.”[3153]

3153 EC, p.1369.

This letter, dated May 5, 1633, reached the Congregation of Propaganda Fide between the 26th and 28th of the same month. Cardinal Ginetti or the secretary of the Congregation, Msgr. Francis Ingoli, probably read it to Calasanz, who with optimism and deep satisfaction gave Father Cherubini “very good hope”, as we have just seen. And without getting up from the table, he wrote to Cardinal Dietrichstein the same day and told him:

“The letter that Your Eminence has written to the Sacred Congregation for Propaganda Fide seems to me to be the work of the Holy Spirit, since a certain aversion to our Institute has arisen in the minds of some Superiors and it has been heard that the sending of our people to foreign lands is not approved by all, since they are so few and not as well prepared as in other Religions…. More than ever, I am ready to continue the enterprise we have begun, and I am sure that the furious onslaught of hell, which fears to suffer great losses through our poor family in these and other places, will not overthrow us. Rest assured, Monsignor, that I will do all in my power to serve you…. I hope to send you some more soon, among whom I would like to join, so that I can personally show you my affection in the service of Your Eminence and for the good of your subjects.”[3154]

3154 C.2049.

The immediate effect of Dietrichstein’s letter was - it seems - the granting of licenses to send the religious who had been promised to open the schools in Ancona, albeit strictly limited to three, as agreed. The ‘Old Holy Man’s’ statement in a letter to Cherubini on June 11th sounds like a cry of victory: “At last we have all been comforted by the schools, as I have already written to you twice.”[3155] The founding problem of Ancona was thus solved.

3155 C.2059. These two letters have been lost. The immediately preceding one to Cherubini (c.2052) is dated June 2nd and still does not communicate the great news to him. On July 6th he wrote to him: “I will say nothing more about the schools since I do not want in any way more than three to go to the school to teach, because of the agreement made in this way, and because of the restricted faculty granted to me by His Em. Card. Vicar” (C.2071).

The curious thing was that Dietrichstein’s letter was read out at the meeting of the Congregation for Propaganda Fide on June 13, 1633, and although it was noted “that these religious are very much accepted in those countries not only by Catholics but also by heretics, who are being converted to the Catholic faith in no small numbers through the work of these religious”,” it was decided that Father General should be informed by Ginetti of the opinion of the Congregation and that a letter should be sent to the Cardinal of Moravia to inform him that “this religion, which has only recently been founded and lacks suitable subjects, cannot send any more religious to Moravia.”[3156] After the introductory praise of the effective work of the Piarists, one would least expect the conclusion that the Order did not have suitable subjects and was therefore forbidden to send any more to these regions.

3156 Cf. the decree in BARTLIK: EphCal 2 (1943) 44.

On June 25th, the secretary, Msgr. Ingoli, informed Dietrichstein of the Congregation’s categorical rejection.[3157] Calasanz, without having spoken to Ginetti, made a more sympathetic impression and informed Dietrichstein that the Congregation had left the matter to Ginetti. “Upon learning of this,” he wrote, “I immediately went to him with our four Assistants to urge him and make him aware of the difficulties involved in traveling to these areas in the fall, and he told us to send them as soon as possible. He therefore concluded by saying, “I humbly beg you, if it seems to you that I should delay the fulfillment of your just demands, of which I affectionately desire to be the promptest executor “[3158].

3157 Cf. EEC, p.372.

3158 C.2068. Dated June 25, 1633.

The Moravian cardinal received both letters and answered them on the same day, July 22nd. To Msgr. Ingoli he expressed his displeasure at the refusal of the Congregation and added: “I hope that God will inspire His Holiness to bow to my just desire by at least giving Father General permission to send half a dozen religious.”[3159] And to Father General he said, hurt by the refusal of the Congregation and hoping for the good disposition of Ginetti, that he would write again to him and to the Pope to ask them to admit some Fathers “who will come to us to continue the good beginning, against which I hope the devil’s attempts will not prevail”[3160]

3159 EEC, p.372.

3160 Ibid., p.371.

He probably kept his word by writing to Ginetti and the Pope, because on August 13, the Congregation returned to the matter at Ginetti’s suggestion, but maintained its negative attitude.[3161] The same thing happened in 1634, when the Bishop of Gurk (Austria), Don Sebastian de Lodrun, wrote to Propaganda Fide asking for a foundation of Piarists, and the said Congregation refused him the license again in the meeting of March 13th, citing the same reasons.[3162] The bishop was not discouraged and sought another way, approaching Card. Dietrichstein at the end of August to intercede with the Piarists of his diocese so that they would send him some. The Cardinal conveyed the request to Calasanz and the latter wisely replied, “I will have the particular grace through Your Eminence that this matter be postponed until a better opportunity and in the meantime, I will always send help to Father Peregrino...”[3163]

3161 “…referente eodem Emmo. Ginetto, iteratam, instantiam d. Card. Dietrichstein pro aliquibus Patribus Sch. P. in Moraviam mittendis, S. Congregatio stetit in Decretis ut differatur haec missio…” (Ib., p.372).

3162 Ibid., p.375, n.2 and G. SÁNTHA, Card. Princeps F. Dietrichstein EphCal 2 (1960) 49.

3163 C.2286, dated October 21, 1634. The letters of the bishop of Gurk and the cardinal in EEC, p.374-375.

The official position of Propaganda Fide remained firmly in the negative, but had undoubtedly placed the matter in the prudent hands of Ginetti. He had given permission for the opening of the Pious Schools in Ancona in June 1633 and shortly afterwards instructed Father General to send the religious requested by Dietrichstein to Moravia as soon as possible. In this case, Calasanz himself asked for a delay, as he considered it very painful to make the journey in autumn (in summer because of the heat and even more so in winter because of the cold), and he postponed it until spring, apologizing to Dietrichstein for the delay.[3164] And indeed, on April 25, four religious left for Nikolsburg, including a Tyrolean and a Swiss.[3165] In a letter dated August 25, 1634, he reminded the Cardinal that he had sent him these four religious and promised to send him as many in the next few days.[3166]

3164 Cf. the texts of C.2068, cit. in n.3158.

3165 Cf. BARTLIK: EphCal 4 (1943) 106. The Tyrolean Fr. Felber was already a priest, and that same day, April 25th, he made his solemn profession with a dispensation of some months of the second year of novitiate (cf. EEC, p.404, n.1), and the Swiss Br. Vuoln was still a novice (cf. EEC, p.925, n.3). It is probable that Calasanz waited for spring, not because it was a better time to travel to Moravia, but to be able to send these two German-speaking novices with a certain guarantee of acceptability, together with Fathers Tomas Panello and Glicerio Cerutti. The reference to autumn as unsuitable for travel was an excuse for Ginetti and Dietrichstein’s haste.

3166 Cf. C.2262. In this case the trip would be in late summer or early autumn and it was not an obstacle, as he told before.

Once again, therefore, things returned to normal, leaving aside the absolute prohibitions and placing a certain amount of control in the hands of Ginetti, who for his part was well aware of the prudence with which the Founder was proceeding in this matter. This is confirmed by a third example, in addition to those of Ancona and Nikolsburg: at the end of 1633, the foundations for a new foundation were laid in Palermo by Father Alacchi, to whom the Founder promised in several letters to obtain the necessary permission to send the suitable personnel.[3167]

3167 “I will procure a license to send you subjects for this purpose” (C.2156. Dated December 17, 1633); “when it is ready (the building) we will see about sending some fathers” (CCP, p.194, dated December 22, 1633).

This whole storm, provoked by the malicious memoranda of Cl. Castiglia and perhaps excessively maintained even after his withdrawal, was overcome by the patience and tenacity of the Holy Founder, supported by the benevolence and understanding of Ginetti and the protection and urging of Dietrichstein. But the idea that provoked the restrictions - and which Calasanz called infamy - will remain in the atmosphere of the Roman Curia, like a sword of Damocles over the head of the Order.

The reappearance of Father Alacchi

To many - not excluding the Holy Founder - Father Melchior Alacchi’s Jacobean pilgrimage must have seemed too short when he arrived in the port of Naples at the end of May 1629[3168]. He had tried to extend it by embarking in Lisbon for the East Indies. But a storm forced him to return to the port of departure. There he left his companion, Father Sebastian Montagnani - who later settled in Zafra (Badajoz) until his death - and crossed the peninsula to Barcelona, where he embarked for Sardinia and disembarked in Cáller at the beginning of 1629. He had left Genoa in October 1627.

3168 Cf. C.1115. Date: June 2, 1629. Sántha falsely supposes that he arrived at the beginning of September (cf. G. SÁNTHA, P. Melchior Alacchi: Archivum 13 [1983] 36).

Alacchi is undoubtedly one of the most curious, strange and contradictory figures in the entire Calasanz milieu. Throughout his life, he created problems of coexistence wherever he was, whether in large communities or with just one or two companions. On the other hand, he had special gifts to win the admiration and protection of high personalities. He was the typical case of a religious who did not get on with his brothers in the monastery, but made friends everywhere. And not to avoid following the rules and gain privileges and advantages for his own benefit. He was also the skillful man who was entrusted with problems that others did not know how to solve, whether in diplomacy or public relations, administration or housekeeping. And in this atmosphere of extreme poverty, which was generally desired and known, it was easy to slip into misery and have difficulty maintaining an appropriate level in the houses that had just been opened or were in need of renovation. In such situations, Father Melchior sometimes intervened as the person responsible for building or renovation work, seeking and finding funds to finance it. Although he was extremely frugal with himself, he tended to exceed the meager standard of living imposed by the pauperistic austerity of others, such as Casani, which provoked protests and accusations of laxity.

For all these reasons, Father Alacchi was always a “sign of contradiction” until his death. Nevertheless, it would be unfair to consider him an anecdotal figure who, given his oddities and eccentricities, has no more transcendence than to add a colorful and exotic touch to the Calasanctian biography. Beyond his faults and virtues, his deep and sincere love for the Order and its Founder clearly stands out.

However, it is not easy to define what the latter felt for him in the sincerity of his soul. He recognized his positive gifts and used them to the point allowed by some of his assistants, such as Ottonelli, Casani and Castelli; he permitted, perhaps with exaggerated ease, the criticisms and serious accusations against him, without coming to his defense, even when they came from those who did not deserve such credibility; the harshness with which he sometimes treated him in his personal letters, exposing his faults, contrasts with the confidence with which he requested his presence and his help in serious matters for the Order. One might think that his own initiatives or undertakings, entrusted to him by the Founder, would have been more successful if Alacchi had felt more defended and supported by him, and effectively done. It can also be assumed that Calasanz was unable or inhibited from defending Alacchi and emphasizing his merits, so as not to clash with the general dislike of the Sicilian, which was based on his difficult character, but also on the envy and quarrels typical of friars.

Where his love for the Order and his positive contribution are most evident is in his tireless attitude of glorifying and spreading the Institute wherever he went. He is like a driving force whose somewhat thoughtless and reckless idealism contrasts with the realistic moderation of the Founder, who responds by first slowing down and then, in some cases, giving in. Also striking is Alacchi’s tendency to found in large cities - Caller, Ancona, Venice, Padua, Lugano, Palermo, Messina - where it is easier to ensure the financial support of the houses and the religious and to accommodate a larger number of students, in contrast to the Founder’s preference for small and poor towns. It is therefore not in vain that Father Melchior’s wanderings and problems deserve our attention.

In late 1628 or early 1629, Father Melchior left the port of Barcelona and arrived in Cáller, the capital of the Kingdom of Sardinia, which was under Spanish sovereignty. At his own risk, he met with the city authorities and suggested to them and the Viceroy of Sardinia that they ask the Father General of the Order to found Pious Schools. Persuaded by Father Melchior’s convincing words, the Conselleros de Cáller - as they called themselves - wrote a valuable letter in perfect Spanish to Father Founder on January 31, 1629, after presenting their requests to the viceroy, in which they said:

“When Father Melchior of All Saints came to this city, we learned of the great benefit, both in virtues and in human letters, which the holy Religion of your Most Reverend Paternity has brought to this city of Rome and other cities of the Christendom, where it has a convent, with great service to the Lord God. And desiring that this city may partake of so great a treasure for the good of those who dwell therein, it has requested His Excellency the Viceroy of this Kingdom by a memorandum… ... to intercede for you to honor this city by making it worthy of such a holy Religion … that it is trusted that both Majesties [God and the King of Spain] will be very well served and this city will be greatly improved in holiness and virtue by this foundation.”[3169]

3169 EHI, p.461.

On February 16, 1629, the Viceroy, Don Jerome Pimentel y Zúñiga, Marquis of Bayonne, also wrote to him to support the petition of the “Conselleros”: “I will do it, -he said- with all my heart and with them I beg your Reverend Paternity, assuring you that it will be a special grace, since I will be very pleased that in my time [1627-1631] something so much to the service of both Majesties will be accomplished.”[3170]

3170 Ibid., p.1693.

Calasanz must have reacted very sensitively, as he refused the request, citing the usual reasons for the lack of trained personnel. In addition, the Pope’s ban (which the Founder himself had asked for) on accepting new foundations for two years was still in force at this time.[3171] But perhaps he was not referring to this decree, as it was dated June 27, 1627 and was only valid until June 1629, i.e. four months after the viceroy’s request. So, nothing was done at that time. But eleven years later, in November 1640, the Piarists arrived in Cáller to found a house and thus meet the new demands of the town.

3171 Cf. EphCal 5 (1959) 199, n.38.

Melchior sailed from Sardinia to Sicily and visited friends and relatives without haste in order to obtain a donation for the foundation of a novitiate in Naro, his home town. “It would be good - Father General wrote when he heard about it - but there are no people to take care of it.”[3172] He left the island at the end of May and disembarked in Naples, where he was admitted to the college ‘Porta Reale’, where Fr. Provincial Pedro Casani was rector. At this time, the purchase of an adjoining house was initiated to remedy the extreme hardship in which they were living, much to the delight of Father Casani, as Caputi notes in these moving lines:

3172 C.1115.

“The Fathers really lived so uncomfortably and cramped in the new house, five to a room, that Father Melchior, such an ardent man, felt as if he were sitting on a rack. Father Peter [Casani] had arranged it in such a way that he had built partitions and walls of boards and mats which were not enough to keep out the cold and were so full of bugs that it looked like a place not for hermits but rather for animals. Father Peter did not want to take another house either, he wanted everyone to enjoy the misery.”[3173]

3173 Cited in SCOMA I, n.60. He does not quote Caputi literally, but rather summarizes it.

However, Father General was not satisfied with this plight and wrote in mid-June: “As for buying the little house, given the great need to extend it a little, I would like to acquire it as soon as possible, and if that is not possible and they have to remain in the discomfort they are now in, then it will be considered whether it would not be more convenient to look for a place elsewhere, as they will not lack for anything in Naples.”[3174] A week later, the house was bought. The Provincial left the renovation work to Father Alacchi, who completed it in a few months to the satisfaction of the General and the Provincial.[3175] Nevertheless, there was no lack of differences of opinion between Father Melchior and Father Casani because of their different attitudes towards poverty and its manifestations, which were reflected in the General’s appraising judgments against Alacchi at the end of the work.[3176] Alacchi’s irascibility may also have been triggered by the frequent interference of Father Cherubini, whose control over the works and expenditure the General demanded or ordered in his letters.[3177] One or the other provoked his reaction; at the beginning of October 1629, he began to put forward his wish for a pilgrimage to Jerusalem.

3174 C.1129.

3175 “As for the construction of Porta Reale, it seems to me that the Provincial has a great taste for the way it is being done and I hope that it will be pleasing when it is finished according to what he writes me.” (c.1196) “They write to me that the refectory and the kitchen of the house of Porta Reale have succeeded very well, that there will be 35 cells which seems to me a great thing in such a small house” (C.1231) (cf. SCOMA I, nn.60-61).

3176 Calasanz regrets the debts incurred in the works and the whim of Fr. Melchior to have put a fountain in the middle of the dining room (cf. C.I237), while Alacchi in his Memoirs accuses Casani of having spent a lot of money digging the subsoil of the house in search of hidden treasures (cf. SCOMA I, n.62).

3177 Cf. c.1133, 1142, 11l47, 1156, 1157, etc.

Father General accepted the idea from the outset, convinced that the actions and reactions of the controversial Sicilian made his presence intolerable and that the best solution was to keep him away. This was one of the occasions when the Founder pronounced his harshest judgments against Alacchi: “As for Father Melchior - he said - I believe that he continues with his arrogance and haste, and therefore I intend to give him permission to go to Jerusalem to deal with his fervors there, because since he is here and does not accept obedience as he should, I cannot help but resent him for past things.” And further: “I will send the permission for Father Melchior, who will not rest until he dies.”[3178] And so, it would indeed be. But the one who would stir up this unrest and exploit it for the good of the Order would be the very Father Founder.

3178 C.1226, 1231 and 1242.

On November 29, 1629, Father General signed a travel permit (obedience), the broad terms of which indicate a desire to keep him away as long as possible to give him the possibility to promote new foundations with the promise to send him co-founders.[3179] A serious illness kept him bedridden until the end of the year[3180], so that he left Naples well into January on his way to Ancona, although he was forbidden to pass through Rome.[3181] In Ancona he would embark for Venice, from where the ships sailed to the east. During the twenty days he spent in Ancona, waiting for the passage to the lagoon city, he contacted some personalities and local authorities and proposed the establishment of Pious Schools. And indeed, in June of the same year, the council approved the idea and the official procedures began, culminating, after many difficulties, as we have already seen, with the opening of the schools in July 1633.[3182]

3179 “Licentiam tibi concedimus, ut non solum ad loca Terrae Sanctae, sed etiam, si occasio tibi se obtulerit, ad Indias Orientales contendas, et in itinere quaecum loca sacra, quocumque te ire contigerit, pro salute animarum et tua consolatione, invisere valeas. Et si Institutum nostrum ab aliquibus Dominis seu communitatibus postulatum fuerit, statim per litteras nobis significes, ut tibi socios ex nostris fratribus submittamus» (SCOMA I, n. 65).

3180 Cf. C.1283 and 1284.

3181 C.1293.

3182 Cf. SCOMA I, n.69; EHI, p.64, n.1. To this foundation Calasanz gave particular strategic value as a stopover to go to Venice, to Germany through Trieste and to the East through Dalmatia (cf. CCP. p.86 and 130).

The failed foundation in Venice

At the beginning of March 1630, Father Melchior traveled from Ancona to Venice and was warmly received by the bishop of the island of Torcello, Mark Zeni. He appointed him as his confessor and examiner of the clergy and gave him the authority to hear confessions, preach and administer the sacraments throughout the diocese, including to the nuns in the convent, while he prepared for his journey to the East. However, between March and April, the terrible plague that Manzoni remembered had struck Lombardy the previous fall broke out in Venice, and as there was no possibility of making the journey at the moment, “he decided - writes Scoma - not only to stay in this city, but also to devote himself to the spiritual service of the plague patients.”[3183]

3183 Cf. SCOMA I, nn.71-72, 76.

As in Ancona, soon after his arrival in Venice he began to publicize the new Order of Pious Schools and to solicit support and influence for its foundation. In mid-April, he wrote to Father General that he was thinking of publishing the Constitutions in Venice as a means of propaganda, especially for the attention of the civil and ecclesiastical authorities. The General answered him that he would not give the license, with the excuse that there were some points that needed to be changed, and added the following words “I tell you that it is not possible to establish our Institute there, because we have no subjects who could give satisfaction to such a city; for in this matter we must proceed with great deliberation and undertake nothing that we cannot fulfill and carry out with honor.”[3184] There is no more clarity in the refusal, despite what he had written in the travel authorization (obedience). But in the depths of his soul, he not only desired a foundation in Venice, but was confident that Father Melchior would achieve it. In fact, before Alacchi left Naples, Calasanz had written to Father Garcia: “I am waiting to hear whether our work in Venice will be authorized by his means.”[3185]

3184 C.1365. Date: April 19, 1630.

3185 C.1284.

The restrictions imposed by the plague, from which he had been ill for a while, and the worries about setting up a foundation in Venice made Father Melchior completely forget the project of a pilgrimage to the Holy Land. On the other hand, the enthusiasm with which he laid the basis’s foundations won Father General’s express will, although circumstances caused him to waver between doubt and hope for success until the very end. However, he did not remain passive, but did everything in his power from Rome and followed the events of this complicated foundation process step by step in his letters.

He wrote “summaries” or short reports about the Order and sent them to Venice; he asked the Venetian ambassador in Rome for a recommendation by means of the French ambassador and the plenipotentiary of the Duke of Bavaria; he very often entrusted the success of the foundation to the prayers of the children and the religious; he told Fr. Melchior to ask Father Jacob Montanari of Bagnacavallo for advice and help, who was then retired in Venice and was a great friend of Calasanz, as we have already seen; without having obtained the authorization of the Senate to open the schools, he sent him some religious, two of them from the Serene Republic: Father John Mussesti and his son Peter.[3186]

3186 Cf. G. SÁNTHA, o.c., p.40 and 43; C.1555, 1559, 1566.

Father Alacchi, trusting in the protection of the ecclesiastical authorities, but with undoubted haste, impatience and rashness, not only rented a house in September 1631, but began to teach “privately” at the beginning of 1632, contrary to the express opinion of Calasanz, who had written to him with great caution at the end of 1631:

“If you begin to make school in any way, and are not hindered by other religious or laymen, we will see that you get suitable subjects, provided that the magistrate to whom it corresponds consents, for without his consent it is not right to undertake the introduction of our Institute; proceed, therefore, with great caution on this point, lest, believing you have accomplished something, you find yourself as at first, or excluded at worst”.[3187]

3187 C. I729. Again in C.1763, 1768, etc.

Alacchi, on the other hand, prepared a private oratory at home and had it blessed by one of the patriarch’s auxiliary bishops. When the two Mussesti arrived, he organized a kind of ceremonial inauguration of the Pious Schools in April 1632. Things apparently went well, so in July he rented an adjoining house to extend the premises and then wanted to have a small church added. The Patriarch agreed, but the opposition and complaints made him give up.[3188]

3188 Cf. C.1765, 1813, 1822; SCOMA II, nn.133, 136, 139, 152.

Although the Holy Founder was enthusiastic about the foundation in Venice, he was not entirely on board, as he saw real dangers in the ecclesiastical as well as the civil and political fields, and the fact that they had not yet received the necessary authorizations from the Senate at that time kept him on his toes. On November 13, 1632, he wrote to Alacchi: “The work in this city would please me very much; but I have strong doubts that the enemy, if we think of it, will not throw it to the ground; therefore, as I said before, we must be very careful in everything.”[3189] And although he loved this foundation, he was also resigned to losing it, seeing in it the will of God, as he told Alacchi:

3189 C.1915; CCP, p.163.

“From the words addressed to you by His Excellency Pedro Foscarini, as you write to me, I understand that all the troubles that Your Reverence has taken until now and that you will take upon yourself from now on will be in vain. For this I thank the Lord, as if it were the happiest thing that could happen to us, for all things must be taken from the Lord’s providential hand, as from the first and chief efficient cause, which leads everything to its perfect end by ways hidden from human prudence.”[3190]

3190 C.1869. The same feelings in C.1822, 1898, etc.; CCP, p.136-137, 165.

And the fears came true.

Father Melchior had committed many imprudences and arbitrary acts, both internally and externally. Once again - and not for the last time - he did not know how to create an atmosphere of conviviality, nor did he know how to maintain the proper regularity which the Founder constantly complained about in his letters.[3191] He dressed and admitted to the profession and kept incompetent persons against the will of Father General.[3192] He was conspicuous for his oddities, such as building himself a kind of hut on a pear tree in the garden of the house, into which he withdrew, something he had already done ostentatiously during the plague.[3193] More serious was his enmity with the Theatines for he did not inform them of his presence when he settled near them; then he opened the schools and converted the private oratory into a public one, even installing a bell to warn the faithful.[3194] And the bell was heard in the Senate and with it the accusation that the schools, house and church had been opened without due authorization. At the end of April 1633, an inspection of the Senate took place, during which Alacchi was rather insolent, provoking the reaction of the senators, who ordered him to leave Venice in four days.[3195]

3191 Cf. SCOMA II, nn.96, 113; CCP, p.94-95; C.1604, 1612, 1617, etc.

3192 Cf. SCOMA, nn.86-87, 103, 117, 118, 128-130.

3193 Ibid., nos. 154, 158, 160, 166; C.1873, 1910.

3194 Calasanz did not understand the opposition of the Theatines, as he wrote on November 8, 1631 (C.1711).

3195 Cf. SCOMA II, n. 168. Another imprudence was to favor the candidacy of the Camaldolese Fr. Tito Zeni Rua for the see of Padua, left vacant by Federico Cornaro, when he was appointed Patriarch of Venice. The other candidate was Marco Antonio Cornaro, Primicerius of Venice, who obtained the appointment, and therefore little support could be expected from him. Calasanz constantly speaks of this matter in his letters to Alacchi. Fr. Bagnacavallo was the one who induced Fr. Alacchi and Calasanz himself to support the Camaldolese (cf. SCOMA II, nn.105, 106, 135, 138, 141).

Obviously, there was another political reason: the enmity of the Serene Republic of St. Mark against Spain. Those who were against Father Melchior and the establishment of the Pious Schools added to the other accusations the malicious insinuation that “he called himself a Spaniard because he was Sicilian”, which made him a possible spy for Spain; moreover, his Founder and General was Spanish and might one day betray the Serenissima.[3196] The Saint felt the blow and, understanding the seriousness of the accusation, he diplomatically tried to soften his own actual Spaniardship and the supposed Spaniardship of the entire Order by saying: “Except for me, who am now entering my 74th year, 40 of them I have been in Rome, there is only one other Spaniard, who is in Moravia and is called Father Anthony [Rodríguez] of the Blessed Sacrament; all the others are Italian, French and German; there is one other [Spaniard] who is ready to go to Spain [Father José Freyxo]. So, after my death, there will be no memory of Spaniards in our Religion.”[3197]

3196 Not without a certain ironic allusion to the denigrated “hut on the pear tree”, Scoma writes: “Fr. Melchior was accused again in the Senate for the small room made above the tree, as if he had to use it to spy on enemies of the Republic for being a subject of Spain and Sicilian, and his Spanish Founder and General could one day cause some treason.” (ibid., nn.160 and 166).

3197 C.1662. Date: August 9, 1631. There was another Spaniard, Fr. John Garcia, who had been at his side for 20 years and would succeed him as second General of the Order, but juridically he was not yet a Piarist, since he began his canonical novitiate on December 12, 1631, four months after the date of this letter (cf. EphCal 2 [1961] 69, n.39). If here it was convenient for him to attenuate his and the Order’s Spanishness, on another occasion he did not hesitate to emphasize it because it was convenient for him - and in this game of conveniences is the diplomatic nuance - saying that it was an Institute highly esteemed and required in all Europe and “particularly in the kingdoms of his Catholic Majesty and moreover founded by a Spanish Father known to His Excellency Constable Colonna” (C.4300). Bau saw in these expressions a “very high diplomatic value” (cf. BAU, BC, p.66), but Picanyol regretted that diplomatic, political and nationalistic attitudes were attributed to the Saint that he never had (cf. commentary on C.1662 and Rass 18 [1951] 35). Bau responded by expanding his thesis in two tense but well-reasoned articles (En torno del epistolario de S. Jose de Calasanz: RevCal 12 [1957] 379-384; El ángulo político en la vida de S. Jose de Calasanz: ibid., p.198-203). Later, G. L. Moncallero also regretted Bau’s expression, but paradoxically coinciding with his idea by contrasting Venice and Spain (cf. CCP, p.100-101).

A year later, Calasanz again alludes to this anti-Spanish distrust of the Venetians when he tries to get them to grant him exemption from mail, and again he emphasizes his “being Roman” towards his condition as an Aragonese by saying: “I doubt that it [exemption from mail] can be obtained, especially while I live, for I am Argonian by nation, but Roman by sentiment and custom, having been in Rome for more than 40 years now and having completely forgotten my homeland.”[3198]

3198 C.1849. Date: August 7, 1632.

It does not appear, however, that this political distrust carried much weight, except as a reinforcement of the complex personality of the Sicilian AIacchi. From the letter in which the General responds to the denunciation of his Spanishness and the Order (August 9, 1631) to the expulsion (May 1, 1633), almost two years pass without any negative reaction from the public authorities, who also prove to be benevolent by granting the requested right to free post.[3199] The order of expulsion was apparently given exclusively to Father Melchior, as Scoma writes, supported by Caputi:

3199 Scoma notes that this franchise was maintained until 1721 (Scoma II, n.142).

“His Eminence Card. and Patriarch Cornaro knew everything, and having summoned his Vicar General, he sent him to Father Melchior to tell him to go alone, for as soon as matters had calmed down, he would have him recalled; in the meantime, he was to let the others continue in the schools, as he himself would in time obtain the consent of the Senate. But the father replied that, as he did not deserve to be treated like this, he would do no other than take them all away. And having immediately found a ship, he embarked with the others and the poor things they had at home and left for Ancona on May 1st.”[3200]

3200 Ib, n.169.

It was a reaction that was very typical of Alacchi’s rough, primary and impatient character, and above all of his vanity and arrogance, which the Holy Founder so often deplored. He was incapable of humbly acknowledging that the main cause of the Venetians’ resistance was his own person and not the Institute he represented.[3201] Had he listened to the Patriarch, he would have left his companions there and perhaps saved the foundation. But he did not. His presence in Venice therefore ended in total failure.[3202]

3201 Moncallero wrote aptly: “The legitimate cause is not to be sought, in this case, in the antipathy for a religious Order founded by a Spaniard, but is to be found in the odium in personam, in the hostility, even if undeclared, against Alacchi.” (CCP, p.49). See the splendid letter of Calasanz (C.1919) lamenting the vanity of Alacchi, manifested in his letter of November 13, 1632 (EHI, p.26-28), which is a kind of apology of himself.

3202 See Moncallero’s judgment on Alacchi’s failure in Venice (CCP, p.180-182) and that of Sántha (o.c., p.38-46).

Back to Sicily: the final foundation

Father Melchior arrives in Ancona with his companions, indignant and angry. One might think that his pride, wounded by the failure, led him to plan new foundations in Padua, Cesena, Lugano, and so on. But Father General repeatedly tried to appease him, while at the same time strictly rejecting any attempt at a foundation. Especially because of the recent papal ban from the end of March, which prevents him from sending even the three promised religious to Ancona. So, “Y. R. calm down and rest,” he wrote to him on May 25, 1633, “ and please, do not speak so much and do not regret the past case.”[3203]

3203 CCP, p.179.

Perhaps fearing a careless reaction, Father General sent him a few days later to Narni and from there to Moricone, where he remained until the end of the summer, busy renovating buildings as on other occasions, with no lack of complaints about his friction with other religious of that community. Restless and restless, he expressed his desire to go to Poli, and at the beginning of September the General proposed sending him to Sicily, passing by Rome beforehand to prepare the trip together.[3204]

3204 Cf. SCOMA II, nn,172-174; C.2074, 2085, 2087, 2109, 2110, 2117; CCP, p.185.

Finally, after six years, Calasanz and Alacchi meet again in person at the Roman novitiate: on September 24, the founder signs the “obedience” or permission to travel and informs him in general terms that he is sending him to Sicily “to settle some matters of no small importance for the religion” And then he specifies these matters by adding that, as Procurator of the General and the Religion, he can claim and dispose of all previously acquired rights; he should put in their place the forger John B. Massimi, who was roaming the island, and even use the secular arm to put an end to his frauds once and for all; and he was to compel the obedience of Cl. Charles Cesario, who was in Messina on family business, abusing the license and disguising himself as a layman.[3205]

3205 Cf. both documents in BARTLIK, EfhCal 3 (1943) 71-72. Regarding Cl. Cesario cf. EHI, p.624, n.1. The obedience began thus: “Concedimus facultatem eundi in Siciliam ad pertractanda ibi aliqua negotia non parvi momenti in utilitatem nostrae Religionis, quae prudentiae tuae, de qua plurimum confidimus, committimus (BARTLIK, 1.c., p.71).

There is no allusion to licenses, as there was in his first expedition with the group of novices to Naples and Sicily in 1625 and in his planned pilgrimage to the Holy Land in 1629. Nor could they have done so explicitly, as they were under the papal ban on founding new houses. It should be remembered, however, that Cardinal Ginetti had already allowed three religious to be sent to Ancona in June of the same year 1633 and asked Calasanz to send the help requested by Cardinal Dietrichstein to Moravia “as soon as possible”. [3206]The ban had therefore not been lifted, but Ginetti’s obliging attitude gave hope that future foundations could be approached with a sense of proportion.

3206 Cf. C.2059, 2068, 2071.

This should be said because it does not seem far-fetched to assume that the discussions between Calasanz and Alacchi were about the possibility of a new attempt to found a new house in Sicily. Indeed, the determined attitude of Alacchi, who proposed without equivocation to establish a foundation from the very first moment, gives rise to the assumption that he had left Rome with this fixed idea. And it is likely that Father General would almost inevitably have been against it, given the circumstances, but he could not help but suspect that Alacchi would try to found again in Sicily, in his country, despite everything. And perhaps he wished it in his heart.

On September 27, 1633, Father Melchior left Rome with two companions for Naples, where he met with his friend and great protector of the Pious Schools, the Marquis of Belmonte, Charles Tapia, and asked him for letters of recommendation for the Viceroy of Sicily, Don Ferdinand de Ribera, Duke of Alcalá, who had been Viceroy of Naples in the years 1629-1631 and therefore knew not only the regent Tapia but also the Pious Schools in Naples. On October 12th, he was in Messina, where he tried to resolve Cl. Cesario’s situation by granting him a long permit extension. We do not know whether he was concerned about the forged Massimi and the question of the acquired rights of the Order in the previous foundation phase. The fact is that he arrived in Palermo, the capital of the Kingdom of Sicily, on the 20th of the same month and spent the night in the house of the Theatines.

Without wasting time he went to the palace and present the Viceroy’s secretary, Don John Michael Igún de la Lana, with Tapia’s letters of recommendation, telling him what the Institute of Pious Schools was and who its founder was, and that the reason for his arrival was to establish it in the city and the kingdom. The secretary welcomed the idea and promised to present Tapia’s letters to the viceroy, who was interested in the foundation. Alacchi then went to see the archbishop, Cardinal John Doria, who, as soon as he saw him enter without allowing him to speak, rebuked him sharply: “Father, if you have come to found the Pious Schools in Palermo, then you can go back and do not even think about it.”[3207]

3207 Cf. SCOMA II, nn.176-177.

Melchior was summoned to the palace by the viceroy and informed him “about the nobility, the nation and the holiness of the Founder as well as about the pious Institute that he wished to introduce, support and promote.”[3208] The viceroy was very accommodating and willing to do whatever was necessary. Father Melchior was encouraged by this willingness and told of the explicit opposition of the Archbishop and some religious, especially the Jesuits. And the viceroy assured him that he would take matters into his own hands and overcome all obstacles.

3208 Ibid., n.180. Note that there is also mention of the “nation” of the Founder, since it was undoubtedly another reason for acceptance, while in Venice it had been a reason for rejection.

Once again, the controversial Allachi demonstrated his rare ability to ingratiate himself with high personalities, winning not only the will of the viceroy but also the sympathy of his wife and son. In fact, in his Memoirs or Annotationes Siculae, he reports that the viceroy’s son and heir fell seriously ill in those days. When he visited him, Father Melchior spoke to him about the Pious Schools and their founder and asked him to recommend them to his father, while he would ask for the prayers of the Founder, “who was a great servant of God and of his own kingdom and people.” The sick man actually recommended to his parents, almost as a last wish, to support the founding of the Pious Schools, and his parents reassured him by accepting his wishes. The young man died.[3209]

3209 Ibid., n.181.

The founding process was accelerated enormously: On November 9, 1633, the viceroy received Cardinal Doria’s approval; on the 27th of the same month, he gave Father Melchior the premises for the Pious Schools, which he had purchased with the same viceroy’s money, and the following day Father Melchior took possession of them.[3210]

3210 Ibid., nn. 184, 187-188.

When the first news reached Rome, Father General reacted negatively. He wrote to Father Melchior on December 3, 1633, asking him not to pursue the matter any further, citing the usual reasons: lack of personnel, papal prohibition of the foundation and the fact that in Sicily - as in the past - “there are many religious who can do what they want and compared to whom we are like ants in front of elephants”, i.e. the Jesuits.[3211] News continued to reach him about the speed with which things were developing in Palermo, and he wrote even more drastically a week later:

3211 CCC. p.187. On the same date he wrote to Fr. Graziani, Assistant General: “I don’t think that Fr. Melchior is trying about taking this place, and if he was admitted, I would not accept it in any way. “ (C.2148). Then he still did not know that Alacchi had already accepted the premises purchased by the viceroy.

“We have instructions from the Pope and the Congregation for Propaganda Fide not to increase further until we are well established in the novitiate and the house of studies, and Y. R. says that we must go and try to found in big cities like Palermo. Even if we were called at the same time by His Eminence Cardinal Card. Doria and by the Viceroy, we could not give them satisfaction, because neither the Duke of Savoy, nor the Cardinal, his brother with many letters and requests from his ambassador, nor Lord Cardinal Dietrichstein, nor Card. Colonna, Archbishop of Bologna, were able to get them. So, Y. R., thank these gentlemen and go to Naples.”[3212]

3212 CCP, p.190. Cf. section 8 of this chapter.

Similarly, on the same day he wrote to his old friend Father Santes Sala, a Franciscan conventual, replying to the latter’s letter, in which he praised the steps taken by Father Melchior. He asked him to persuade the said Father to abandon the venture and return to Naples.[3213]However, Father Melchior preferred to remain silent and let the Father General learn of the ‘fait accompli’ by other means. In the meantime, he continued to take care of loose ends and took advantage of the Viceroy’s great disposition. On December 9, 1633, he petitioned the viceroy, supported by the explicit consent of Cardinal Archbishop Doria, to officially admit the Order of the Pious Schools in the Kingdom of Sicily and in Palermo in particular. The petition was accepted with all legal requirements and signed by the Duke of Alcalá on December 17, 1633.[3214]

3213 Cf. CCP, p.192-193.

3214 Cf. the complete document in SCOMA II, n.183. On the same day the free concession of water was signed for the Piarists “absque ulla solutione: sunt enim pauperes, et ex elemosina vivunt” (ibid., n.208).

On the same day - and thus without knowing this final concession by the viceroy - Calasanz wrote to Alacchi, alluding to the last two letters in which he disapproved of the foundation and adding that he had learned that they already owned a house and had firm hopes of soon getting a better place. This news made him change his mind and he promised, firstly, “When the place is ready, so that it can be religiously inhabited, I will endeavor to obtain permission to send you suitable subjects”; and secondly, he declared, “If the vicar of the pope [Ginetti] asks me for explanations, I will be able to answer him that since Y. R. is there and the Viceroy is well disposed, you have tried to accept the work in this town.”[3215] Nevertheless, in view of his previous experiences, he is not very confident that the venture could end well. On the same day, he wrote to Father Graziani, the General Assistant: “I doubt that it will be like Venice and Messina, because [Alacchi] is stating something and cannot maintain it. We will see what will happen.”[3216]

3215 C.2156.

3216 C.2157.

His doubts are quickly dispelled. Five days later, he reminds Alacchi again that he will send him a religious as soon as he has prepared the house. And he adds this interesting recommendation, which expresses his usual attitude towards the Jesuits, who were always opposed to the introduction of Pious Schools wherever they might be: “You must understand that our institute will be no obstacle to that of the Jesuits, because most of our students come to read, write and do arithmetic, and a little Latin; they will be initiated with us and then will go to their schools.”[3217]

3217 CCP, p.194. The same is recommended at other times (cf. C.2165 and 2186).

On December 29th, he received mail from Sicily with personal letters from the Viceroy and his secretary, Mr. Igún de la Lana, which moved him deeply and gave him the certainty that the foundation in Palermo was a fact. That same day he took the time to write letters of thanks to the Viceroy and his secretary, to Father Alacchi and to Father Graziani. To the latter he wrote with satisfaction:

“The Viceroy of Sicily has not only recognized our work, but has also given us a place in the best houses in the city and paid three thousand escudi in cash for it, with an offer to do more; he wants two or three subjects to begin the work, and I intend to send them to him in the next month of March. And be this only for you: he has written to me with great kindness and so has done his secretary, both showing an extraordinary affection for our work. I have communicated it to the Assistants and they like it very much, since it is the capital of the kingdom, where other Religions have taken dozens of years to be admitted.”[3218]

3218 C.2164. The letters of Calasanz to the viceroy and his secretary, of which he speaks in the one he wrote to Alacchi on December 29, 1633 (cf. C.2165), have not been preserved. Nor do we have the one from the viceroy to Calasanz. Fr. Scoma transcribed in full two letters of Igún de la Lana, both dated November 28, 1633 and omitted in the edited Calasanctian epistolaries (EHI and EC): one addressed to Calasanz and the other to the Marquis of Belmonte, Carlos Tapia. In the latter he tells him of the difficulties overcome, coming from Jesuits, Crucifers and Franciscans above all, pondering the value he attributes to his letters of recommendation (cf. Scoma II, n. 191). It is necessary to recognize the strategic wisdom of Alacchi in asking for the influence of Mr. Tapia in his passage through Naples.

With feverish activity, Father Melchior set to work furnishing the premises. On December 27, Cardinal Doria blessed the oratory in the presence of the Viceroy and his wife, the Dukes of Montalto and the Princes of Paternó, as well as other high-ranking members of the nobility and the court. On the same day, Father Alacchi received the Viceroy’s order to open the schools just after Christmas, “without apologizing - he said - that you have few subjects.”[3219] Faced with these urgent needs and unable to wait for the reinforcements promised by Father General for March, Father Melchior decided to open the schools on January 2, 1634, making use of secular priests, an initiative that Father General later approved of, no doubt remembering his years before the founding of the Pauline Congregation and urging him to keep it that way until the promised religious arrived.[3220] The influx of children was so great that before the end of the month there was no more room for them in the improvised premises, so the courageous Father Alacchi asked for an extension and succeeded in acquiring more land. On January 28, 1634, the Duke of Alcala and Viceroy of Sicily himself laid the foundation stone for the new building with great ceremony in the presence of the people and the nobility.[3221]

3219 Ibid., nn. 194, 200-201.

3220 Ib., III, n.209-210; C.2186, 2194.

3221 Ibid., n.211-2I2.

By mid-March there were around 1,200 students and Alacchi had already taken on 18 novices, perhaps too lightly, to help him in the schools without a stipend, along with the other teachers employed until the expected reinforcements arrived from Rome.[3222]

3222 Ibid., nn.216 and 218.

Certainly, that was a lot in such a short time. And Father Melchior could be satisfied, because if he had failed in Venice, in Sicily he had succeeded in becoming a prophet in his homeland.

And his successes continued. In December 1633, he had already managed to get the Messina city council to ratify the agreements of 1625, in which he had authorized the founding of Piarist schools, and on the 29th of the same month he personally collected the founding license signed by Archbishop Don Blas Proto, the same Archbishop who in April 1627 had categorically refused to keep the first Piarists already installed in Messina. The mighty hand of the viceroy continued to protect Father Melchior.

On March 20, 1634, the first reinforcements arrived from Rome sent by Father General, who appointed the first rectors of Palermo and Messina, Fathers Onofrio Conti and Peter Salazar-Maldonado respectively, at the end of July. But neither they nor the first Piarists who preceded them knew how to deal with the complicated Father Melchior.[3223] And the houses in Sicily continued to be one of Father General’s constant worries, not only because of the disagreements caused by Alacchi, but also because of others, especially Conti and Salazar, who will be distinguished by their future merits and worthy of remembrance, but who were not free of blame in their dislike of Father Alacchi in those years.

3223 G. SANTHA, P. Melchior Alacchi… Archivum 13 (1983) 46-60.

Chapter 22

The conflict of the brothers and the General Chapters of 1637 and 1641

For the comparative history of religious life, it is interesting to note that there were sometimes fierce clashes between the Fathers or the clerical class and the Brothers or the lay class, which are perhaps more generalized than one might suppose. In some ways this could be described as a kind of “class war”, not about power or money, but about greater equality, dignity and mutual respect, which are also evangelical values, even if they are difficult to reconcile with humility, charity and self-contempt.

Perhaps the greatest thing the Orders had in common was that this “class struggle” was not a continuous or interrupted war, but rather a single battle that ended without victors or vanquished. But they all had to fight it out at some point, as necessary crises for the balance of community life.

In 1646, when this conflict among the Piarists was practically over, Father Caputi wrote from Naples to Father Founder: “Here there is much unrest in many Religions and especially the Jesuits with their brothers because of the biretta, the cloak and the long cassock... Let us not talk about the Camillian Fathers, who, like us, are already on their last legs.”[3224] Twelve years earlier, they wrote to Father Graziani from Genoa complaining about the internal unrest caused by the brothers, which had also occurred among the Carmelites, the Augustinians, the Camillians, the Jesuits and others.[3225]

3224 EHI; p.492 (dated April 7, 1646). And he wrote to him again on September 8, 1646: “Here the Jesuit Fathers are upside down for the mutation of the clothes of their brothers, which is already in execution.” (ib., p.502-503).

3225 Cf. EC, p.127.

The popes Clement VIII, Urban VIII, Inocent X and Alexander VII had to intervene in similar conflicts that occurred in the monastery of the Basilian Recollects of Tardón (Seville). And in a questionnaire from 1644, the monks were asked: “whether they know that, due to the large number of lay brothers, they can get away with anything they propose, be it just or unjust, and reduce everything to votes without the priests getting away with anything, even if it is very justified.”[3226] And even among the Carthusian monks - the supreme model of monastic perfection - there was serious unrest in Seville in the last two decades of the 17th century when they debated the right of the ‘donados’ and ‘conversos’ (lay brothers without vows) to wear the cloak and white hood, which in some ways correspond to the clerical biretta. Even more general and serious was the rebellion of the lay brothers in the Carthusian monasteries of El Paular, Las Cuevas, Cazalla, Jerez, Granada and Aniago, when the General Chapters of 1759 and 1760 forbade them to wear the black cloak and restricted the rights of representation they had as administrators of the monasteries.[3227]

3226 Cited in B. Linage Conde, El Monacato en España e Hispanoamérica (Salamanca 1977) p.495-500.

3227 Ib., p.393-395.

The Pious Schools could therefore not be an exception. And this conflict was probably not as dramatic as the biographers have made it out to be. They focused too much on problems that they believed were exclusive to the Order or the Founder, when in reality they were common to many other institutions.

The institution of the Cleric Brothers

We have already seen that at the first Congregation or General Chapter of 1627 the Cleric Brothers were instituted. Strictly speaking, no third class or intermediate state was created, since the previous canonical denomination was retained. It did not recognize the concept of classes and spoke only of the clerical order and the brotherhood.[3228] The Cleric Brothers continued to belong to the latter class, with all its obligations, to which was added the concession that those who taught children were allowed to wear a biretta. The capitular decree states:

3228 Cf. R. MARTÍN, Tercera clase de religiosos en la Orden de las Escuelas Pias; AnCal 5 (1961) 49, n.32; n.68, n.850. Fr. Casani, in his Pussilli Gregis Idea, speaks of three states or degrees (cf. Archivum 3 [1978] 91). But neither the General Chapter of 1627 nor other documents use this term. Moreover, in a document of 1636, addressed to Cardinal Cesarini, Calasanz expressly says: “To the first point, which is the supposed introduction of a third kind of religious, we reply... that regarding the denomination made of Cleric Brothers in any writing, or place, or manner and time, it has never been intended, nor less is it intended to introduce in the Religion any other kind of religious, besides the ones specified in our Constitutions” (EGC X, p. 246).

“As for the wearing of the clerical biretta by Brothers, it is granted to all those who are capable of receiving the first tonsure, who are henceforth called Cleric Brothers, who cannot claim to be appointed in any other kind of schools than those of reading, writing and arithmetic, and only to those who are deemed suitable by the Provincial Fathers. Should any of these Clerics Brothers notoriously or scandalously refuse to perform the temporal [domestic] duties imposed by obedience, this concession shall ipso facto be withdrawn from him.”[3229]

3229 Cf. PosCas, p.564.

This provision only officially confirmed the innovation introduced a few months earlier in the province of Liguria, which allowed Brothers who taught without being clerics to wear the clerical biretta.[3230] However, there may have been protests or scruples about granting the biretta to those who were not canonical clerics. It was therefore decided that all those who were eligible for the tonsure should de facto receive it, so that they could legally wear a biretta because they were clerics.[3231]

3230 C.649.

3231 Dated January 7, 1628 Calasanz writes: “As for the wearing of the biretta by the brothers, it seems to me convenient that all those who are fit to receive the first tonsure could get it and should wear the biretta and be called minor clerics, that is, who cannot be ordained to more than first tonsure, nor to study grammar, and so the name of the Clerics will be appropriate to the name of Poor Clerics of the Mother of God; and like this has been introduced in Genoa and in Naples” (C.762). In another document of that time, we can read: “It was decreed that all those of them who were fit to take the first tonsure should take it, so that juridically they could wear the clerical biretta and tonsure.” (cit. en R. MARTÍN, o.c., p.48, n.26). It was not, however, an absolute prescription, as can be seen in this document of 1641 which speaks of those who wore biretta and even tonsure without being canonically tonsured: “... (those who professed the fourth vow) be called and be Cleric Brothers and retain the use of the biretta, possessed by them many years in peaceful possession. Let them not use the clerical tonsure, however, except for those who have already received the first tonsure or four minor orders...” (EGC X, p.307). Cf. ib., p.309.

Despite the tonsure and the biretta, they were not clerics like the others, since they could aspire to neither the minor nor the major orders, but remained in the state of tonsure.[3232] After the Council of Trent, it was apparently not necessary to have the intention of ascending to the priesthood in order to receive the tonsure, as expressly required by Canon Law, which had been in force since at least 1917.[3233] This was therefore not an abnormal situation under Canon Law, even if they continued to belong to the “state of lay brothers” To distinguish them from clerics who aspired to the priesthood, they were therefore called “cleric brothers” or “minor clerics”, in contrast to “ordinary clerics”, “absolute clerics”, “true clerics”[3234]

3232 C.649, 726, 762.

3233 R. MARTÍN, o.c., p.48, n.30.

3234 C.762, 1819, 2005; R. MARTÍN, o.c., p.51, n.36.

Although canonically no “third estate” or “third class” was created, in practice a new species of “lay members” or Brothers was created whose specific task was primary education, limited to the schools of reading, writing and arithmetic, with the prohibition not only to teach but also to learn grammar and Latin, which implicitly closed them the possibility of aspiring to the priesthood.[3235] Higher education was in the hands of the “absolute clerics” and priests.

3235 “I don’t want them to study Latin but be content with the title and biretta of clerics”, Calasanz wrote on November 13, 1627 (C.726). He even sternly prohibits them from being taught: “Make everyone understand that no one of the brothers should study grammar, and that no one teaches it to him, in virtue of Holy Obedience “ (C.2495, dated January 12, 1636). A year later, he requires written permission from Father General to teach them or to study grammar. (EGC X, C.2693, 1).

The goals seemed to be well connected, for not only was the pursuit of the priesthood or higher education discouraged, but the selection or promotion of Brothers deemed suitable for tonsure was left to the prudence of the Provincials, with no obligation to look after the aspirations of anyone. But the system failed because these restrictions were not respected.

The reasons that moved Calasanz and his Assistants to grant biretta and tonsure to some Brothers were certainly plausible and soundly based. Firstly, since the establishment of the Pious Schools in Santa Dorotea, both priests and lay people had been admitted as teachers, and at the same time, since the foundation of the Pauline Congregation of Pious Schools, both clerics and priests and brothers (lay people) had taught at the schools. In other words, it was already an institutionalized tradition that clerics, priests and Brothers participated and collaborated in the specific ministry of the Order, without distinction of “class”. Moreover, the elementary school of reading, writing and arithmetic had been the exclusive fief of the brothers practically from the beginning.[3236] And it was precisely this area that was now reserved for the cleric brothers.

3236 In a memorandum of 1641, Calasanz and his Assistants stated: “the schools of reading, writing, and abbaco... being all in the hands of such brothers, as they have always been from the beginning of the Religion” (EGC X, p.309).

This “unity of service” was institutionally confirmed by the formula of profession, which was the same for all, with the only difference that it was written in the vernacular for the brothers and in Latin for the clerics or priests. But all took the fourth vow “of teaching” in identical form.[3237] Over time, however, certain differences between clerics and brothers intensified, which angered the spirit of the latter, who felt undervalued by both clerics and students, so Calasanz and his Assistants decided to dignify the status of the reviled teaching brothers by conferring on them the tonsure and the biretta. See one of several memoranda written by Fr. Castelli to explain and justify this joint decision of the General Congregation of 1627:

3237 “… voveo... summam paupertatem, castitatem et obedientiam, et iuxta eam peculiarem curam circa puerorum eruditionem” (CC, n.31).

“After some time, the brothers began to grow restless because they were mistreated by the clerics as if they were laymen[3238], and because they were little respected by the pupils at school because they did not wear the biretta on their heads as the clergy did. Therefore, the General, not only to comfort and encourage them to bear the burden of the lower schools, which were always detested by the clerics and in danger of being abandoned, but also for the greater decorum in the schools themselves and to facilitate a better devotion of the clerics to higher studies and schools, in the first Congregation of the said Fathers resolved to give the clerical biretta, with the tonsure and title of cleric, but brothers, as opposed to true clerics.”[3239]

3238 In another memorial of Castelli, the insult is more explicit, calling them “ignorant lay people”, even though they were teachers (EC, p.660). In Italian (and in Latin) ‘laico’ means layman or ignorant, according to the context.

3239 EC, p.2826. Another version in ib., p.656. Other memorándums with the same explanations in ib., p.659-660, 662, 2821. In the quoted text, Castelli says that “the General... deliberated in the first Congregation of the said Fathers....” But this is not accurate, since the decision was taken in the Chapter, as Castelli himself clarifies in another parallel document, entitled Difesa del governo del Fondatore e Compagni delle Scuole Pie, where he tells: “so the said government well could concede the said things ex causis sibi bene visis” (EC, p.659). The same we can read in another similar writing: “Hence... the General Founder with some Fathers, his companions ...could well order in their first Congregation...” (ib., p.662).

This attitude of promotion, respect, defense and sincere fraternal love for the brothers - both cleric brothers and ordinary brothers - was shared by Calasanz and his Assistants, especially Castelli, and true to these sentiments, they will be the strongest defenders of the brothers in the painful struggle that we will now reveal. It must not be forgotten, however, that the social and cultural class from which the “laity” in all religions came was generally humble and poor at that time - and in many other times. As a result, they were treated badly and even despised. Calasanz opposed this mentality and wanted to improve the human and religious situation of his brothers, whether he dedicated them to teaching or kept them in service and domestic administration. In a memorandum addressed to Cardinal Cesarini in 1641, Calasanz and his Assistants expressed themselves as follows:

”... as to the name of lay brothers [laici], the petitioners assure Your Eminence in all simplicity and truth that they never thought of clothing laymen [laici] in their Religion, but religious Brothers, some of whom would be their coadjutors in the administration of temporal and domestic things, and others in the exercise of the schools, according to the talent and ability of each. But we all wanted to accept them as brothers and companions, not as servants and slaves. For this reason, they tried to make them as similar as possible to priests and clerics in everything, knowing that this uniformity would preserve and increase harmony, unity and brotherly love in the Religions.”[3240]

3240 EGC X, p.309.

Thus, if on the one hand they strove to raise the brothers to the level of clerics and priests, especially by making them sharers in the same ministry, the holy Founder did not forget, on the other hand, to insist that the clerics and priests should render the domestic services proper to the brothers, and recommended that the superiors should set an example to their inferiors.[3241] And he himself does not hesitate to confess: “As for washing dishes, not only have I done it, though I work no less than those who run schools, but I have gone begging for bread in the streets of Rome with a saddlebag on my shoulder and I go out to accompany the children, and I am always ready to do it.”[3242] Father Berro remembers the serious consequences of one such outing by the Founder, for when he was caught in the rain, he came home dripping wet and laden with his saddlebags and came down with pneumonia so severe that he almost went to the afterlife. Before he begins the case, Berro prepares him with this terse paragraph:

3241 He advises Fr. Cherubini not only to serve in the dining room, but also sometimes to sweep some classes so that the other teachers will follow his example. (cf. C.1167).

3242 C.2757.

“Apart from being first in all domestic matters, he spared no toil or task, however odious, such as sweeping the yard and stairs, carrying loads of firewood or other things to the kitchen, cleaning the vessels of the sick, feeding the donkey, cleaning the stable, and even padding out in public... In addition to all this and still other things that astonished those who knew them, he often accompanied the students to their homes, sometimes throwing his saddlebags over his shoulder and going begging with the man in charge.”[3243]

3243 BERRO I, p.145-146.

There is clear evidence that not only the Holy Founder but also other priests and clerics did domestic work that was normally reserved for lay brothers.[3244] There is no doubt, then, that the concession of the biretta and tonsure to the brothers and the institution of cleric brothers was another means of reconciling differences, avoiding discord and creating an atmosphere of greater fraternal solidarity among the religious, especially those who bore the burden of the schools.[3245]

3244 Berro recalls anecdotes of when he himself, as a cleric, worked as a janitor at San Pantaleo (cf. ibid., pp. 149-153). In a document referring to the problems of the Cleric Brothers, we read: “They have also made some lay duties, as did the aforesaid present Clerics and Priests and the same Minister of the house, who has made the refectory for about two years, and other Priests, and particularly Fr. Pellegrino (Tencani) Assistant, while he lived, made the kitchen for about three years.” (EC, p.2229, n.8).

3245 See more texts cited in R. MARTIN, o.c., p.51, n.36.

Only tonsure and biretta

Calasanz’s open-mindedness and benevolence in granting the biretta and tonsure to the brothers is evident in a letter dated January 7, 1628, in which he says: “As for the brothers who wear the biretta, it seems to me appropriate that all those who are fit to receive the first tonsure should receive it and wear the biretta and be called minor clerics.”[3246] With the same generous conditions, the General Chapter or Congregation of 1627 had spoken out in favour of the introduction of Cleric Brothers about two months earlier. The concession was received with satisfaction by the brothers and, as was to be expected, there were probably many who expressed their desire for promotion. However, the choice was left to the discretion of the Provincials, who were effectively reduced to two, namely Fr. Peter Casani, Provincial of Naples, and Fr. Francis Castelli, Provincial of Genoa, since Fr. Jacob Graziani, nominally Provincial of Rome, did not exercise his office and Fr. General assuming his duties.

3246 C.762 (cf. n.3231 above).

Neither Casani nor Castelli showed the necessary prudence and restraint in granting birettas and tonsures, as Berro wrote in his memoirs: “Our Holy Fr. Founder and General lamented with me that two of the superiors or provincials of Naples and Genoa were destroying his religion by giving the biretta to lay brothers and vesting others with the name of Cleric Brothers.”[3247] Thus, despite earlier reticence, he revealed that these provincials were Fathers Casani and Castelli and that this generosity in the granting of birettas and tonsures had occurred especially in the first year of the concession.[3248] The Founder’s complaint, on the other hand, was very coherent, considering that he had often complained about the ease with which Father Casani used to admit candidates to the novitiate in Naples.[3249]

3247 BERRO I p.224. Earlier (ibid., p.168) he had already recalled the scene, without naming the Fathers or even saying that they were Superiors, adding: “I suppress the names out of respect, but he named them both.”

3248 Casani was Provincial of Naples from April 1627 to October 1631 (cf. EEC, pp. 119-120); Fr. Castelli was Provincial of Genoa from October 1625 to May 1630 (cf. EHI, pp. 569-570); Fr. Berro lived with the Founder in those years from 1625 to the end of 1628 (cf. EHI, p. 294). Then the conversation of Berro with Calasanz had to be during the year between November 1627 -at the end of the General Congregation that institutes the Cleric Brothers, to which he alludes- and the end of 1628, when Berro leaves Rome, being simultaneously Provincials Casani and Castelli.

3249 C.797, 1160, 1315. Wanting to excuse Casani, Fr. Vilá unjustly accuses Calasanz of lack of concern for the selection of vocations (cf. Juicio historico-critico... p.119-132).

Initially, therefore, there were great desires and demands for biretta and tonsure on the part of the brothers who taught in the elementary school, to which the Fathers Casani and Castelli gave in too easily. But the matter soon became more complicated when the brothers, who already felt themselves to be clerics, began to suggest the possibility of entering the priesthood, even though the institution of Cleric Brothers had expressly excluded such aspirations.

For years, Father General and his Assistants persistently denied the prospective for brthers to reach the priesthood and threatened disciplinary action as this was against what was established.[3250] It is even assumed that such insolence is the fruit of pride, and it is even branded as a grave sin, as the Founder writes in a letter dated March 10, 1629, in which he states the reason for this insinuation:

3250 Calasanz writes on January 11, 1631: “As for the brothers who want to be priests, if they are novices, let you tell me that I will relieve them of the thought; if they are professed, let you also tell me who are, that I will send the remedy.” (C.1560).

“I am very sorry for Brother John [Castiglia] of St. Stephen, who, as long as he holds the opinion that he wants to be a priest, is in mortal sin... for he promised at profession not to claim any office or dignity in the Religion, and by wanting to be a priest he directly violates the promise he made to God in public by claiming a dignity he does not deserve.”[3251]

3251 C.1075. In the formula of profession, common to all, it was indeed said: “Promitto etiam me nunquam curaturum, ne indirecte quidem ut in aÍiquam Prelationem vel dignitatem in Congregatione eligar seu promovear....” (CC, n.31).

Father General’s attitude was one of total intransigence, allowing no exception, because once he gave in, he was already leaving an open door through which those who had neither sufficient knowledge nor adequate gifts for the highest priestly dignity he had so often extolled in his letters would continue to pass. And this would mean a very serious disturbance in the Religion. This is how he expressed himself when he wrote to Father Alacchi on January 10, 1632:

“As for Brother John [Verdun] of St. Mary’s, he knows very well what is necessary to be a priest, but since he has clothed himself as a brother from the beginning, it would be a disturbance in the Religion to make him a priest now, for there are others who have the knowledge to be priests, and if they saw this principle, it would be necessary to make them all priests, and even those who do not have the knowledge would want to be priests. Therefore, let the said brother be patient in this matter, for his presumption and that of others is born of pure pride, even if it seems to be hidden, and the proud are good neither for the Religion, nor for heaven if they do not mend their ways.”[3252]

3252 C.1733. See the text corrected by Moncallero (CCP, p.154-157).

In a way, these were prophetic words. There was a brother who, when he saw himself honored with the tonsure and the biretta, in his simplicity and naivety - more than in his pride - dreamed of attaining the priesthood. And the persistent, more or less malicious or mocking questions from his parents and compatriots about his longed-for ordination and his first Mass became disruptive to his health. One of them was so affected by these jokes that he died of melancholy.[3253]

3253 Cf. C.1385 and 1739.

In view of the firm stance of the General and his Assistants not to promote any of the tonsured brothers to the priesthood, there was no other solution than to accept this or leave the Order. The pretenders understood that this alternative could be considered final when Father Founder was appointed General for life by Urban VIII on January 12, 1632.

To leave the Order, according to canonical norms, there were two normal options for solemnly professed members: to change to another Religion or to declare the profession invalid. There were some who opted for the first option, under the pretext of seeking greater perfection in one of the reformed religions. And Father General was especially understanding and benevolent, not only allowing these aspirants full freedom, but also giving them his support and intercession so that they were accepted into other Orders. In his letters from these years, he usually recommended or approved the transition to the Dominicans, the Augustinians, the Carmelites, the Reformed Franciscans and the Camaldolese with benevolence.[3254]

3254 Cf. C. 2157, 2204, 2263, 2267, etc.

More complicated was the recourse to the nullity of profession in order to return to the world. In this case, alongside those who wanted to leave with good intentions in order to be ordained a priest outside, there were also those who wanted to take the opportunity to distance themselves from the vows and obedience, even resorting to false testimonies to prove that they had made their profession by force (per vim et metum)[3255], or even before they had reached the age of sixteen, as required by the Council of Trent.[3256]

3255 Cf. C.1067, 2110, 2204, 2210, 2226, 2267, 2276.

3256 Cf. C.2244, 2248; Conc. trid., session XXV, Decret. de regularibus, c. XV.

Recourse to the Clementine Decrees

Finally, it seemed easier for others to fall back on the decrees promulgated by Clement VIII in the years 1596-1603 and last renewed by Urban VIII in 1624 and 1631.[3257] One of the decrees of 1596 stipulated that the novitiate should take place in the houses expressly designated by the Holy See, where the candidates were to receive the habit and make their profession; otherwise, both the admission and the profession itself would be invalid.[3258] However, among the Piarists, both clerics and brothers, many had worn the habit or professed in houses that were not officially part of the novitiate, as this was permitted by the Order’s Constitutions.[3259] Consequently, their profession seemed to be null and void under the Clementine Decrees.

3257 Cf. Bullarium Romanum (Turin), t.XIII, p.202-220; t.XIV, p.215-217.

3258 “… praecipimus omnibus generalibus, provincialibus, commissariis, ministris, ceterisque superioribus conventuum intra Italiae et insularum adiacentium fines existentium quibuscumque, quorumcumque Ordinum Mendicantium, ut de cetero neminem sub quovis praetextu aut colore ad habitum regularem admittant, nisi in conventibus auctoritate nostra propediem in unaquaque provincia designandis. Insuper sancimus, ut ... omnes praefatorum Ordinum superiores a receptione quorumcumque novitiorum, sive ad habitum sive ad professionem (outside such convents), omnino abstineant ... Receptions vero et professiones quaelibet eorum, qui contra huiusmodi decretum nostrum admissi fuerint, nullas et irritas esse ex nunc decernimus et declaramus ...» (Decree of March 12, 1596: Bull. Rom., XIII, p.205,206).

3259 “... in domo Novitiorum propria, si fieri poterit, vel saltem a commercio et dormitorio aliorum Patrum separati, tam Fratres Operarii, quam Clerici biennio probentur” (CC, n.20).

In fact, neither this particular point nor many of the other decrees mentioned had been anticipated or contradicted in the Constitutions out of ignorance, recklessness or negligence on the part of the Founder, but deliberately, in the belief that there were more than enough reasons to exclude them. With regard to the controversial issue in particular, a simple reading of the Decree made it clear that it referred exclusively to the mendicant Orders and only to their convents in Italy and the neighboring islands. In 1599, however, another Clementine Decree, deploring the ineffectiveness of the previous one, renewed the Decree and applied it to both mendicant and non-mendicant Orders, nominally excluding some of them, including those of the then existing Clerics Regular.[3260] When Calasanz wrote his Constitutions in 1620-1621, he therefore dispensed with the requirements of the Clementine decrees, as they did not apply to the Clerics Regular. Furthermore, when approving the Constitutions, Gregory XV did not raise any objections to the above-mentioned Decrees, but explicitly stated in the Brief: “With apostolic authority we approve and confirm the above-mentioned Constitutions and everything and anything contained in them... notwithstanding the Apostolic Constitutions and Decrees and all other orders to the contrary.”[3261]

3260 Excluded were the Carthusians, Franciscans of strict observance, Capuchins, Dominicans, Discalced Carmelites, Fulienses, Cistercians, Camaldolese, Theatines, Jesuits, Somaschan and Camillians (cf. Bull. Rom., XIII, p.206).

3261 Cf. Bull. Sch. Piarum, p.25-26.

Despite all this, Urban VIII renewed the Clementine decrees in the Decree of 1624 and demanded that they be observed “in all cenobia, monasteries, colleges and houses of all kinds of monks and reguIars that exist anywhere ... ... notwithstanding the apostolic constitutions and decrees in favor of any persons and Orders, both mendicant and non-mendicant, monastic congregations, convents, houses and places of any regulars ...”[3262] It can rightly be deduced from this that the Pious Schools were obliged to follow the Clementine decrees at least from the date of publication of the above-mentioned decree (September 21, 1624). On April 2, 1631, a letter from Urban VIII renewed the same earlier regulations in general terms, without exempting any Order or Congregation, referring not only to the question of novitiates approved by the Holy See, but also “to all other things which the said predecessor Clement had ordered in this matter.” Moreover, he ordered all those who had completed the canonical novitiate year outside the houses expressly approved by the Holy See and had nevertheless made their profession to repeat their profession, although he exempted them from repeating the novitiate year.[3263]

3262 Cf. Bull. Rom., XIII, p.204.

3263 “... superioribus generalibus... mandamus, quatenus omnes et singulos religiosos praedictos; qui ... anum probationis in monasteriis seu domibus regularibus ad id designatis minime fecerunt, subindeque professionem nihilominus emiserunt, ad profesionem denuo, servatis servandis, emittendam... absque novo probationis anno... auctoritate apostolica recipiant” (Bull. Rom., XIV, p.215-217).

Curiously, neither after the decree of 1624 nor after the letter of 1631 was there any reaction in the Order - or in others - to rectify the invalid professions, perhaps because not only the Pious Schools but also other Religions, especially the Clerics Regular, were considered from the outset to be exempt from the Clementine decrees and their subsequent renewals and extensions. However, in the early months of 1634, the dissatisfied Brothers and Cleric Brothers began to cite reasons to have their profession declared null and void and discovered this vein of the Clementine-Urbanian Decrees. In order to escape their claims and also the well-founded scruples of others, Father General began in July 1634 to make serious efforts to have the Holy See declare the Pious Schools exempt from the application of the said decrees, especially as regards the novitiate and profession in the houses expressly designated by the Apostolic See. To this end, he presented a memorial in which he justified his request with the following five reasons:

1. In the Clementine decrees, religions that lived in observance, such as Pious Schools, were exempt.

2. The Clerics Regular, to which this Order belongs, were expressly excluded.

3. When the Decrees were issued, the Order did not yet exist, and since they were promulgated to correct abuses, they cannot be applied to unfounded Orders.

4. When Gregory XV approved the Constitutions, he legitimized what they prescribe with regard to novitiate houses.

5. This practice was confirmed because a professed religious pretended to declare his profession invalid because he had made it in a house that was not the novitiate, and the Holy See declared it valid.[3264]
3264 Cf. G. SANTHA, Probatío ac institutio iuniorúm nostrorum temporibus S. P. N.: EphCal 6 (1966) 238-239, n.66 (full text of the memorandum). Note that no allusion is made to the extensions made by the Decrees of 1624 and 1631 of Urban VIII.

After four months of waiting[3265], the papal Brief of November 17, 1634, appeared, declaring “that the said Clerics Regular of the ... Pious Schools are not included in the above-mentioned Decrees of the said Clement, our predecessor, which were approved and renewed by Us, just as the other Clerics Regular are not included.”[3266] This statement, taken out of context, was later interpreted more broadly, as if the exception referred to all of Clement’s decrees. But it referred explicitly to the preceding paragraph of the Brief, which speaks of the reception of novices in houses approved by the Holy See, and that was precisely the question.

3265 Cf. C.2248, 2252, 2255, 2256, 2260, 2276, 2280, 2294, 2298.

3266 Cf. Bull. Sch. P., p.39-40. Rather than interpretation it seems to be a retraction of the decrees of 1624 and 1631, apparently.

Identical problems must have arisen in other Religions, but it had still been a long year before the Holy See, in a decree of the Congregation of the Council of January 5, 1636, established that religious who had made their novitiate or profession in houses not approved by the Holy See could not plead the nullity of their profession if a quinquennium had already elapsed. [3267]

3267 And complementary rules were added in case the quinquennium had not yet elapsed (cf. Bull. Rom., XIV, p.512-513). However, the concession made to the Pious Schools was much more generous.

Change of attitude: concession of the priesthood

There were more and more, though still not many, clerical brothers or simple brothers who tried to leave the Order, or in fact left it because of the hopelessness of being able to attain the priesthood. In troubled waters, there was no lack of restless, unobservants, troublemakers who wanted to take advantage of the unrest to return to the world, citing the nullity of their vows. And the Holy Founder hoped that the Lord, through his providence, “would separate the wheat from the tares”.[3268] But alongside these lax people, there were others with excellent intellectual, pedagogical and religious qualities who were tempted to leave the Order in order to achieve outside what they could not hope to achieve inside. And this worried and depressed Father General, the Assistants and many others at the same time.

3268 This was already expressed in a letter to Alacchi dated September 6, 1633 (C.2110).

It was not enough to stop the departures legally by declaring the vocations valid and freeing them from Clementine rights. It was necessary to give the Cleric Brothers other signs of appreciation and compassion. For this reason, the General Congregation issued two decrees at the beginning of 1635, granting them greater involvement in the internal organization of the houses. In the first decree, all local superiors were required to set up a cash box, locked with two keys, to keep the money, which was to be managed by the superior and the treasurer or administrator of the house. It was also stipulated that the treasurer should henceforth be a cleric brother, whereas in the Constitutions it was only prescribed that he should be one of the lay brothers.[3269]

3269 Cf. BARTLIK: EphCal l-2 (1944) 14; CC, n.142.

In the second decree, it was ordered that a weekly meeting should be held in all houses to deal with matters of housekeeping or school affairs. All priests, the ordinary clerics and also the cleric brothers were to attend and cast an advisory vote. The clerics of both classes had to have at least seven years of professional experience, but soon the founder began to exempt them from some years for various reasons.[3270] With these measures, he tried to shorten the gap between cleric brothers and priests.

3270 Cf: BARTLIK, I.c., p.14-1S. Both decrees were signed by Calasanz, Casani, Castelli and John Garcia on January 3, 1635. The other Assistant, Fr. Graziani, had died on October 4, 1634. On March 7, 1635, two were already dispensed (C.2341, 2343 and 2348).

Despite everything, during these years there were some cleric brothers who, with good manners and a certain tenacity, kept begging Father General to grant them the priesthood. And among them stood out two whose undeniable merits, intellectual talent and general esteem in the environment in which they moved made them worthy of at least an exceptional concession. They were Francis Michelini (1604-1665) and Ambrose Ambrosi (1609-1645), Romans, pupils of the schools of San Pantaleo and highly esteemed by the Saintly Founder. Both had an exceptional talent for mathematics and the Founder gave them the opportunity to study it. He encouraged their contacts and teaching with eminent scholars such as Fr. Antony Santini, Somascan, and John Baptist Baliani in Genoa, Father Benedict Castelli, Benedictine, and the priest Raphael Magiotti in Rome; John Camil Gloriosi in Naples and finally Galileo Galilei in Florence, with whom all these great men were friends and in whose privileged environment the two Piarists will move with ease, since they will form the nucleus of the circle that will be formed in the Florentine Pious Schools, known in our history as the “Galileian Piarists”

After a few years of living together in Genoa, Michelini moved to Florence in 1629 and Ambrosi was transferred to Nikolsburg in 1631. It is significant that already in Genoa and then in Florence, while the Piarists continued to call Michelini ‘Fratel Francesco’ because he was only a brother, the outsiders, i.e. their illustrious Galilean friends, always called him ‘Padre Francesco’.[3271] The same applies to Ambrosio Ambrosi during his stay in Nikolsburg.[3272] This shows that they themselves considered the name ‘brother’ or ‘cleric brother’ to be demeaning. They tried - they and their friends - to be called Fathers without being priests. But they did not give up hope of getting it.

3271 For example, they call him “fratello” (Br.): Calasanz (C.1527, 2251), Fr. Castelli (EHI, p.574, 580), Fr. Galletti (EHI, p.1204, 1208-1209); he is called “Father” by his friends Baliani, Castelli, Magiotti, Galileo, Cardinal Carlo dei Medici... (cf. L. PICANYOL, Le Scuole Pie e Galileo Galilei, p.74,75,77-80). B. Castelli, writing to Galileo in 1634, says: “Father Francis (Michelini), more reverend than others who are called Reverendissimo (Most Reverend)...” (ibid., p.77).

3272 Cardinal Dietrichstein calls him “Fr. Ambrosio” (EEC, p.380), while he is called “Fratello”, for example, by Calasanz (C.1840, 1970, 2161, 2429, 2480), Fr. Tencani (EEC, p.1165, 1171, 1173), Fr. Leailth, who accuses him of being conceited (ibid., p.619, 653).

As soon as Br. Ambrose arrived in Nikolsburg, he devoted himself intensively to the study of the Latin language, though this was forbidden for the brothers. He undoubtedly had the help of his companion in the community, Cl. Joseph Apa, an excellent Latinist and of the same age. Father Rector, Peregrino Tencani, initially believed that Latin was necessary for his study of mathematics, but then he understood that the purpose was different and, to achieve it, he insisted on returning to Italy.[3273] This situation caused him a kind of religious crisis, which he described in a letter to Father General with long and sibylline paraphrases. He tried to persuade him to let him return so that he could explain himself better personally, but did not yet dare to say clearly that he wanted to be ordained a priest.[3274] Father General kept him in Nikolsburg for another two and a half years and finally gave in at the behest of Cardinal Dietrichstein[3275], so that he arrived in Rome in November 1635.

3273 Cf. EEC, p.1171. He could not exclude, however, that Latin would also be useful for his studies, since scientists in Europe used to write in that language. In fact, Ambrose asks Father General to send him mathematical works in Latin to Nikolsburg (cf. ibid., p.48, 51).

3274 Ibid., p.41-43.

3275 Ibid., p.380.

His great friend Michelini had already been living in Florence for six years and enjoyed the esteem of Galileo and his students as well as the Court, the Grand Duke and Cardinal Charles de Medici. It is logical to assume that, given his aspirations for the priesthood, he used the recommendations of his powerful and influential friends to bend Father General’s will and obtain ordination for himself and his friend Ambrose.[3276] Berro is not content to say that they enjoyed the favor “of “various lords, including Ems. Cardinals and Highnesses, especially from Tuscany”, but he explicitly says that with these intermediaries they “did violence in many ways to our V. Father General and Founder to be ordained priests.”[3277]

3276 This is Picanyol’s opinion against Giovanozzi (cf. L. PICANYOL, o.c., p.83-91).

3277 Cf. BERRO I, p.224.

The requests were perhaps addressed specifically to Michelini and Ambrosi as an exception or privilege. But given the general atmosphere in the Order, prudence - and even justice - counseled against making abominable distinctions. The General and his Assistants considered the question carefully and decided to give license all Cleric Brothers who were suitable to be ordained priests, provided they passed the ordinary canonical examination before the official examiners of the diocese of Rome. Once ordained, they would of course enjoy all the honors and privileges of a priest and take the rank to which they were entitled among the other priests of the Order according to their profession. There was also no lack of reasons to justify this new concession to the Cleric Brothers, and these were: “since there are among them, by the grace of God, some who are suitable and capable of receiving holy orders, so that it does not appear that we are rejecting divine grace by hiding the Lord’s talents on earth and depriving our Religion of this increase of priests which it so much needs...”[3278] The decree was signed on April 30, 1636.

3278 The text was included in its entirety in the papal Brief of which we will speak later.

In order to give this serious decree more authority and consistency, the Pope was asked to confirm it with an apostolic Brief. The petition[3279] briefly recalled the history of the institution of the Cleric Brothers and the reasons that justified it, adding that from the beginning it had been considered appropriate to refuse all of them admission to the minor and major orders, “but not to the General the opportunity to promote them in due course if he considered them suitable.” And now that their usefulness had been recognized, the decree was issued and papal confirmation was requested.

3279 Cf. G. SANTHA, Probatio et institutio..., p.343, n.118.

On August 19, 1636, Urban VIII signed the apostolic Brief Nuper pro parte, which confirmed the decree of the General Congregation, which was contained in full in the Brief.[3280] On the basis of this Brief, the two Cleric Brothers Francis Michelini and Ambrose Ambrosi were ordained priests in the chapel of the novitiate in Rome on November 11, 1636, after having received previously minor and major orders.

3280 Cf. EGC IX, p.107-109.

Satisfaction of some and resistance of others

As soon as the news spread of the concession of the General Congregation that opened the door to the priesthood for the Cleric Brothers, there was a double reaction: great satisfaction and excessive hope among the beneficiaries and protest and resentment among some Fathers and clerics who were forced to give up their place to the new, aspiring priests who claimed the rank of profession. Not without consternation, Father Assistant Castelli wrote to the General from Florence on June 21, 1636, trying to halt events before the papal letter ratified the decree of the General Congregation:

“What is most important and necessary for you to know before the Brief comes out... or before you publish it and put it into practice, if it has already come out, is that I have discovered a great conspiracy of priests and clerics of many houses who are against the Brief, with no hope of pacifying or dissolving it without causing the ruin of the Religion; for if they cannot help it, they will become intolerable and will leave the Institute and perhaps the habits. I try wisely to set before them the coveniences and good [that follows from this decree] both in general for the whole Institute and in particular for them, for if there are no cleric brothers for the lower schools, they will of necessity have to take care of these, and thus forego the possibility of going higher. And it seems that they would be easily satisfied if the cleric brothers had no intention of going further. But when they think of what they call the confusion of precedences and assignments of clerics and brethren of all kinds, teachers, masons, cooks and alms-gatherers. When they have seen that we have been so generous as to grant them birettas, tonsures and titles, then doubts come into their minds. And may God grant them that they can resign themselves to giving up the place of profession to priests or simple cleric brothers. I think it is necessary to remove from the Brief, when it is granted or has already been granted, the detail of maintaining the order of profession up to the great orders, or to abolish altogether the title of Cleric Brothers, which is not in conformity with the Rules, endowing some of them who deserve it with special Briefs, as was intended and Ambrose tried to achieve.”[3281]

3281 EHI, p.609-610.

Neither the General nor the other Assistants took these late requests of Castelli into consideration, as the Brief was published without taking them into account. However, it is possible to suggest another probable influence on the final drafting of the letter. Although the decree of the General Congregation states at the beginning that among the clerical brothers “there are some who are suitable and capable of receiving holy orders”, it was later decided that “all’ clerical brothers could be promoted to the priesthood. And this must have been how it was initially understood. Since birettas and tonsures had been bestowed with excessive generosity on all kinds of brothers who were or had been “teachers, masons, cooks or alms-gatherers”, they could now all claim to be priests occupying their places according to their first profession. And that was the big problem Castelli addressed in his letter. The only control or restriction on candidates that the Decree of Fr. General proposed was the preliminary examination for ordination to the priesthood, which was to take place only before the official examiners in Rome. This required no more and no less than what was required of all candidates for major orders, whether religious or secular.

The papal Brief added a new paragraph with conditions that were not included in the Decree of the Generalate. It states that the said Decree “is approved “in all particulars, ... on condition that the said cleric brothers do not belong to the class of converts or, as converts, have not exercised ministerial functions proper to converts.”[3282] These subtle distinctions suggest that they were explicitly proposed by Calasanz and his Congregation, and not surprisingly introduced by the drafters of the Brief.[3283]

3282 “Decretum praeinsertum ac omnia et singula in eo contenta, ita tamen, ut dicti Clerici Operarii in temporibus a iure statutis, et servatis alias servandis ad dictos ordines promoveantur, et dummodo Clerici Operarii huiusmodi non fuerint in statu conversorum, nec tamquam conversi servitia laicalia conversorum exercuerint, Apostolica Auctoritate, tenore praesentium, confirmamus et approbamus” (EGC IX, p. 108-109).

3283 In the supplication of the Brief Calasanz wrote: “the Orator begs Your Holiness to make the service of giving it [the General Decree] by your Brief (in the form ‘Motus proprii’ with the sublata clause) perpetual authority and establishment” (G. SANTHA, l.c.). The parenthesis is crossed out by Calasanz, but we do not know why. What is interesting is the reference to “la clausula sublata” (placed below), which must have gone together with the above-mentioned Decree that will be inserted in the Brief. We suspect that this clause was precisely the one we are commenting on.

With these restrictions, candidates for the priesthood were reduced to those who had entered the Order directly to become cleric brothers (logically following the General Congregation of 1627), and those who had entered as working brothers (laici) and were not engaged in the domestic duties that laymen were entitled to, but in the schools, such as Michelini and Ambrosi and so many others.[3284] Therefore, “the masons, cooks or alms-gatherers” of whom Castelli spoke were absolutely excluded from the priesthood. But there was no prohibition for the able among them continuing to teach, with biretta and tonsure and the title of Cleric Brother. However, the General advised all of them to desist from becoming clerics so as not to delude themselves.[3285]

3284 This is how R. Martin also interprets it, without lacking some document in which the prohibition is extended to all those who entered the Order as Brothers, with which it would be difficult to explain the case of Ambrosi and Michelini, or the reference to those who had made works as converts (cf. R. Martin, o.p., p.58-60).

3285 “Since Brother Joseph Mary of the Cross has always been a cook here, it is not good to make the profession as cleric because in the Brief there is a clause that says ‘dummodo non exercuerint officia laicalia’” (C.2675).

The door to the priesthood, which had been kept absolutely closed to all Cleric Brothers, was opened, but with moderation and prudence, without uncontrolled floods. This is the only way to explain the small number of priests who left the great ranks of the brothers or the precarious class of Cleric Brothers. Indeed, a glance at the Catalogs of the time[3286] shows that in the decade in which the cleric brothers experience practically took place (1627 - 1637), only 25 entered this class directly, while there were 82 who entered as brothers. Of those 25, only 10 attained the priesthood and of the 82 brothers there were 13 who also attained the priesthood for other reasons. It should be added that of the 81 brothers who existed in 1627, only 15 became priests, including Michelini and Ambrosi. On the other hand, according to the statistics of the General Chapter of 1637, there were 124 priests and 79 “true” clerics in the Order at that time, compared to 159 brothers.[3287] Of these 159, only 36 became priests, apart from Ambrosi and Michelini, who were already among the 124 mentioned, having been ordained in 1636.

3286 Liber Cong. Paul., p.5-46; Catal. Rel., p.1-126; Defunctorum Memoriae (1618-1700) (RegRel 36).

3287 Cf. Archivum XIII (1954) 56.

There is no doubt that the General needed priests, especially for the abacus courses that the brothers used to look after. He therefore looked favorably on the ordination of some of them who were well prepared.[3288] To this end, he advised the Rectors to give them time to study after finishing their school work and to relieve them as much as possible. He was referring in particular to the studies necessary to pass the official examinations for religious orders that they had to take in Rome.[3289] He demanded that the Rectors push for these studies, as things should not be made easier by allowing the ignorant or the poorly gifted to pass.[3290] The hope of attaining the priesthood also became an incentive to demand more obedience and responsibility in the fulfillment of personal duties and tasks. There were even cases where the General preferred them to switch to another Religion if they wanted to become priests.[3291]

3288 C.2640, 2747, 2748, 2752, 2788, 2810, 2944.

3289 Cf. C.2631, 2633, 2640, 2818, 2829.

3290 Cf. C.2598, 2612, 2954.

3291 Cf. C.2586, 2598, 2633, 2686 and 2769, 2944.

All these orders of the General show that there was tension and unrest in many communities, caused by those who neglected their obligation to devote themselves to the study of Latin; or by the attitude of Rectors who did not give candidates for the priesthood sufficient time for study; or by those who opposed the ordination of brothers to the priesthood in order to defend their prerogative or for other reasons. Particularly noteworthy was the resistance in the Province of Liguria, whose three communities of Genoa, Savona and Carcare wrote a joint letter signed by 29 of their 57 religious asking Father General and his Assistants to refrain from promoting brothers to the priesthood. A letter came from Rome justifying the decisions taken, but the Ligurians again asked to suspend the application of the papal Brief, which they considered insidious, and to await the judgment of the next General Chapter of 1637.[3292]

3292 Cf. EHI, p.1331-1333 and 507-509. The juridical reason was that the “Cleric Brothers” did not exist in the Constitutions and these could only be changed by a General Chapter.

Perhaps moved by this unrest and entreaty, Father General decided to limit the number of candidates for the priesthood and published a circular on March 14, 1637, “ordering that the cleric brothers may not study grammar and that no one among us may teach it without the written permission of Father General.”[3293] This was undoubtedly a stumbling block to the aspirations of all aspirants. It could give the impression that the door that had been opened, had been closed again and that, so far, only the lucky Ambrosi and Michelini had managed to get through.

3293 EGC X, p.251. A year earlier, dated January 12, 1636, he had written: “Make everyone understand that none of the brothers study grammar and that no one teaches it to them by virtue of Holy Obedience”. (C.2495) But this was three and a half months before deciding that Cleric Brothers could become priests, for which it was necessary to study Latin (grammar), thus only insisting that cleric brothers could not go beyond the first tonsure by institution.

Father General’s complaints against his Assistants

To the unpleasant problem of the clerical brothers were added others, such as the aforementioned campaign of anonymous memoranda, the struggles with the Holy See over the care of new and old foundations with transfers of personnel, the consolidation of the Order in Sicily, the lawsuits in defense of the rights of wills and, above all, the constant demand for regular observance in all the Provinces. It should not be forgotten that the Old Saint was already 74 years old when he was confirmed as General for life in January 1632. He was therefore no longer in a position to make much effort, let alone visit the houses in person. He had to rely on others.

Of his four General Assistants for life, he always had Father John Garcia at his side, who ran the schools of San Pantaleo and took care of catechesis, continous prayer and, above all, confession in the church. But his lack of administrative skills prevented him from serving as Visitator General and even from effectively assisting with Father General’s many problems.[3294]

3294 Cf. G. SANTHA, La fidelidad a Calasanz: El P. Juan García del Castillo, segundo General de las Escuelas Pías (Ed. Cal., Salamanca 1982), p.26-28.

Father Jacob Graziani, who was appointed in January 1632, was Visitator of Fanano. After a period in the Roman novitiate, he went to Naples as General Visitator in November 1633, where he remained until his death in October 1634.[3295] He was succeeded by Father Peregrino Tencani from his arrival in Rome in the summer of 1636, when he came from Moravia, but his frail health kept him in Rome, almost always in the novitiate, until his death in April 1640.[3296]

3295 Cf. EHI, p.1280, n.1.

3296 Cf. EEC, p.1200, n.8.

Father Francis Castelli, Provincial of Genoa (1625-1630) and then of Florence (1630-1639), was almost always absent from Rome, in the cities mentioned, except for the period from February 1633 to June 1636 and other sporadic trips, such as to the General Chapter of 1637. From December 1638 he resided in Rome until his death in 1657.[3297]

3297 Cf. EHI, p.569-571.

Finally, Fr. Peter Casani was provincial of Liguria (1623-1625) and then of Naples (1627-1631), where he returned again as General Visitator from the end of 1632 to March 1633. He also visited Liguria from April to December 1634 and Moravia from May 1638 to March 1641 and remained in Rome until his death in 1647.[3298]

3298 Cf. EEC, p.118-121.

At a time as critical and full of problems as the three years before the General Chapter of 1637, that is, practically from the death of Father Graziani in October 1634, the elderly Founder complained about the inefficiency of his Assistants, about their inability to maintain order and observance in the communities, which is why he had to turn to others to entrust them with the tasks of visitators or legal assistance. And these complaints are all the more significant as they relate to years in which he had his Assistants in Rome and not in the Provinces, as in previous years.

Despite their physical presence at his side, and wishing to remedy their inactivity in some way, two legal advisors were appointed at the beginning of February 1635, both doctors in law, to deal with the questions and complaints of non-compliance raised by the superiors, as well as problems with inheritance claims or any issues relating to the Brothers´ unrest. The appointment was made to Father Caspar Sangermano and Father Bartolomew Bresciani.[3299] In October, however, Fr. Bresciani was sent to Narni and Fr. Caspar had a serious setback with the Holy Office, as a result of which he was sent away from Rome.[3300] And again, feeling alone and without help, despite his assistants, Fr. General called Fr. Andrew Sabino from Genoa and appointed him Rector of San Pantaleo.[3301]

3299 Cf. CCP, p.222; EHI, p.1934-1936; EHI, p.1074, n.5; EC, p.557.

3300 He was accused and imprisoned, released in September 1636, deprived of active and passive voice, banished from Rome, etc. Fr. Sántha rightly suspects that in these disproportionate punishments intervened the advisor of the Holy Office, Monsignor Francis Albizzi, to whom his countrymen of Cesena had appealed, complaining about the actions of Fr. Caspar, who administered the testamentary goods of Cardinal Tonti, located in Cesena (cf. EHI, p.1935). Nowhere is there any hint of the crime or concrete cause of such measures. Later we will speak of Monsignor Albizzi and his arbitrary actions.

3301 Cf. EHI, p.1850, n.1. When inviting him to go to Rome, in a letter of September 21, 1635 he tells him: “If you come to Rome, you will see how necessary and useful your coming will be to the Religion.” (C.2445). He was Minister (Rector) (cf. C.2521 and CCP, p.251, n.1) and not Více-Minister (C.2493).

Throughout this time, the Founder’s eyes and hopes were focused on Father Melchior Alacchi, whom he had sent back to Sicily in November 1634 with the title of General Visitator. In the numerous letters that Alacchi kept from the Founder, it is easy to understand his state of mind at this time. On the one hand, his distrust of his General Assistants because of their inefficiency or incompetence; on the other hand, his feeling of loneliness, his desire to find help and his excessive trust in the tactical and reformatory qualities of Father Melchior.

The first complaint against the General Assistants appears in a letter to Father Alacchi dated June 18, 1635: “Since neither Father Peter [Casani] nor Father Francis [Castelli] are fit to reform and visit the Religion, nor to help the houses that need it, I would like Y. R. to hurry this summer to settle things there in the best possible way.”[3302] Three days later he wrote to him: “Y. R. arrange a way to continue the work there and come to Rome where you can help me more than there, because except for Father Castille [John García] and Father Caspar [Sangermano], I have no help to reform the houses, and if you could see how much I need executive people to help me, you would be amazed.”[3303]

3302 C.2388.

3303 C.2392.

During those months, there were only three assistants: Casani, Castelli and Garcia. The three in Rome. He says Garcia is the only one who can help him, but in a letter dated November 1, he disqualifies him too, writing to Alacchi: “Seeing how great the need is for your Reverence in Palermo, I do not want to tell you how much good you would do here, since I have no other help now than Fr. Castille, who is not fit for the government, and Fr. Andrew [Sabino] of the Passion, whom I have summoned from Genoa, because Fr. Caspar, who was optimal, has not been able to help me for some days, but I hope he will help me again.”[3304]

3304 C.2468 and 2479.

To the helplessness of the Assistants was added a deep crisis of pessimism in Fr. Casani, which was very evident and unsettled all those with whom he lived and above all distressed Fr. General. It is worth copying the letter that Casani wrote to Alacchi on June 18, 1635. It is an eloquent expression of his pessimism and his consequent inability to solve the problems of others, and confirms the complaints of the Founder that we have just read in the letter to Alacchi of the same date:

“I am so confused and troubled by the things of our poor Religion that I hardly know where I am. Consider, then, how I can clear up the doubts which your Reverence proposes to me. I do not even understand the wording of your question. I would rather say to you, “Explain the parable to me.” I do not choose to think about what is to become of our Religion. I can not rejoice in what is happening because I do not know where it will end. The less I think about our things, the calmer I am. And I intend to maintain this attitude from now on as long as this baleful influence lasts.”[3305]

3305 EC, p.560. See also p.563, 564, 566-567. As was common in his time, Casani believed in astrology and its influence on men and society. He alludes to it in this letter and very explicitly speaks of it in an earlier one (cf. EHI, p.556).

At the beginning of 1636, Father General continued to press for Alacchi’s return: “I would like to have here - he wrote to him - some who have a true zeal for the schools and who are suited to the general needs of the Religion. So, Y. R., if the bad weather does not prevent it, come as soon as possible.”[3306] He was referring especially to the house of San Pantaleo, to the observance and exemplarity of which more attention should be paid “because it is in the presence of the Pope and the Cardinals.” Father Sabino ran the house well as rector, but that was not enough. In response to these requests, Father Melchior left Sicily and arrived in Rome on February 11.

3306 C.2493 and CCP, p.250.

Not without a certain disappointment, Scoma, an admirer and historical defender of Fr. Melchior, wrote that as soon as he arrived in San Pantaleo, in order not to waste his time, he was assigned to the abacus class for two months, as there had been unrest in the community.[3307] The petitions of Fr General asking Alacchi’s presence in Rome would have expected him to be sent immediately to visit the houses and Provinces or entrusted with matters of observance or government, not to spend two months teaching children arithmetic. Nevertheless, it can be assumed that in those two months Father Melchior carried out a work of reform and pedagogical and disciplinary consolidation, and also took over the fifth grade - that of the abacus - which was the centerpiece of the Calasanctian system of teaching. And this assumption is supported by the fact that the director of the schools of San Pantaleo was Father García, who was not very strict and demanding, apart from the fact that Calasanz had expressly said to Alacchi in a paragraph already quoted: “I wish there were some here with true zeal for the schools.” Calasanz was therefore waiting for Father Alacchi to revitalize the schools with his zeal, among other things.

3307 Cf. SCOMA III, n.331.

Of the two juridical advisors appointed in February 1635, Father Bresciani had been sent to Narni and Father Caspar was still in the hands of the Holy Office, so Father Melchior was appointed consultor and then General Procurator on April 28, 1636[3308], and as such he had to deal with matters of general interest of the Order and the house in particular.[3309]

3308 Cf. ibid., n.333; BARTLIK, EphCal 3-6 (1944) 49.

3309 Among other problems he had to deal with those caused by the undesirable Frs. Francis Mary Pavese and John Baptist Carletti, who in previous years had disturbed the Order with anonymous memorandums and now continued to disturb the house of San Pantaleo with their scandals. Pavese left the Order in September 1636 and Carletti was sent to Naples in June of the same year and exclaustrated in 1638 (cf. SCOMA III. n.336; EHI, p.1013, n.31 and p.1632, n.1).

Worrying news arrived from Sicily about internal disputes and external conflicts that threatened the continued existence of those foundations. They also tried to prevent the return of Father Melchior, who was repeatedly harassed by Father Onofrio Conti and Father Peter F. Salazar Maldonado, not without reason, considering the strange character of the restless Sicilian.[3310] To avoid further clashes and to take advantage of Father Melchior’s availability by entrusting him with a general visitation of the Order and other tasks for which he had been called to Rome, Father General tried to send one of his assistants to Sicily, first Casani and then Castelli, but there was resistance to the first and personal excuses from the second (new inhibitions). The harried General had no choice but to let Father Alacchi return to his own country and appoint him General Procurator on May 29, 1636, retaining the two titles “General Procurator and our Consultor.”[3311] And on the first day of June he left Rome, accompanied by a Father and six brothers; while passing through Naples, another Father joined the group, so that all nine arrived in Messina on June 10, 1636.[3312]

3310 Cf. SCOMA III, n.335 and 337. Fr. Conti arrived in Rome on April 28, 1936 to report personally and wrote to Salazar among other things: “Regarding Fr. Melchior, he has already been made General Procurator and Consultor by our Father [General]; we are waiting to see what else he will be; because it was said that he had to visit the whole Religion and bring it into observance ... In sum, the more it is sought to lower him, it seems that the more he is raised. If he goes there, he knows the appointment that was made; and I am here with the Assistants etc.. And don’t worry etc.” (May 8, 1636) (EC, p.1146).

3311 Cf. SCOMA III, n.337; BARTLIK, 1.c., p.49-50.

3312 Cf. SCOMA III, n.338.

During the nine long months that Alacchi now spent in Sicily, the Father General never ceased to insist that he should settle the conflicts as quickly as possible and return to Rome, as he had to send him to various provinces as a visitator. At the beginning of 1637, he was also concerned about the preparation of the General Chapter that was to be celebrated that year and the convening of the Provincial Chapters that preceded the General Chapter. And for all these matters, he considered Father Alacchi to be the most suitable person. In his letters to Alacchi, he does not fail to repeat the old idea that he cannot rely on his Assistants, and therefore he insists on the presence of the dynamic Sicilian in Rome. An example of this is this letter from July 1636: “Your Reverence will recognize the great necessity of visit our Religion when you do it, for our Assistants are not in a position to do so much. So, see to it that you put the house of Palermo in order so that you can help the whole religion.”[3313] Father Alacchi was back in Rome at the end of March.

3313 C.2565.

Preparations for the General Chapter of 1637

Because of the plague, the General Chapter of 1631 could not be held. But the Fathers who were able to come to Rome, together with Father General and his Assistants, met under the presidency of Cardinal Ginetti to discuss the most important matters that would have been dealt with at the General Chapter. One of these matters was the confirmation of Father General, for which they had to turn to the Pope. With his Brief Inscrutabili of January 12, 1632, Urban VIII appointed the Founder as General for life and the four General Assistants presented by the General, but said nothing about the Provincials. The issue had already been discussed with Cardinal Ginetti and was resolved in such a way that the Provincials disappeared, except in Germania, and the Provinces were effectively governed by the General Congregation.

After six years, a General Chapter was to be held in which, apart from the General and his four Assistants, all Provincials and two delegates from each Province were to take part. It was therefore urgently necessary to appoint Provincials and convene Chapters in which the corresponding delegates were to be elected. It was normal for the Assistants to preside over such Chapters, since there were no Provincials, and this is exactly what Fr. Castelli did in Florence, where he continued to be Provincial in silence, without an official title.[3314] Fr. Tencani continued to suffer from his ailments and Fr. Garcia was better off at home than visiting others. Father Casani, feeling ill in addition to his depressed mood, went to Lucca to take baths and stayed away from Rome from April 23rd until the end of September.[3315] He was therefore able to do little to prepare the Chapter. It was therefore not surprising that Father General resorted to the services of the ever faithful and benevolent Father Melchior.

3314 Cf. EHI, p.571. Cf. CC, n.236, 297, 298.

3315 Cf. C.2708; PosCas, p.962.

On April 14, 1637, a meeting was held between Father General and his assistants Casani, Garcia and Tencani, which was also attended by Father Alacchi, “Procurator, General Visitator and consultor”,” as the minutes state. Among others, Father General proposed as Provincials “on the occasion of the Chapter”: for Naples Father Antony Mary Vitali, for Genoa Father Joseph Fedele, for Sicily Father Onofre Conti, for Florence it was left to the election of Father Francis Castelli, “since he is already there”, and for Germany Father John Stephen Spinola. The proposal was accepted by all, even if there were later changes, both at the beginning and at the end of the General Chapter.[3316]

3316 Cf. EGC X, p.252-253, n.5 (Minutes of the session). Naming Alacchi General Visitator on May 29, 1636, he had expressly granted him: “... possisque in Congregationibus nostris votum habere” (BARTLIK, EphCal 3-6 [1944] 49-50).

Four days later, Father General issued a certificate in favor of Father Alacchi, ordering him, while retaining the titles “Visitator General of our Religion, our Procurator and Consultor,” to visit the Provinces, to preside over in his name the Provincial Chapters, in all of them, to appoint the persons named in the Congregation as Provincials, and to give each of them two Assistants for the government of the Provinces.[3317]

3317 See the Patent in EGC X, p. 252. He was not given the faculty to appoint Provincials as he pleased, as Sántha (cf. G. SÁNTHA, P. Melchior Alacchí...: Archivum 13 [1983] 61; EHI, p. 13) and Vilá (cf. PosCas, p. 926) seem to affirm, but “secundum nostrum ordinem”, that is, in accordance with what was established by the General Congregation of April 14th.

At the end of April, Father Melchior traveled to Genoa, accompanied by Father Mario Sozzi, who was to act as secretary in all the Provincial Chapters. The Chapter of Liguria was held in Savona from May 2nd to 4th, and Father Joseph Fedele was appointed Provincial, as established by the General Congregation. There were no particular problems, not even those of the brothers and cleric brothers, but everything passed off in peace and harmony, as Fr. Provincial and Fr. General expressly recognized.[3318] Moreover, Fr. Fedele recommended to Fr. General that the Chapters of Florence and Rome be held in the same way as that of Savona, if Fr. Alacchi could not preside, as he was planning to celebrate those of Naples and Sicily.[3319]

3318 Cf. EHI, p.978-981; c.2725; G. SÁNTHA, l.c.; C. VILÁ, El P. Mario Sozzi: Archivum 7-8 (1980) 123-124.

3319 Cf. EHI, p.980.

Nothing is known about the Provincial Chapter of Tuscany. Father Castelli was to have presided over it. Two vocals were elected for the General Chapter, but not the Provincial, who was appointed by the General Congregation in the first session of the General Chapter and only for this Chapter. Father Vincent Berro was elected.[3320]

3320 Actas del Capítulo General de 1637: Archivum XIII (1954) 38.

After the Chapter of Genoa, Father Alacchi wanted to hold the Chapter of Naples, in which the rectors of Messina and Palermo were also to participate with their delegates, since Sicily was in fact not yet a declared province. Father General urged him to return to Rome, as he was confident that the chapters of Naples, Florence and Rome - he did not mention Sicily - would take place in September.[3321] But the dates were brought forward.

3321 Cf. C.2723.

The Chapter of the Roman Province was held in Narni in the first half of June, presided over by Fr. Alacchi and with Fr. Mario Sozzi as secretary and substitute for the Rector of San Pantaleo, Fr. Andrew Sabino, who was ill.[3322] Even before the Chapter began, Father General had ordered that Father Sabino should be elected as delegate to the General Chapter and that there should be no question of appointing a Provincial, as he was thinking of Father Bartolomew Bresciani.[3323]

3322 Cf. Inventario Cronologico dell’Archivio Generalizio delle Scuole Pie (1762), by Fr. Ottavio Manetti (Rome 1955) p.55, n. 1 and 3. The rectors of Frascati and Moricone also had substitutes (cf. c.2714).

3323 Cf. C.2714; CCP, p.288 and 290.

The letters written immediately before this Chapter reflect, on the one hand, the Founder’s hopes in the arrangements that would be made to demand greater observance, and it seems that this was the case.[3324] But we can also see his fears that things would not go as he had hoped, pointing to possible irregularities, accusations, opposition and discord, and for this reason he recommended peace.[3325] Particularly significant is this paragraph concerning Father Alacchi, to whom he writes: “Your Reverence will preside in my stead at this assembly, which, if it passes in peace, will doubtless endure the others well, and God will have regulated the Religion by means of Y. R., a subject considered by many as imprudent, not to say furious. Thus, the Lord uses whom he will.”[3326]

3324 Cf. C.2732, 2735 and 2741.

3325 Cf. C.2714, 2735, CCP, p.289-290.

3326 C.2735 (dated June 6, 1673).

And the fears were realized. Father Melchior was harshly attacked in a pathetic plea presented and signed by eight religious, including Father Ludovico Raimondi, Louis Mallone, Francis Baldi, Archangel Galletti and Jacob Bandoni. Although the files of this Chapter have not survived, nor have the accusations against Alacchi, the content of these shameful accusations is known from other archival documents. It was unworthy that old accusations, which, even punished, had never been legally proven, should be voiced again. This was implicitly a grave insult to the poor Founder, who for years had used Father Melchior for the general good of the Order, by forgetting those dismal accusations and honoring the person and work of the Sicilian with titles and general appointments. It sounded more like revenge and infamy than justice, and some of the alleged faults were so vague and far-fetched that they pointed not to the guilt of the accused but to the malice of the accusers.[3327]

3327 According to a report missing from the General Archives in recent years (Reg. Prov. 26,6), the accusations were these ten: 1) he was put on trial for grave faults, for which the General Congregation imposed on him in penance to make a pilgrimage to Compostela in 1627; 2) he used violence with one of our religious; 3) he violated sacramental secrecy; 4) he aspired to be Assistant General; 5) he founded houses without the proper licenses; 6) omitted to read the Clementine decrees; 7) negligently educated novices; 8) received professions without due license; 9) admitted novices to profession without prior scrutiny; 10) intercepted letters addressed to Major Superiors (cf. G. SÁNTHA, o.c., p. 63).

Everything indicates that the leader of the accusers and signatory of the libel against Alacchi was Father Ludovico Raimondi, because another accusatory libel was written against him, signed by twelve other religious under the direction of Father Mario Sozzi, the secretary of the Chapter.[3328] Father Raimondi had been careless in raising his accusing finger against Alacchi, recalling past and almost forgotten events, when he had just been summoned from Naples by Father General at the request of the two local communities in a joint document and nemine discrepante, accusing him, among other things, of having abused his office as General Visitator and of having slandered some Fathers “because they wanted to defend the orders of the Most Reverend Father General.”[3329] Perhaps the nuance of retaliation is explained by the fact that Father Alacchi could or did intervene in Raimondi’s dismissal and deposition by informing Father General after he had visited both communities in Naples in March 1637.[3330]

3328 Cf. EGC VI, p.278; G. SÁNTHA, o.c., p.61-62.

3329 Cf. EHI, p.1538-1540; complaints of Father General in C.2720, 2721, 2733. Raimondi was Rector of Narni in 1632-34 and of the Neapolitan house of Porta Reale in 1635-37, being at the same time General Visitator of the two houses in Naples. In February 1637 both communities asked to be rid of him. In May Fr. Chrisostom Peri was sent to replace Raimondi (c.2712, 2716), who was called to Rome (C.2720) and then assigned to Narni (cf. EHI, p.1540, n.1 and p.1735-1736, n.1).

3330 In a letter of February 14, 1637, the General asks Alacchi to pass by Naples, in his way to Rome, and to be informed of what is happening “in order to be able to help those houses” (c.2680).

The provincial Chapter of Narni greatly angered Father General, as can be seen from a letter he addressed to Alacchi on June 12th, in which he asked him to elect the two delegates and return each to his house.[3331] And in this election, they disregarded the General’s express wish to elect the Rector of San Pantaleo, Fr. Andrew Sabino, as a member, preferring Fr. Francis Baldi and Santino Lunardi.[3332] But what undoubtedly pained him the most was the new fierce attack against his protégé and high-ranking collaborator, Father Melchior Alacchi. And once again, he wanted to verify the truth of the accusations and asked for secret reports from Father Conti, as Alacchi’s alleged mistakes were mainly related to his stay in Sicily.[3333] We do not know Conti’s reply. His acknowledged opposition to Father Melchior was no guarantee of an objective judgment. But they were probably truly reconciled during their last time together in Sicily, as the Founder had predicted, and Conti’s report was positive.[3334]

3331 Cf. CCP, p.292-293. It contrasts sharply with the satisfaction he expressed for the Prov. Chapter of Liguria (C.2725).

3332 Cf. CCP, p.288 and Minutes of the Cap. Gen. of 1637 (1.c., p.37).

3333 Cf. C.2758.

3334 Cf. C.2593, 2594, 2600. Conti’s aversion and intrigues against Alacchi in the years 1634-1637 should not obfuscate the splendid later career of the former, who was one of the most meritorious figures in the consolidation and expansion of the Pious Schools in Moravia and Poland (cf. EEC, p.154-157). Of him 80 letters addressed to the Founder from Central Europe are preserved (ibid., p.153-336), but none from Italy.

For his part, Alacchi wrote to Father Fedele, the provincial of Liguria, informing him of what had happened in Narni. Fedele replied with a wonderful letter of consolation and praise, the most important paragraph of which must be quoted because it confirms the judgment and esteem that the Founder felt for Father Alacchi, despite past contradictions and hostility:

”... I was disturbed by the revolt of the eight against you, who have nothing to fear. ... Father Visitator, great things do not come to an end without great difficulty: envy aims at the impugning of virtue, and the work that does not feel the bite of envy is not virtuous; rather, no human endeavor without envy deserves to be great, for one envies not small things, but those undertaken by generous and magnanimous souls…. Rejoice, then, for in your contradictions are shown the works of Your Reverence, rich in virtue, abundant in greatness, and adorned with holiness.”[3335]

3335 EC, p.1407.

We do not know whether this new inconsistency so discouraged Father Melchior that he gave up his titles and duties as Visitator and Procurator General and to preside over the Provincial Chapters of Naples and Sicily, or whether Father General, to avoid possible complications, advised him to resign.[3336] The fact is that he did not attend either meeting. The Sicilian meeting took place in Messina in mid-September, presided over by Fr. Onofrio Conti, with Fr. Mario Sozzi acting partly as secretary as he was ill. For the time being, no provincial of Sicily was appointed.[3337] The provincial Chapter of Naples was then held at the end of September, presided over by Father Provincial Antony Mary Vitali, with Father Sozzi as secretary, who had already announced the appointment of the Provincial in Rome on August 20th.[3338]

3336 On June 20th the Founder already thought of appointing Fr. Cherubini as General Procurator (C.2745). So, Fr. Alacchi had already resigned.

3337 Cf. C. VILÁ, o.c., p.128. The Minutes state that Conti, Rector of Palermo, attended “as Provincial President by order et comission of Our Rev. Fr. General “ (Reg. Prov. 26, n.5).

3338 Cf. C. VILÁ, o.c., p.128-129. Next to the presiding Provincial there were two Franciscans “as arbiters of our difficulties”, as the Minutes say, and one of them was Father Maestro Santi Sala, the friend of Father General and Father Alacchi (cf. Reg. Prov. 10, n.7).

The Father General again gave unmistakable signs of his esteem for Fr. Alacchi and, despite the events, appointed him Provincial of Sicily - the first in history - but only for the immediate General Chapter, like all the other Provincials appointed. He had intended Father Conti for this title at the meeting of the General Congregation on April 14, 1637, which Father Alacchi had also attended.[3339] But at the last moment he wanted to publicly proclaim the merits and innocence of the discredited Father Melchior with this appointment and gave Father Conti the title of Provincial of Rome, for which he had previously intended Father Bartholomew Bresciani.[3340] The appointment was almost a challenge. And it earned him a displeasure.

3339 Cf. EGC X, p.253.

3340 Cf. C.2714 and CCP, p.290.

The General Chapter of 1637. Unpleasant incidents

In mid-August 1637, the Founder signed three decrees announcing the general Chapter that was to open on October 15th in San Pantaleo: one to the Assistants who were outside Rome, that is, one to Father Castelli and Father Casani; another to the Provincials and the third to the houses. To the Provincials he asked for “a note of anything that Y.R. and your delegates wish to propose to the Chapter”; to all religious he also told them that if they had a matter of general interest to the Order, Province or House, or personally, they should submit it in writing and signed to the Provincial or one of the delegates, “assuring each one that his proposal would be submitted to the Chapter.”[3341]

3341 Cf. the three decrees in Actas del Capitulo General de 1637 (l.c., p.35-36). In addition to these decrees, he insisted several times to the Provincials that they urge everyone to present their proposals, regretting that some had sent anonymous letters to the Prelates who were to preside at the Chapter (C.2781).

This was in fact the first General Chapter to be held in compliance with all the legal provisions and with full representation of all Provinces. It was therefore the first occasion on which any kind of personal or collective proposal could be presented officially and with full freedom to approve or disapprove constitutional norms, decrees or orders of the central or provincial government, to reject, modify or renew customs. It was therefore not surprising that burning questions, contradictory attitudes and revisionist tendencies arose and at times disturbed the serenity of those present. Of course, Father General, the Founder and legislator, was the most affected by all this, and with him the General Assistants, especially Casani and Castelli, who had shared responsibility for the leadership of the Order with him from the beginning. Fr. Berro, who attended the Chapter as Provincial of Tuscany, could not help but recall these events in his Memoirs: “In this Chapter, our V. Fr. Founder and General gave so many signs of perfection, patience and charity, despite the many setbacks inflicted on him, that the Most Ill. Presidents of the Chapter and Monsignor Rospigliosi, now Cardinal (and later Pope Clement IX), said: “I do not know when you will have another Father of such perfection and holiness as this one.”[3342]

3342 BERRO I, p.230.

The Chapter began on October 5th and ended on November 24th. It was presided over by prelates of the Congregation for the Apostolic Visitation: Msgr. John Baptist Altieri, Lieutenant Governor of Rome; Msgr. Benedict Landi, Bishop of Fossombrone; Msgr. Julius Rospigliosi, Secretary for Briefs; Capuchin Father Francis de Negri of Genoa; and Father Salvatore of San Salvatore, a Capuchin, who served as Secretary of the Chapter along with Father John Baptist Costantini. The capitulars were 24, namely: the General with his four Assistants and the Procurator and the six Provincials of Rome, Liguria, Naples, Tuscany, Germania and Sicily, with two delegates for each Province. There had never been such a large assembly in the history of Pious Schools.

The Calvary of the Holy Founder began in the opening session. When Father Melchior Alacchi introduced himself as provincial of Sicily, the Minutes state that “he was dismissed from the Chapter by the prelates for just cause.”[3343] This suggests that the presiding prelates were fully informed about the events in the Provincial Chapter of Narni before the chapter began and had read the slander against Alacchi and Raimondi. It does not seem plausible that the decision to expel him from the Chapter was taken by surprise, without first discussing the matter with the General and his Assistants. And in view of the outcome, Father General’s defense was probably not crowned with success either. But that was not the end of the matter. On the 16th, Father General and his assistants, together with the prelates, elected Father Octavio Zacarias Bianchi as Provincial of Sicily in place of Alacchi, and Father Vicente Berro as Provincial of Tuscany, the only one who remained unnamed.[3344] At the last chapter meeting, the prelates decided that neither Father Alacchi nor Father Raimondi would hold office until the next general Chapter in 1641 and that both would be kept away from Rome and housed in different places. In addition, the Provincial of Sicily was instructed to carefully examine the income in Fr. Melchior’s name and then forward it to the Congregation for the Apostolic Visit.[3345]

3343 Minutes 1.c., p.37.

3344 Ibid., p.38. Did Fr. Castelli perhaps hold title and office until then?

3345 Ib., p.54

There was another person in the Chapter who was hated by many because of his obscure past, but who justified his presence with the title of Procurator General. It was Father Stephen Cherubini. The members of the Chapter believed that, with a view to the General Chapter, he had obtained a papal letter on his own initiative and behind the General’s back, confirming his appointment as Procurator General and granting him the right to attend the Chapter and also to give precedence to the Provincials.[3346] For this reason, on October 21st, in a public meeting - and it was the first proposal of the Chapter - it was proposed without further explanation that from now on no one would dare to ask the Pope for graces without the written permission of Father General and his Assistants, otherwise the letter would be considered clandestine and the fruit of personal ambition. The prelates made it clear that the pope could grant graces, expressly waiving such prior permission.[3347] However, the surprise must have displeased many when they learned that the Brief with its concessions had not been requested by Cherubini, but by Father General, who not only wanted to favor Father Cherubini personally, but also to complete the Constitutions with regard to the office of Procurator General by granting him the prerogatives to which the Procurators General of the other Orders were entitled. And the Pope granted the Brief on September 19, 1637.[3348]

3346 Berro echoes this opinion, accusing Cherubini of ambition (cf. BERRO I, p.229). And the same has been repeated by biographers (cf. TALENTI, Vita, p.270; BAU: BC, p.734).

3347 Cf. Minutes, p.39.

3348 Cf. G. SÁNTHA, Tria Brevia Pontificia P. Stephano Cherubini concessa: EphCal 9-10 (1960), 259-262. Father General had appointed him General Procurator for a three-year term on July 18, 1637 (cf. ibid., p. 271, n. 13).

A week later they returned to the charge, perhaps the same capitulars as before, recovered from the surprise and proposed to the General Chapter to renounce all Briefs granted henceforth to obtain appointments in the Order, contrary to what was prescribed in the Constitutions. Although this provision did not concern him, because it concerned the future and because his appointment had been made in accordance with the Constitutions, Father Cherubini nevertheless resigned his office and the privileges granted by the letter before the Chapter. The Chapter accepted his resignation, but immediately re-elected him and granted him the same privileges contained in the Brief.[3349]

3349 Cf. Minutes, p.47. The appointment of the General Procurator was the responsibility of Fr. General and not of the Chapter (cf. CC, n.266).

According to the Constitutions, Father General had the option of appointing a new General Assistant until the next Chapter in the event of the death or forced resignation of one of the Assistants General. Of the four current General Assistants, three had been appointed by papal letter (Casani, Castelli and Garcia), but the fourth (Tencani) was now to be confirmed or replaced. And so it was done. He was confirmed with 15 out of 22 votes.[3350]

3350 Cf. Minutes; p.37 and CC, n.279.

But perhaps the most dramatic scene of the entire Chapter occurred on October 23, when Msgr. Landi and Fr. de Negri, Capuchin, the presidents of the Chapter, “after hearing the opinions of all the Chapter Fathers individually, - so the record says - they all inclined and urged that no further steps be taken to fulfill the Brief about the ordination of the cleric brothers; after consulting the matter with Msgr. Rospigliosi, they would give the appropriate solution. The minutes go on to say that at this meeting Fr. Castelli “spontaneously resigned from his office as Assistant to Father General and Bishop Landi and the Most Reverend Father accepted his resignation, whereupon the Assistant left the Chapter Hall and did not reappear”.[3351]

3351 Cf. Minutes, p. 41.

It was a solemn protest against that decision, but at the same time it meant abandoning Father General and the other Assistants, who in this and many other matters had to defend their previous line of government or reasonably accept the innovations in life, laws and customs proposed by the legitimately constituted Chapter. And once again, perhaps more than ever, Father General must have felt alone, for of his three remaining assistants, only Father Casani was named as a member of the Commission for the studies of our religious and Father Garcia as a member of the Travel Commission. Father Tencani is not even mentioned.[3352] Neither in the preparation nor in the celebration of this Chapter did the elderly General find the moral support and collaboration that he had rightly expected from his four Assistants.[3353] Likewise, apart from the help he asked for and received from Father Alacchi, he wrote some Declarations to the Constitutions[3354] to present to the members of the Chapter for approval as an authentic interpretation of the Order’s Code of Law. But they were neither examined nor discussed. He also wrote a booklet entitled: Regulations for the Celebration of the General Chapter of the Fathers of the Pious Schools in Rome. 1637.[3355] He had undoubtedly prepared conscientiously for that General Chapter, the importance of which for the Order he could not overlook, even if things did not go his way.[3356]

3352 Ibid., n.40.

3353 Cf. Sántha in EEC, p.120. It is true that Casani prepared two writings on extreme poverty, but there is no record that they were examined by the Chapter, which, in any case, followed a more moderate line, contrary to the pauperistic extremism of Casani (cf. PosCas, p.971-974). On the other hand, the activity attributed to him by Vilá in some matters is simple supposition (cf. PosCas, p.934-944: Juicio histórico-crítico..., p.152-167).

3354 O. Tosti, Dichiarazioni circa le nostre Costituzioni, Regole e Riti Comuni: Archivum 27 (1990) 1-80; Spanish translation: M. LECEA, Declaraciones de San José de Calasanz a las Constituciones primeras de las Escuelas Pías: AnCal 50 (1983) 561-631.

3355 Cf. G. SANTHA, Majora Ordinís Sch. P. problemata praesente S. J. Calasanctlo in Cap. Gen. annorum 1637 et 1641 agitata: EphCal 11-12 (1972) 272.

3356 It does not seem admissible, therefore, the judgment of Vilá, which supposes improvisation in the whole development of the Chapter, “without previous general script” (PosCas, p.930, n.34; Juicio histórico-crítico, p. 166 - 167).

The theme of the General Chapter

The historical importance of this General Chapter is indisputable, because for the first time the common voice of the Order could be heard, legitimized to approve or disapprove all legislation and its practical application since the beginning of its canonical establishment. Implicitly and even explicitly, it was a judgment on the mentality and actions of the Founding Father.

Some recent historians have portrayed this general Chapter and the supplementary one of 1641 as a kind of frontal attack by the Order against the Founder, who was accused above all of being a centralist.[3357] But if one reads the official records with equanimity, the general impression they give is not exactly that, although, as was to be expected, there is no lack of ideas and attitudes contrary to those of the Founder. Among these, two in particular: the rejection and condemnation of Father Alacchi and the rejection and annulment of everything established in favor of the brothers, whether cleric or lay. It is also significant that in twenty-two cases the members of the Chapter placed in the hands of Father General the final decision, the concrete investigation, the determination of appropriate measures, the proper authorization, the control of certain situations, etc.; in nine other cases they left these matters to Father General and his Assistants, and in eight other cases to Father General or the Provincial.

3357 Fr. Sántha has already overdone it a bit in his aforementioned critical study (cf. n.3355 above). But Fr. Vilá went beyond the limits of moderation by making too many personal attacks, excessive centralism and accusing the Saint of not complying with his own Constltutions (cf. Juicio histórico-crítico… p.152-167).

In order to coordinate the work, seven commissions were set up, four of which were of a general nature and three others had a more specific purpose. The first four dealt with causes (1), abuses (2), Constitutions (3) and Rites, schools and apostates (4); the others with the study of our religious (1), Mass stipends (2) and travel (3). The conclusions of these commissions were then presented to the General Assemblies for approval.

A total of 124 proposals were presented and voted on. On the penultimate day of the Chapter, November 23rd, the presiding prelates met with the Cardinal of San Onofrio, Antony Barberini, to review the minutes of the Chapter, moderate, correct, cancel or modify the proposals and make their final judgment. And it is noteworthy that they only made such apostilles about ten times and also made 24 other provisions.

At this solemn General Chapter - in some ways the first in the history of the Order - one of the almost imperative questions could not be omitted, namely that the Order and the Constitutions should be confirmed again by a papal Brief, as had been attempted on other occasions.[3358] This papal confirmation was to ratify the concept and practice of “supreme poverty” observed in the Order, as well as other provisions expressly contained in the Constitutions but in contradiction to the decrees of Clement or other papal Bulls. Specifically, it insists on the ratification of the power granted to the Father General by the Constitutions to exclude from the Order those accused of certain crimes, notwithstanding the contrary provisions subsequently issued by Urban VIII.[3359] It was indeed a question of great importance, considering the persons who had already made their appearance and others who would follow later, who caused trouble by memoranda or seriously scandalized by their conduct. The Urban Bull of September 21, 1624 was intended to avoid abuses and frivolity on the part of the religious superiors when they themselves decided on expulsions; but in order to defend the accused, it perhaps demanded too much evidence, the application of which would be detrimental to religious observance and coexistence.[3360]

3358 This was discussed at the Apostolic Visitation of 1625 (cf. C.349 and 380; G. SÁNTHA, Calasanctius et Visitatio Apostolica...a.1625 habita: EphCal 5 [1959] 188, 190, 197) and at the General Congregation of 1627 (ibid., p.199, n.34) whose request is now being reiterated (Minutes, 1.c., p.44).

3359 Cf. CC, n.272. The General Congregation of 1627 had asked him to clarify the matter and in this General Chapter of 1637, in re-examining the Acts of the said General Congregation, it is again proposed to the Prelates (cf. Minutes, 1.c., p.44).

3360 Here is one such paragraph: “Ad haec, ut in posterum a religionibus nullus legitime professus ejici possit nisi sit vere incorregibilis; vere autem incorregibilis minime censeatur, nisi non solum concurrant ea omnia, quae ad hoc ex juris comunis dispositione requiruntur (sublatis hac in parte statutis et Constitutionibus cujusque Reiigionis et Ordinis, etiam a Sede Apostolica approbatis et confirmatis), verum etiam unius anni spatio in jejunio et poenitentia probetur in carceribus; proindeque religio privatos habeat carceres in qualibet saltem provincia. Elapso autem anno.... (if he has not made amends, he can be thrown out, but after a regular process)”. (Bull. Rom., XIII, p.203).

The prelates nevertheless insisted on the exact fulfillment of Urban’s bull, disregarding other later demands, and made it clear that the letter obtained, which exempted the application of Clement’s Decrees, referred only to the seat of the novitiate designated by the apostolic authority and not to all the other provisions of the said Decrees.[3361]

3361 Cf. Minutes, l.c., p.44, n.5; 52, n.1.; 54, n.11 and 17.

Although the attempt failed, this attitude of the members of the Chapter must be emphasized, who solemnly ratified and adopted the proposals of the restricted General Chapter of 1627, whose acts they revised. In this way, they gave their official assent to the Founder’s Constitutions without objecting to them or demanding that they be revised, as they could have done. Moreover, they sought to give full force to the specific point in the Constitutions that gave the General the power to exclude undesirables. All of this is a vindication of the Founder’s legislative activity and his personal powers.

As for the undesirables and incorrigibles, it was to be expected that in the absence of the right of expulsion, “canons of penance” would be proposed against the disobedient, as per the tradition of monastic life. But this did not happen. At the General Chapter of 1641, Cardinal Alessandro Cesarini, who presided, proposed this idea for the first time, and the members of the Chapter entrusted its elaboration to the Father General and his Assistants, but it was not until 1686 that they were introduced. Something of this subject, however, was dealt with in the Chapter of 1637, which laid down the penalties for apostates from religion, that is, for those who were absent from the house without permission, distinguishing precisely the time and occasions of their absence, from twenty-four hours to more than a month, and from a single time to four.[3362]

3362 Ibid., p.42-43.

As for the governance of the Order, it was again insisted that the General Assistants live in Rome, together with Father General, who must listen to their opinions and meet with them weekly, even when there is nothing to discuss. The members of the Chapter wanted to limit the departures of the Assistants as much as possible, saying that they must not exceed six months and that they must be for serious reasons and infrequent. However, the prelates softened these demands and merely stipulated that they should live in Rome and not have a permanent residence outside Rome. As for the reasons for the journeys, this was ultimately at the discretion of the General and his Assistants.[3363]

3363 Ibid., p.49, n.14; 53, n.4 and 5.

At the same time, and in addition to the above, the intention of the members of the Chapter is clear to grant full autonomy to the Provinces and the Provincials and to distinguish the functions of the General Assistants and the Provincials, which has been confusing practically since the beginning of the Order. For it is established that the Provincials are not absent from their Provinces, but that they reside in them. And that neither the Provinces nor the Provincials depend on an Assistant, but only on Father General.[3364]

3364 Ibid., p.49, n.8; 53, n.9.

It is interesting to note that the requirements for appointment as Provincial or Rector are nine years of religious life and at least three years of service in the school. In addition, it is stipulated that the Rectors must primarily take care of the schools and put all other matters aside, and that they must supervise them personally and not through other people. This made the figure of the Rector as head of the school more important than that of the head of the religious community.[3365] No less important were the provisions that both the Rectors and the religious should remain in the same house for at least three consecutive years, in contrast to the custom of one or the other changing constantly, which was undoubtedly due to the urgency of new foundations and the lack of trained personnel, as is often repeated.[3366]

3365 Ibid., p.39, n.1; 48, n.26; 47, n.21.

3366 Ibid., p.47, n.20; 39, n.2.

It was also established that all - without distinction between Fathers, clerics and brothers - should attend the schools and that the priests in particular should give lessons without distinction between schools and for the time established by the superiors; before teaching, they should be approved by the examiners designated by the Provincial; uniformity of method should be maintained, using as text, if possible, the grammar of Fr. Emmanuel Alvarez S.I.; and to use other texts, permission should be obtained from Fr. General. It was confirmed that the custom of teaching Christian Doctrine at the beginning of the school day, oratory with the students on feast days and the traditional “continous prayer” should be reintroduced everywhere.[3367]

3367 Ibid., p.42, n.5; 54, n.19; 50, n.7, 8, 9; 53, n.5, 7.

As far as poverty is concerned, the concept of “extreme poverty” is fully maintained by reviewing the problems relating to the maintenance funds guaranteed by the foundation contracts; the acceptance of bequests for the renovation and refurbishment of the buildings; the regulation of begging or seeking alms; the dangers of relaxation during frequent trips; the management of Nazareno and Nikolsburg boarding schools, whose stable foundation estates provoked qualms of conscience, in relation to “extreme poverty”.[3368] On the other hand, it was insisted that neither money nor anything else should be demanded from students or their parents in order to preserve the gratuitousness of education.[3369]

3368 Cf. G. SÁNTHA, Majora Ordinís Sch. P. problemata...; EphCal 2 (1973) 64-74.

3369 Cf. Minutes, l.c., p.41, n.4.

Not without a certain amount of moderation, the Chapter again insisted that no new foundations be allowed until there was sufficient and adequate staff, and even then alms were guaranteed for the maintenance of a dozen religious. However, the prelates got down to business and strictly forbade the admission of new houses until the next General Chapter, which this time, exceptionally, was to take place after three years and not six, i.e. in 1641.[3370]

3370 Ibid., p.42, n.8; 53, n.10.

And that was all. Or almost everything. There was also a very serious and painful matter, no doubt for Father General and his Assistants. We will deal with that below.

The problem of the Brothers

The first spark came on October 23rd, when two of the presidents of the Chapter, Msgr. Landi and Fr. de Negri, after consultation with all the members of the Chapter, decided to suspend the application of the Brief conferring priestly ordination on the Cleric Brothers, which had been duly prepared. The final solution would be made after consultation with Msgr. Rospigliosi. We have seen that Castelli’s immediate reaction was to resign as Assistant and leave the Chapter. This spared him from having to endure further decisions detrimental to clerics and brothers, reflecting the general tension in all the communities regarding the demands of the brothers.

On October 27th, the members of the Chapter reviewed the acts of the first General Chapter of 1627, and when they came to the decision that created the new class of Cleric Brothers in the Order, granting them biretta and tonsure and assigning them the lower classes of reading, writing and counting as their own territory, they repealed the Decree absolutely and amended it with the following: “Henceforth, he who dresses as a brother may not study or learn more than he knew when he entered the Order, nor may he ever wear a clerical biretta. In future, only clerics and priests will run the schools.” The presiding prelates, however, felt that the capitulars’ proposal was too drastic and even offensive, and probably on the advice of Father General, they declared it invalid and ruled as follows: “The present decree (of 1627) remains in force... (and) those who have hitherto been declared Cleric Brothers may continue to wear the biretta and retain the same name of Cleric Brothers, and Father General may henceforth appoint others who seem suitable to him, but they cannot receive or wear the first tonsure.”[3371]

3371 Ibid., p.45.

This response from the prelates must not have pleased the capitulars very much. Nevertheless, they continued their attack against the concessions to the brothers. On October 30th, they approved another proposal that denied those who were not ordained in sacris the active and passive vote in the Chapters, thus excluding both the lay Brothers and the cleric Brothers.[3372] In this way they annulled the concessions that the Founding Father had obtained from the Holy See in favor of the brothers in general, as a result of the elections of delegates for the Provincial Chapters made in the last Local Chapters. This possibility was not, of course, included in the Constitutions, and so Father General asked the Holy See for it, arguing, among other things, that it had already been granted to the Capuchins.[3373] Moreover, in the Declarations to the Constitutions prepared for approval by this General Chapter, but which were not even examined, the Founder expressly stated that in the election of a member to the Provincial Chapter “all members of that family should have an active vote, even if they are Brothers.”[3374]

3372 Ibid., p.48, n.4.

3373 See the memorial of petition, as well as other reports on the subject in R. MARTÍN, Tercera clase... 1c., p. 60-62.

3374 Cf. J. M. LECEA, Declaraciones..., p.598, n.116.

There was another proposal adopted in this General Chapter against the Brothers, which literally read: “that not be received as Brothers those who are younger than 19 years of age; those born of good [noble] blood; those who have influence with persons in authority; those who know the principles of grammar [Latin], in order to remove all request and disorder in the Religion.”[3375]

3375 Cf. Minutes, p.51, n.20.

There was not a single brother in the assembly, nor could there be, since they had no passive voice for delegates. They were all priests. But these details, together with the previous one of October 27th, which forbade the brothers to study or learn more than they had learned when they entered the Religion, could not please the brothers who belonged to a educational Order. Nor could they please the older General, who had always endeavored to raise the level of culture, dignity and prestige of the brothers.”[3376]

3376 The General had treated the matter more delicately in his Declarations, namely: the brothers will be admitted to the novitiate not before the age of eighteen, and to profession not before the age of twenty; they will not give classes either as teachers or as assistants; they will not be admitted to the novitiate if they do not know some art or trade necessary to the Order; they will not be admitted if they are over fifty years of age, unless their qualities are for the edification of the laity and the decorum of Religion (cf. J. M. LECEA, o.c., p.573, n.l0). The Jesuits, in the General Examen, which precedes the Constitutions, prescribed that the temporary Coadjutor “nec etiam plus litterarum addiscere, quam sciebat, cum est ingressus, curet” (ch. VI, 6). Calasanz undoubtedly read this norm, but did not adopt it in composing his Constitutions.

However, the final decision on the papal letter was still pending. And on November 24th, the last day of the Chapter, the presiding prelates declared that the said letter, by which the cleric Brothers could be ordained priests, could not be applied at all, neither to those who had originally been lay Brothers nor to those who had expressly entered the order as Cleric Brothers. The only two who had already been ordained priests, Father Michelini and Father Ambrosi, had to receive absolution or habilitation from suspension from the Holy See, and only after this confirmation could they take the place corresponding to their profession.[3377]

3377 In the session of November 22nd, the Prelates reinstated Fr. Francis Castelli in his office of Assistant General (ibid., p. 52, n. 1).

Father General and his Assistants were far from suspecting any such conspiracy on the part of the Chapter members against the promotion of the Brothers to the priesthood. Proof of this is that in his Declarations to the Constitutions, Fr. General had tried to find a Chapter solution to the problem by, on the one hand, keeping the door to priestly ordination ‘open to all those who fulfilled the conditions required in this letter’ by taking the examination within one month for those already in Rome and within six months for those living outside; those who did not pass the examination would remain in the degree they were in; if they tried to ascend again, the biretta would be withdrawn from them forever and they would take the last place among the Brothers. The Cleric Brothers, on the other hand, who had attained the priesthood, would take their place in order of seniority among themselves and could not be Rectors or hold any other higher office unless the General Chapter granted it to them in due course.[3378]

3378 Cf. J. M. LECEA, o.c., p.575-576, n.19 and 21.

The Chapter ended, but not the thorny question of the Brothers, which became even more complicated. And the truth is that the measures taken in the future followed the benevolent line proposed by the Founder rather than the very drastic one approved by the presidents and the majority of Chapter members.

However, they were not as badly off as recent historians almost unanimously claim, who assume that in this Chapter the Cleric Brothers were absolutely abolished, that the Brothers were forbidden to give lessons, that they were all pushed back to the margins of domestic duties and that their birettas were taken away from them. Apparently, they consider valid the repeal of the decree of 1627 by the members of the Chapter, which created the third class of Cleric Brothers, as well as the new decree which replaced the repealed one and forbade the brothers to study, to learn more than they knew when they entered the Religion and to wear a biretta, and established the new principle that from then on only clerics and priests would attend the schools.[3379] These historians completely forget or do not attach due importance to the immediate correction of the prelates who presided over the Chapter. Faced with the absolute annulment of the decree of 1627 and its substitute paragraph, the prelates rendered their judgment by leaving the said decree in force and adding their nuances.[3380] Logically, what is valid is not what was proposed and annulled by the capitulars, but what was decided by the prelates, namely that the current Cleric Brothers keep the name and the biretta and that the Father General can continue to appoint others who may not wear the tonsure.

3379 Cf. Minutes, l.c., p.45. Bau (BAU, BC, p.703 and 737) and Picanyol (EGC V, p.278) speak of the simple annulment of the Decree of 1627. Sántha expressly affirms: “the General Chapter of 1637 totally removed this third class of religious and prohibited the Brothers from teaching or engaging in any studies” (SÁNTHA, Ensayos, p.384. Cf. also ibid., p.307 and 372; SC, p.125-126). C. Vilá writes: “The General Chapter absolutely annuls the right to wear a biretta and to take the tonsure; there will be no more Cleric Brothers” (PosCas, p.946); .”.. they will not be able to do school: their mission will be domestic chores...” (ibid., p.945). (ibid., p. 945). R. Martin clarified that the Chapter did not abolish the class of Cleric Brothers, which continued to exist (Cf. R. MARTN, o.c., p.64 and 67).

3380 The Chapter members say, “It is changed as follows by annulling the above-mentioned Decree at all ....” And the Prelates correct: “It is left in force this Decree, adding....” (Minutes, 1.c., p.45).

On the other hand, not only was the proposal that the schools should henceforth be attended exclusively by clerics and priests rejected, but an earlier resolution stating “that the schools should be generally attended by all” remained in force. And perhaps the most important thing the prelates proposed: “The Sacred Congregation decrees that priests should attend schools without distinction, according to the wishes of superiors.”[3381] This established the rule that priests should not only teach in secondary school classes, but also in primary school classes.

3381 Ibid., p.42, n.5 and p.54, n.19.

It is true that the Founder had written in his Declarations to the Constitutions: “We declare these Brothers [who will henceforth be expressly admitted as lay] unfit to teach; the superiors are to be instructed not to employ them as teachers or assistants in the schools.”[3382] But such Declarations were not even examined in the Chapter and therefore had no legal value. Moreover, the Founder himself denied his letter, adhering to what the Chapter had prescribed in this mandate, which is like an authentic interpretation:

3382 J. M. LECEA, o.c., p.573, n.10.

“January 2, 1638.

It is hereby ordered that the Superior may appoint the priests as well as the clerics and the brothers in any school, even in that of the little ones, as assistants and as ordinary teachers; and he may also order the said, if he thinks fit, to serve in the kitchen for a week more or less, as he thinks fit.”[3383]

3383 C.2793.

The second part was not a capitular regulation, but an order from the General to create a more familiar and egalitarian atmosphere among all, which he himself had recommended and practiced throughout his life, as we have already seen. Moreover, knowing that he was going against a proposal of the Chapter members - which had been abolished by the prelates - he continued to allow “the brothers who taught [...] to wear the biretta in school and in church, so that they would be respected, since some of them perhaps deserved it more than many clerics.”[3384]

3384 C.2810 (dated February 20, 1638) and C.2800.

So, neither in this General Chapter nor during the Founder’s lifetime were the schoolrooms closed to the brothers, nor was the service of teaching restricted to clerics and priests.

The “claimants”

The only ones who had made use of the papal Brief to be ordained priests were Michelini and Ambrosi. The decision of the presiding prelates of the Chapter or their Congregation of the Visitation to ask the Holy See ad cautelam to lift the possible suspension was based on the fact that the condition required in the Brief Nuper pro parte, which permitted ordination to the priesthood “provided that the cleric Brothers had not previously been lay Brothers and as such had not exercised domestic functions that belonged to lay people, had not been complied with.”[3385] And both Michelini and Ambrosi had entered the Order as lay brothers and had perhaps carried out some of the duties of lay brothers.

3385 Cf. EGC IX, p.107-109.

For this reason, they asked for absolution from censure, as they recognized both and doubted in their conscience that they could be suspended a divinis. On January 7, 1638, Urban VIII signed a letter to the Vicegerent of Rome allowing him to absolve the Fathers Michelini and Ambrosi of the irregularities committed and even to impose a salutary punishment on them. On the 9th, the solemn ceremony took place in which the Vicar, Msgr. John Baptist Altieri, who presided over the General Chapter, absolved the two priests and ordered them to take their place according to the order of profession, as provided for in the Brief. And on the 31st of the same month, Father General confirmed the concession of this precedence.[3386]

3386 See the three documents (Brief, absolution and decree of Fr. General) in BARTLIK, EphCal 3-4 (1950) 70-71, 98-99.

Five days later, after Michelini and Ambrosi had succeeded in normalizing their situation as priests, a group of twenty-one brothers submitted a memorial to the Congregation for Bishops and Religious in which they claim “to be declared true clerics from their entrance into the Religion or else to declare the contract of profession null and void.[3387] They do not ask to be declared “cleric brothers” but “true clerics”[3388], in effect disregarding what was decided in the General Chapter of 1627 and 1637, as well as the concessions of the General Congregation of 1636 and its ratification by the letter Nuper pro parte, which speaks of granting the priesthood to cleric brothers with certain restrictions. They therefore leave aside all these decrees and refer directly to the Clementine Decrees, according to which clerics must be professed after the age of sixteen and brothers not before the age of twenty-one.[3389] All those who sign this Memorial have made their profession, as they say, after their sixteenth and before their twenty-first year.[3390] If their profession is valid, they are therefore true clerics; and if they are brothers, their profession is null and void, it seems. If they are declared “true clerics”, they can legitimately assume the priesthood like the other clerics of the Order and thus overcome the obstacle that Ambrosi and Michelini had encountered.

3387 EC, p.2223-2224.

3388 Out of the 21 signatories only 6 had entered the Order expressly for Cleric Brothers (Dominic di Rosa, Sylvester Bellei, Caspar Bracco, Anselm Iunadeo. Charles di Giacomo, Philip Giogo); the others, for Brothers (cf. Catal. Rel. nn. 312, 264, 328, 317, 327, 270).

3389 Cf. Bull. Rom., XIII, p.218.

3390 Cf. EC, 2223.

The speed with which “the claimants” acted led to some confusion. They exaggerated the case, believing from the outset that it was a rebellion of all the brothers, when in reality there were only twenty-one signatories out of a total of one hundred and fifty-nine brothers, as can be seen from the official statistics of the General Chapter of 1637. And Father General complained about these exaggerations and other untruths in a letter to Naples on March 27, 1638: “To think that the whole mass of brothers is asking for justice is a great error, since only the brothers who professed before the age of 21 [...] so that many things are written that are not true.”[3391]

3391 C.2829.

In order to take legal action, seven of the claimants sent a respectful petition to Father General, asking him to appoint Father Ambrosi as special procurator to the Holy See “so that they would not be constantly forced to act personally and could attend to their own ministry in greater peace.” And Father General granted him this on April 21.[3392] Against them, the Order itself was an interested party, and with it the Founder, who held that the “claimants” were brothers and not true clerics, and that their profession was valid. In the absence of Father Cherubini, Father Antony Mary Vitali acted as General Procurator.[3393]

3392 Cf. c.2845a. The Congregation of Bishops and Regulars gave Cardinal Lante as Ponente.

3393 Cf. C.2847, 2892, 2900, 2920. In one of these letters Calasanz laments: “I do not know with what conscience he [Fr. Vitali] can say that I wanted to be neutral, since I have informed the Cardinals by letting them know the truth, that all the claimants dressed for Brothers and up to now they had a difference in the dining room and in renewing their vows” (C.2829).

The “claimants” had appealed directly to the Congregation of Bishops and Regulators, but the matter then went to the Congregation of the Visitation, probably because the monsignors who presided over the General Chapter and intervened in the conflict belonged to that Congregation. Nevertheless, it soon became clear that it was advisable to appoint a special commission or congregation, approved by the Pope and composed of Monsignors Altieri (Vicegerent), Rospigliosi, Facchinetti and Fathers Torcuato de Cuppis, Jesuit, and Feliciano, Capuchin.[3394] This commission dealt specifically with the question concerning the “claimants”, i.e. whether they were true clerics on the basis of the provisions of the Clementine Decrees. However, the Founder objected that all aspirants had assumed the habit for brothers by following the Constitutions, which followed the provisions of Tridentine, without concern for the Clementine Decrees, from which they were exempt as Clerics Regular.[3395] To this main argument, which would decide the dispute, the lawyers and jurists of both parties added further arguments.[3396]

3394 On March 27, 1638 Calasanz writes that Cardinal Antony Barberini and the Prelates of the Visitation entrusted the matter to the Congregation of Regulars (C.2829). But it must not be exact, since from now on he always speaks of the Prelates of the Visitation and their Congregation as being in charge of the matter (C.2968, 3018, 3019, 3021, 3044, 3064). Nor is it accurate then, since on April 2, 1639 (C. 3064) he continues to speak “della risolutione della Sacra Congreg. della Visita...”, when on February 14, 1639 there is a decision of the Congregation “specialiter a Smo. D. N. Urban VIII electa super differentiis Scholarum Piarum”, formed by the members we have cited (cf. G, SÁNTHA, Probatio ac institutio...; EphCal 6 [1966] 247, n.167).

3395 The Tridentine required sixteen years to profess, both clerics and brothers (laymen) (cf. Con. Trid., ses. 25, c.15; CC, n.13).

3396 Cf. R. MARTIN, o.c., p.70-72.

While Father General anxiously awaited the prelates’ decision, he realized that both solutions were dangerous, as he wrote on July 3, 1638: “God knows how it will turn out...the matter of the claimant brethren, for if it goes against them, many of them will leave the Religion, and if it goes in their favor, especially with precedence, neither clerics nor priests will be able to bear it.”[3397] In mid-August, news reached him that the cardinals, who had been informed by the deputies of the special commission, were inclined to apply the Clementine Decrees.[3398] Can be noticed Fr. General’s nervousness about the direction the matter is taking. He complained about the actions of the two procurators, especially Vitali, who was unable to satisfy him, and he even considered withdrawing both of them and taking matters into his own hands.[3399]

3397 C.2897.

3398 C.2920.

3399 Cf. c.2892, 2900, 2920, 2932.

This mistrust led to a change of scene at the end of January 1639. Father Vitali refused to continue as procurator, and the Congregation of prelates ordered that “this matter should not be defended in the name of the Religion, but in the name of those who present a mandate of procuratorship.” To this end, the priests and clerics who wished to appoint a procurator to defend the cause “against the complaining brothers” were to meet in the houses.[3400]

3400 Cf. 3018, 3019, 3020, 3021, 3026.

On February 14, 1639, the commission issued its verdict and declared that “all claimant religious who had made their profession before the age of 21 were genuine clerics and could be admitted to all orders, including sacred ones, if they were found suitable within the period set by the Cardinal Protector.” This decree was verbally approved by the Pope.[3401] However, it was not published, nor was its content even known, but - it seems - they went without explanation on the question of the nullity of profession, based on the lack of a prior secret ballot, which is required by the Constitutions for all professed members of the respective community. The General speaks about this for the first time in his letters of March 12, 1639, and it is only when this question is resolved, at the beginning of June, that the problem, which had already been dealt with and resolved in February, is raised again by declaring all candidates who had made a profession before the age of twenty-one to be clerics.[3402]

3401 Cf. G. SÁNTHA l.c.

3402 Cf. C.3035, 3044, 3047, 3052 (dated March 12, 1639), 3075. On June 4, 1639 he writes: “Now being declared valid the professions.... As for making clerics some of the brothers, still we do not know the way” (C.3092).

This unexpected change of direction seems to be the logical consequence of a preliminary declaration that said: “All are fit for the clerical state as long as their professions are valid.”[3403] The “claimants” had spoken of validity or nullity in their first memorandum, referring to the Clementine Decrees, in the sense that profession made for a brother before the age of twenty-one was invalid, but valid if it was for a cleric. According to the Tridentine decrees, however, it was valid for both a cleric and a brother as long as it was made after the age of sixteen.

3403 Picanyol supposes that it was given at the end of March 1638 (cf. EGC VI, 279). But it is not until March 12, 1639 that Calasanz begins to speak of the nullity, after a year.

Here, however, the problem is a different and more universal one, and the conditions required by Clement VIII or Trent are dispensable. Reference is made only to the Constitutions of the Order, which required a prior vote for admission to profession and concluded that profession was null and void if it was not preceded by such a vote.[3404] Again, the Founder feared that if they were declared null and void, not only brothers or “claimants” would leave, but also dissatisfied Fathers, some of whom had already appointed a procurator in Rome to plead for nullity.[3405] Among all these, the saint complains about Fr. Ambrose Ambrosi, whom he calls another “Frate Elia” for the Pious Schools, recalling the one who embittered the life of St. Francis. Nor does he complain less about the undesirable Fr. Peter Augustine Abbate and Fr. Antony Arata as procurators of the priests, while Ambrosi was the procurator of the brothers.[3406] All three later left the Order.

3404 Cf. CC, n.30; C.3052, 3063, 3073.

3405 Cf. EC, p. 2235-2236; C.3064.

3406 Cf. C.3052, 3064, 309*2, 3123. On the scandalous life of Fr. Abbate cf. EEC, p.4, n.l; on Fr. Arata cf. EHI, p. 117, n.1.

Perhaps in the end this was a missed opportunity, for there was no lack of “principal persons who advise me - wrote the Founder - that it is better for the Religion that it be declared null and void, so that the restless leave; it is enough for me that a third part remain, so that there be no dissolution (sic) of offenses against God, as is now the case with many relaxed ones.” And he concluded resignedly, “I have written pro veritate and I have made prayers that what is for His greater glory may come forth.”[3407] And the truth was that in the first years this requirement of the Constitutions could not be fulfilled because there were not yet professed religious with voice and vote, but in the absence of the previous vote there were always other expressions of consent in the ceremonial that accompanied the profession of vows.[3408] In those years, no one complained about this lack until the end of November 1630, when the same Father General began to ask all houses to comply with the provisions of the Constitutions, because it was only then that the first professed with voice and vote began.[3409] On the other hand, according to the Tridentine, if a religious invoked canonical defects to prove that his profession was invalid, there should be no case if five years had already passed since the day of his profession, which was the case for almost all “claimants”.[3410]

3407 C.3056 and 3068.

3408 See a long explanatory memorial in EC, p.2483-2485.

3409 Cf. C.1532, 1540, 1542, 1542, etc. The Constitutions required two years of novitiate and seven years of profession in order to have voice and vote (cf. EC, p.2483). The Order having been instituted by the Brief of November 18, 1621; it was only at the end of 1630 that the religious began to enjoy the right to vote.

3410 Cf. Trid., ses.25, c.19; C.3056; R. MARTIN, o.c., p.73-76.

These and other reasons for and against the validity of the profession were duly examined by the Pontifical Commission, which increased the number of members, being as follows: Monsignors Falconieri, Altieri, Coccini, Maraldi, Paolucci and Rospigliosi, as well as Father Torcuato de Cuppis, a Jesuit, and the Capuchin Feliciano.[3411] And at the beginning of June 1639, they ordered that “the aforementioned religious who complain about the nullity of the profession on the pretext of not having observed the form of the Constitutions should no longer be heard, especially after the quinquennium.” They also ordered that a different form of profession be prescribed for clerics and brothers and that both be included in the Constitutions.[3412]

3411 Cf. G. SÁNTHA o.c., p.246-247, n.167. The Saint cites only Maraldi, Paolucci, Cuccino and Celso (C.3123). Facchinetti, appointed in the previous period, had been made nuncio in Spain at the end of January 1639 (C.3026) and left Rome in August (C.3123). For this reason, he must not have attended the last sessions of the Commission.

3412 Cf. G. SÁNTHA, 1.c.y p.244, n.158. Sántha believes that this Decree was given at the end of 1638 by a particular Commission of Cardinals. The text leaves the date blank, but the letters of Calasanz, as we have seen, give the date as early June 1639 (C.3092). The Decree also gives the names of the members, none of whom are cardinals.

Those who wanted the declaration of the nullity of profession were not only disappointed, but rebelled against the decree and appealed to a final decision of the Pope. The Founder refers to them as “miserables” and points with names and surnames the main instigators of this dissent: Ambrosi, Abbate, Arata and the still-cleric Castiglia.[3413] Just four of them.

3413 C.3092, 3123.

In the meantime, the “claimant brothers” were waiting for the solution to the other problem: their professions were valid, but were they really clerics?

The Brief Religiosos viros of Urban VIII

On October 22, 1639, Urban VIII signed the letter Religiosos viros, with which he wanted to resolve the conflicts provoked by the “claimants”. And these were the three essential points, the first two of which had already been decided in the two previous decrees of the Commission or Special Congregation and the third was new and referred to the Fathers and other religious who had tried to prove the nullity of their profession:

1. it was not necessary to listen to the “claimant” religious who requested that their profession was void because they had not fulfilled the provisions of the Constitutions, especially after the five-year period of profession;

2. all “claimant” religious who took their vows before the age of twenty-one are true clerics, and if they are declared suitable within the period established by Cardinal Protector Cesarini[3414], they can be promoted to Holy Orders;
3414 It is strange that since the death of Card. Giustiniani (1621), who was the last Protector of the still Pauline Congregation, another one had not been asked for. Around the year 1630, the protection of Card. Ginetti is felt, without an official title; but during the years 1635-1640 he was absent as Apostolic Legate in Cologne (cf. G. SÁNTHA, Card. Martius Ginetti (1585-1671) et Scholae Piae: EphCal 3 [I972] 101-105). Perhaps the conflict of the “claimants” made think of the convenience of a Card. Protector. In fact, in the decree of February 14, 1639 of the aforementioned Pontifical Commission, the Cardinal Protector is already alluded to, without a name, in the phrase repeated in the Brief. Therefore, after that date Calasanz must have addressed a memorandum with which he asks the Pope as Protector to Card. Berlingerio Gessi, a great friend of his (C.3049a). But he died on April 16th without being appointed and on July 8th was appointed Card. Alejandro Cesarini, in whom the Saint placed his hopes to calm the worries (C.3113, 3105, 3122, 3133). Of the friendship of Calasanz with Card. Gessi there remains a curious souvenir among the objects-reliquaries of the Saint: a voluminous Breviary, a gift of Gessi. It was lined with red satin, but Calasanz covered with yellowish parchment the luxurious cardinal’s satin that still can be seen through some tears (cf.R. PUIGDOLLERS, Texto y actualización del Inventario de 1688 de las reliquias de San José de Calasanz...: Archivum 11 [1982] 98-99).

3. since there are other religious who doubt the validity of their profession because they have not complied with the formalities of the Institute, we accept their profession as valid as soon as they wish to ratify it.[3415]
3415 Cf. EGC, IX, p.109-112; Bullarium Sch. P., p.41-44.

Cardinal Cesarini indicated the period within which they were to present themselves for their exam for holy orders from October 30: twenty days for those who lived in Rome and two months for those who came from outside. But when the two months had expired, Father General asked the Cardinal to extend the deadline until the Octave of Easter 1640, which was done.[3416]

3416 Cf. BARTLIK, EphCal 3 (1951) 68; Reg. Cal. XIII, 49. Some autographic supplications of Calasanz are preserved, asking Fr. Torcuato de Cuppis S.I., in the name of Card. Cesarini, to examine and attest the suitability for ordination of some “claimants”, “as you have done with the others”, he says. And at the foot of the request, Father Torcuato testifies and signs it. We have already seen him, together with the Capuchin Feliciano, be part of the Pontifical Commission on this matter (cf. Reg. Cal. 13).

At last, everything seemed to be happily resolved, and the Founder saw it that way when he sent a copy of the papal Brief to the Provincials at the beginning of November 1639, together with a list of eighteen names and this explanation: “These are ‘the claimants’ listed in the letter of the 21 years, and not others.”[3417] But unfortunately, things got complicated again, and what seemed like an end was just the beginning of a new storm.

3417 Cf. EGC X, p.280-281. This letter is dated November 4, 1639. Of the 21 who signed the memorial of February 5, 1638, three fail (cf. EC, p.2223-2224), of whom one had passed to the Franciscans in 1638 (Andreozzi: EHI, p.618, n.4) and the other two left the Order later (Landucci: EHI, p.944, n.8; Chiereschi: FHI, p.648, n.1). In a document of September 29, 1640, the General says again that the “vere reclamantes sunt tantum 20” (cf. Minutes of the General Chapter of 1641: Archivum 13 [1954] 76). In which case he excludes only Andreozzi.

Frankly, the Brief was not very clear, and its imprecision, or rather its excessive precision, gave rise to endless casuistry, so much so that before the end of the year in which the letter was published, the Pope, at the request of the Founder, had to set up another special Commission, chaired by the Cardinal Protector, to clarify all the issues. It was almost the same commission as before: in addition to Cardinal Cesarini, it included the Vicegerent, Msgr. Altieri, the Secretary of the Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, Msgr. Francis Paolucci, Julius Rospigliosi and Sebastian Gentile, as well as the Jesuit Father Torcuato de Cuppis.[3418] This commission held three plenary sessions, the first on August 21, 1640, the second on September 29, 1640 and the third on March 25, 1641. Shortly afterwards, from April 15 to 30, the announced General Chapter took place, which, with good judgment, did not deal with the subject that had been examined and resolved by the Pontifical Commission up to that point, but limited itself on the last day to reading out the questions put by the General Congregation to the said Commission and its corresponding answers, which were included in the Minutes of the Chapter.[3419]

3418 Cf. BARTLIK, EphCal 5 (1952) 137-138.

3419 Cf. Minutes, p.74-78.

In an attempt to summarize and distinguish the many questions raised and resolved by the Pontifical Commission in these three sessions before the General Chapter, we will group them into six themes, noting the evolution of some of them during the three sessions.

Clerics because professed before the age of twenty-one

Who are the applicants who should be considered clerics: those who asked for a procurator and were granted, stating their reasons, or those who affirmed before or after the letter that they had professed before their twenty-first birthday? The commission replied at its first meeting (August 27, 1640) that all who had in any way made a claim were claimants.[3420]

3420 Ib., p.74.

But it was again insisted that it should confine itself to those who had legitimately registered as claimants and were represented by the procurator. The Commission responded at its second meeting (September 29, 1640) by extending the concession as far as possible: all who had been professed before the age of twenty-one were claimants, i.e. they should be considered clerics. However, it was objected that not everyone could be, because although everyone knew what was being discussed before the Brief, not everyone was interested in claiming. Today, it was pointed out, many want to be considered clerics simply because they professed before the age of twenty-one, but are unfit and pretend to study while neglecting their domestic duties. However, the Commission proposed that everyone be given the opportunity to register for the religious examination within the time limit set by the Cardinal Protector, so that those who passed could be promoted and those who did not pass or did not register would not be promoted as there would be no further extension. It was again objected that this useful time for examination had already been proposed and exhausted. Therefore, there was no room for a further extension. But the Commission stuck to its criterion, as the General and his Assistants had requested in a memorial addressed to the Cardinal.[3421]

3421 Ib., p.7 5-76. Cf. the memorial in EGC X, p.306-307. It is undated, but must be before September 29, 1640, when the Commission decides that they are true clerics “non solum omnes qui quocumque modo reclamaverint, sed qui ante Breve emanatum de anno 1639 emiserint professionem ante 21 annum”, which is what the above-mentioned memorial asked for: “esteem it appropriate to declare true clerics all those who have professed before the age of 21 years, although they have not claimed.”

The consequences of this extension of the clerical office and the lengthening of the examination period were fatal in many communities, because in reality there were many “lay brothers” who, without expecting it, were declared clerics because they had made their profession before the age of twenty-one. It was their new and last chance to try for the priesthood. For this reason, they left their cooking pots, their brooms and their saddlebags and even their primary school classes, immersed themselves in grammars and other books, hoping - many in vain - to pass the exams. And the other religious, both priests and clerics, had to take on housework in addition to their own duties.[3422]

3422 On January 1637, Fr. Fedele wrote to Fr. General from Genoa: “This is a misery, because since we have no cook after the departure of Brother François the novice, one priest must do the cooking and another the refectory, and I dare not give it to one of these [Brothers Philip Giogo and Dominic Morinelli] ... because they would immediately say that it is done to keep them from studying. To fulfill obedience they are all bad, but to study, Philip and Dominic stay awake all night; at the table, chestnuts and legumes are bad for their stomachs and they live like sick people, but at their study table, their stomachs do not hurt, supporting to study three or four hours at night... it seems that they die if they do not study always, and in the library there are no grammar books left, and some teachers do not have them to teach....” (EHI, p.972-973). This, which was already happening in 1637, must have increased greatly in 1641, as Father General laments.

The protests reached the Father General, who again tried to stop the disorders by telling the Commission that many of the declared clerics no longer wanted to do the domestic work they used to do in order to devote themselves to their studies, but since some of them did not know grammar and could barely read, was it fair to give them time off and exempt them from school or other ordinary work? And the Commission replied in its third session (March 25, 1641) that all those who had not received any order by that time could appear for examination for the last time, giving them - as the first time - twenty days for those from Rome and two months for those from outside. This was the third extension. Those who were not suitable for the minor orders could not be released from their domestic duties, nor should the superiors give them a new opportunity to study.[3423]

3423 Cf. Minutes, p. 77.

Clerics who had received the tonsure

There were brothers who had received tonsure and minor orders in anticipation of becoming priests, in accordance with the letter Nuper pro parte of 1636, which was repealed by the Congregation for the Visitation in 1637. However, could those who had professed before the age of 21 be promoted to the major orders, as well as those who had professed afterwards? The Commission answered in its first session (August 27, 1640) that those who had professed before the age of 21 were true clerics, as had already been explained; those who had already professed at the age of 21, however, should apply to the Sacred Congregation of Regulars, explaining their reasons.[3424]

3424 Ibid., p. 74-75.

They again insisted that they were true clerics because the Brief was valid at the time of their ordination and had not been declared inapplicable. Therefore, they did not need to appeal to the Congregation for further reasons. However, at its second meeting (29 September 1640), the Commission recognized that they had been badly promoted (like Ambrosi and Michelini), but left it to the Cardinal Protector to decide whether they were clerics or laymen.[3425] And since the cardinal did not give his verdict, the people concerned pressed the matter before the Commission, which in its third session (March 25, 1641) again placed the solution in the hands of the cardinal.[3426]

3425 Ibid., p. 76-77.

3426 Ibid., p. 77.

On the wearing of the biretta and tonsure

The brothers who were already professed at the age of twenty-one and wore the biretta and tonsure because it was granted to them since they were attending school, were they allowed to continue to do so, regardless of whether or not they had received the first tonsure and the lower orders? And the Commission answered at its first meeting (August 27, 1640): All can continue to wear the biretta, but only as long as they attend school; the tonsure can only be worn by those who have received the tonsure, and none of them can take higher orders, but they remain in the lay state of the brothers.[3427]

3427 Ibid., p. 75.

Validity of professions

Many, both priests and clerics and brothers, did not want to renew their vows as the Constitutions prescribe, claiming that the Pope must explicitly declare the validity, since the Brief leaves them vague by simply saying not to pay attention to them or that he would consider valid the profession of those who have ratified them. What is to be done with them? To this the Commission replied at its first meeting (August 27, 1640) that they should be considered as truly professed without waiting for a new papal declaration. And in response to new petitions, the Commission in its second session (September 29, 1640) ordered that, at the discretion of Father General, they would be deprived of their active and passive vote if they did not renew their vows within the period proposed by Father General.[3428]

3428 Ibid., p.75 and 77.

Precedence

This was undoubtedly one of the most sensitive aspects of the whole controversy caused by the promotion of the brothers to the clergy and priesthood, and it became more and more heated as the number of those promoted increased. However, the issue hardly came up in these meetings of the Pontifical Commission. Only one solution was put forward by Father General in the second session (29 September 1640), proposing that precedence should be counted from the date of the Brief Religiosos viros (22 October 1639), in which the applicants were recognized as clerics, and not from the date of profession. But the Commission postponed the solution without further action. And at the third meeting (March 25, 1641) it postponed it again in view of the same repeated proposal.[3429] But we will come back to the subject.

3429 Ibid., p.76.

The new formula for the profession

In this long and complicated struggle, it became increasingly clear that there were firm differences between clerics and brothers, mainly due to the fact that the famous Clementine Decrees were not taken as binding. There were therefore calls to clarify the differences, in particular by distinguishing the professed formula. In June 1639, even before the promulgation of the letter Religiosos viros (October 22, 1639), Father General already spoke of a new formula for the brothers; in February 1640 it was recorded that it was in use; in May the Pope was asked to ratify it, and he did so in the Brief Alias per nos (February 27, 1641).[3430]

3430 Cf. C.3107, 3287, 3430. The General’s supplication in EGC X, p.300 and the Brief in BARTLIK, EphCal 2(1953) 36-38. The new formula is included in both documents, as well as in BERRO I, p.243.

The main difference in the new formula for the brothers is the deletion of the fourth vow for teaching (“special care for the education of children”), which is replaced by the following: “I promise and take a fourth vow not to aspire to the clerical state, to have neither active nor passive voice, nor to wear tonsure and biretta until death.”[3431] It may seem an exaggeration to make this renunciation a sacred matter of vows, for it was enough that they were included in the Constitutions as new obligations of the brothers. But at least during the Founder’s lifetime, there was a tacit resistance to changing the text of the Constitutions. It is certain that from then on there were no more problems with the new professed, but for many years the consequences of the past confusion were dragged along, for which the letter Religiosos viros attempted to give a solution, even if it was not definitive.

3431 This formula for Brothers remained intact until the 1955 Gen. Cap. which decided to suppress the active and passive voice and the tonsure and biretta (cf. Const. 1957, n.33). After Conc. vat. II, the Special Gen. Chapter of 1967-1969 decreed that the formula of religious profession be the same for all, both Clerics and Brothers (cf. Declarationes et Decreta Cap. Ge. Specialis, Rome.1970, n.1075). And like this it is prescribed in the new reformed Constitutions, in all their various editions (1971, 1975, 1980, 1984, 1986).

Two notable absences: Casani and Alacchi

The long and complicated problem of the brothers experienced a period of greater tension in the years between the General Chapter of 1637 and that of 1641, which we have just seen. And the key date of this new period of conflict was February 5, 1638, when the “21 claimants” signed their famous memorandum. Two months later, Father General signed a patent appointing Father Pedro Casani as General Commissioner for the houses in Germania, with all powers of government, administration and reform, both for those already founded and those to be founded during his stay.[3432] As a simple precaution, although it was not necessary, he asked Cardinal Antonio Barberini for permission, as the absence of the General Assistants from Rome had been discussed at the last General Chapter.[3433] And he justified the trip by saying that “it is considered necessary to give more credibility to the work [of the Pious Schools]... through his presence, his teaching and his good example.”[3434]

3432 Cf. PosCas, p.1000.

3433 The capitulars had limited the absence from Rome to six months, but the Prelates corrected them by prohibiting only stable residence outside Rome (cf. Acts, p. 49, n. 14).

3434 Cf. PosCas, p.986, n.18.

On April 12, 1638, Father Casani traveled to Moravia accompanied by the new Provincial, Father Onofrio Conti and two other religious. His absence lasted longer than expected, as he did not set foot on Roman soil again until March 1641, and the General Chapter began on April 15th. This long absence of three years meant that he was left out of the whole problem of the claimant brothers and at the same time the General was without his advice and help. These were three hard years, the most important milestones of which were undoubtedly the background and consequences of the Brief Religiosos viros; the countless legal quibbles that had to be submitted to the Pontifical Commission for investigation and decision in its three sessions; the preparation of the General Chapter of 1641. And Father Casani was not involved in any of this.

It is therefore not surprising that the “Old Holy Man” was already overwhelmed by the problems and his many years and wrote to Fr. Conti in August 1640 about the forthcoming chapters: “If it pleases Fr. Peter [Casani] to come, I intend to appoint him Vicar General and retire to a solitary place to prepare to appear before the tribunal of the blessed God.”[3435] He would never have guessed that he still had eight long years to live, and the most fateful ones at that. The last great tribulation was imminent. In mid-October, Casani wrote to Calasanz: “I thank you with all my heart, with the greatest possible affection, for the great confidence you have placed in my person in a letter to Father Onofrio [Conti]... [but] Y. P., put these thoughts out of your mind at all costs, for you will not be able to realise them in any way... [and] since I am obliged to obey you, I will not hesitate to appeal to the Cardinal Protector and from him to the Pope. But I am sure that it will not be necessary to come to these hateful measures, for Y.P. will meet with insurmountable resistance in many other areas.”[3436] And there was nothing to be done.

3435 C.3491.

3436 EEC, p.143.

Not only that, he was determined to stay away from the General Chapter, just as he had stayed away from the local Chapters and the Provincial of Germania, even though he was General Commissioner. In September 1640, he even asked Cardinal Cesarini to release him from attending the General Chapter in Rome as he was ill.[3437] This was true, because from October 1638 - and he had arrived in May - he began to feel ill and so it went on with ups and downs until he left Moravia. At the end of the same month, however, he changed his mind for health reasons. In mid-February 1641, together with Provincial Conti and the two delegates of the Chapter, he set off on his return journey and arrived in Rome at the end of March.[3438]

3437 EEC, p.138-139.

3438 Cf. PosCas, p.1042-1057.

Neither during nor after the Chapter was there any more talk of the Father General resigning, nor of Casani being appointed Vicar General. Nevertheless, there was an attempt to resign, and in this case, it was Casani who, in September 1641, informed Cardinal Cesarini and Father General in writing of his decision to resign from his office as General Assistant, “after having made known to God our Lord - he said with sincere humility - with the experience of many years, my inability to do anything, but especially to govern.”[3439] Neither Calasanz nor Cesarini accepted his resignation. He was called to participate as an Assistant in the great tribulation that Father General and the entire Order were to suffer.

3439 Ibid., p.1122.

The presence and skills of Father Melchior Alacchi would probably have been of great help to the “Old Holy Man” in these three difficult years, as well as he was in the three years before the General Chapter of 1637, in which he lamented the incompetence of his Assistants. But the prelates who presided over this Chapter, not without the interference of some malicious opponents, decreed Father Alacchi’s banishment from Rome on November 23, 1637.[3440]

3440 Cf. Minutes, p.54, n.18.

This decision must have hurt Father General very much. But he immediately found a way to compensate for the humiliation of his always esteemed Sicilian and entrusted him with another of the “secret” missions, as he had done in the past. The Bishop of Urgel, Don Pablo Durán, during his long stay in Rome as Auditor of Rota, had spoken to Calasanz about founding Pious Schools in his diocese when the time was ripe. When he was appointed bishop in 1633, while still in Rome, he confirmed his wishes and agreed with the Father General that he would send him religious to establish a foundation after a three-year period following his departure from Rome, on the condition that no schools would be opened in the first three years, only a novitiate.[3441] Bishop Durán left Rome and reached the port of Barcelona on April 5, 1635, and a month later, on May 11, he made his solemn entry into Seo de Urgel.[3442]

3441 Cf. BARTLIK, EphCal 5 (1950) 142-143.

3442 Cf. L. ROURERA I FARRE, Pau Duran (1582-1651) i el Capitol i Bisbat d’Urgell fins al tractat dels Pirineus (Barcelona 1987), p.30-34.

Five days after Father Alacchi’s expulsion from the Chapter General, Father Calasanz signed a patent sending him to Sardinia and Spain together with the cleric Alberto Sansoni “to deal with some matters of no small importance” Both travelled immediately to the island, where they stayed until March 4, 1638 and were received by Don Vicente Molina, Aragonese and Inquisitor of the Kingdom. Perhaps the delay was calculated to arrive in the diocese of Urgel at the end of the agreed triennium, because on March 21st they entered the episcopal palace of Sanahuja to discuss the foundation agreed with Bishop Durán.

The town of Guissona, which was an episcopal fief, was chosen. Father Melchior quickly began the construction of the building with the enthusiastic cooperation of the population. But Alacchi was always the same. His character made him so hated that his companion Sansoni left him and returned to Italy. His former companion on the pilgrimage to Compostela, Father Sebastian Montagnani, who was still in Zafra (Badajoz), refused Calasanz’s requests to join Father Melchior. Nor did he succeed in winning the sympathy of the Catalans. He asked for reinforcements from Rome, but they were not sent. To make matters worse, the “Guerra dels segadors” (Reapers´ War) broke out in Catalonia against the central power of Philip IV, and as Bishop Durán was a supporter of the king, his properties were confiscated, on which the continuation of the work and the future maintenance of the Pious Schools of Guissona depended. Unfortunately, Father Alacchi also fell seriously ill in mid-1641.

In October of the previous year, Calasanz suggested to Father Melchior that he should leave the foundation, at least temporarily, and return to Rome to attend the General Chapter in the spring of 1641.[3443] But the Chapter and the summer passed, and in October 1641, when Father General learned that Alacchi was consulting doctors in Barcelona, he ordered him to leave everything and return to Rome.[3444] Alacchi obeyed. He closed the doors of the unfinished foundation and took the keys with him to hand them over to Father General. He arrived in Rome at the beginning of 1642. The first attempt to establish a foundation in Spain had failed. The keys to Guissona’s house have remained in Rome to this day as historical relics. And in Guissona you can still admire the solemn Renaissance arcades that were to form part of the central courtyard of the school, the opus imperfectum of Father Melchior Alacchi.[3445]

3443 Cf. C.3522. Melchior’s banishment from Rome and deprivation of office, decreed in the Gen. Chap. of 1637, were to last until the Gen. Chap. of 1641 (cf. Acts, p.54, n.18).

3444 Cf. C.3747.

3445 For more data cf. L. ROURERA I FARRE, o.c., p.41-47; J. SANTAEULARIA, La Escuela Pía en Guissona (1636-1641): Archivum 13 (1983) 115-167. It is a Spanish translation of the chapter dedicated to this foundation by the author in the Catalan work by E. CAMPS-J. SANTAEULARIA, Guissona (Barcelona 1982), p.489-546; L. PICANYOL, S. Giuseppe Calasanzio e le Scuole Píe di Guissona: Rass XVIII (1951) 9-19; G. SANTHA, P. Melchior Alacchi...: Archivum 13 (1983) 63-67; EHI, p.14.

Although it is not documented, it is likely that during the two and a half months (December 18, 1637 to March 4, 1638) that Father Alacchi spent in Sardinia on his way to Spain, he was interested in reviving the desire to found Pious Schools that he himself had expressed during his first visit to the island, also on his way to Spain and Compostela, in early 1629.[3446] In the middle of 1640, the Conselleros of Cáller wrote to the Father General and the Cardinal Protector requesting the foundation of Pious Schools.[3447] The process proceeded very quickly and on November 6, four Piarists disembarked in the port of Cáller, led by Father Peter Francis Salazar Maldonado, a Neapolitan of Spanish descent who was the soul of the new foundation.

3446 Cf. EHI, p.461.

3447 Cf. EHI, p.462-463. The General Chapter of 1637 had forbidden new foundations “until there were suitable subjects.” And the Presiding Prelates concretized the veto by saying that no new houses would be accepted until the General Chapter of 1641 (cf. Minutes, p.42, n.8). For this reason, Calasanz had to demand that the “Conselleres” also write to Card. Cesarini to avoid irregularities. When the General Chapter of 1641 revised the acts of the Chapter of 1637, upon reaching this point, it was decided that from now on Father General could not accept new houses without the consent of Card. Protector and the advice of the Assistants (cf. ibid., p.63, n.8), as he had done in the case of Cáller.

On behalf of the town, the Conselleros thanked Father General for the arrival of the first Piarists in a letter written in Spanish that began as follows “This town of Cáller remains eternally grateful to your Reverend Paternity and to the whole holy Religion, for having shown itself so generous to it in the mercy requested, to honor it [with] the education and instruction of its children.”[3448] All the surviving correspondence of the Conselleros of Cáller is in Spanish because, as Father Salazar said in one of his letters in Italian to Rome, “in this Kingdom only Spanish or Sardinian is spoken, but since the Sardinian language is difficult, everyone makes an effort to learn Spanish, and in the schools, both the Jesuits and we, we always speak in Spanish.”[3449]

3448 EHI, p.464.

3449 EC, p.2269.

We remember that the kingdoms of Naples, Sicily and Sardinia were an integral part of the Spanish monarchy, as Father Salazar expressed, with a perhaps not quite common spontaneity, with this expression from his letter in Italian to Father Pietrasanta: “We here in Spain live differently from the way we do some things in Italy, and our brothers there, scoff at it.”[3450] This greater harmony between Sardinia and Spain gave the Founder hope that the failure of Fr. Alacchi in Guissona would be overcome by the Piarists in Sardinia in the future. And so, he wrote to him in October 1640, before he left Spain:

3450 Ib., p.2285.

“It seemed good to the said Cardinal [Cesarini] to send three or four of our Fathers to Cáller in Sardinia to found the Institute, and for the time being they will only open the novitiate and in May the schools, and they will teach in Spanish and form good subjects for Catalonia, because the said island depends on Catalonia.”[3451]

3451 C.3522. The last statement is strange -and false-.

His foresight was correct. The Holy Founder died without realizing his dream of founding a school in his homeland, but some thirty years after his death, the Sardinian Piarists returned to Spain to definitively found the Pious Schools there.[3452]

3452 Cf. F. COLLI, Gli scolopi in Sardegna (Cagliari 1982).

The General Chapter of 1641 and its relationship to that of 1637

At the General Chapter of 1637 it was decided that the next one should be celebrated exceptionally around Easter or Pentecost of the year 1641 and not at the end of six years as prescribed in the Constitutions.[3453] The importance of the General Chapter of 1641 cannot be hidden from anyone, not only in terms of the approval or rejection of what was decided at the Chapter of 1637 - a necessary condition for its decisions to acquire definitive legal force and be considered as Constitutions[3454] - but above all as a reflection of the situation of the Order on the eve of the great tribulation that was to befall the Founder and his work. In fact, the General and his Assistants were brought before the Holy Office in the summer of 1642, followed by the suspension of all of them from their governmental functions, the Apostolic Visitation and the destruction of the Order.

3453 Cf. BERRO I, p.244; Acts, p.53, n.10; CC, n.236.

3454 This was decided by the General Chapter of 1637 (Minutes, p.39, n.4).

The gravity of these facts should be underpinned by a corresponding situation of the Order itself, and it is hard to find a more appropriate means of taking its pulse and grasping its collective conscience than a General Chapter as immediate as that of 1641. Nevertheless, its relationship to its predecessor of 1637 seems to have led historians to regard it merely as a supplement to the latter, without emphasizing its own importance as a testimony to the actual situation of the Order three years later, in 1641.[3455]

3455 Cf. Picanyol (Cf. Minutes, p.33-3a). Sántha in his study on both Chapters (Ensayos, p.357-392), BAU, BC, p.791-795.

The Founder thus fulfilled what had been prescribed in 1637 and convened the General Chapter for April 15, 1641, with a decree that had been signed the previous October 13th.[3456] It was the second and last to be held during the Saint’s lifetime, with all the guarantees of legitimacy and full representation as in the 1637 one. Even the number of participants was exactly the same, depending on the number of Provinces, i.e. three for each of the six existing Provinces, that is, the Provincial plus two delegates elected at the respective Provincial Chapter. To these 18 were added the six members of the General Congregation, namely: the Father General, his four Assistants and the Procurator General. Twenty-four in total. The Chapter was chaired by the Cardinal Protector Alexander Cesarini who, as he was unable to attend all the meetings, appointed as his representative Msgr. Sebastian Gentile, consultant of both signatures and member of the Pontifical Commission, which was still charged with solving the problems of the brothers.[3457] The Chapter took place in the domestic oratory of San Pantaleo, as indicated by Berro, who attended in his capacity as delegate of Sicily.[3458]

3456 Cf. Minutes, p.57.

3457 Cf. the Brief of appointment of the President with the power to delegate, and the delegation made, in ibid., p.58-59.

3458 Cf. BERR0 I, p.244. He was Rector of Messina and became ill on the trip, so he joined the Chapter on April 24th (cf. Minutes, p.66 and 72). Five others arrived late and were admitted on the 20th of the same month (ibid., p.65-66).

Of the twenty-four members of the Chapter, eleven had already taken part in the previous General Chapter, while the remaining thirteen, i.e. the majority, were new. For the second time, therefore, a representative assembly of the Order - essentially different from that of 1637 - could freely judge the Constitutions and the way of governing the Founder and his Assistants, as well as everything that the previous Chapter had decided, especially with regard to the problem of the brothers, which still existed. And above all, it was incumbent upon them to point out, to the best of their knowledge and conscience, abuses, shortcomings, laxity and non-observance and other serious and grave problems that were disturbing the Order - if there were any - and to try to solve them.

If we read the Minutes of this Chapter, we can see that it was held in an atmosphere of peace and serenity, “with exemplary concord and tranquility”, as Picanyol, who edited them, says.[3459] This is all the more admirable when one considers that in the previous Chapter of 1637 there was no shortage of tense situations, such as those revolving around the Fathers Alacchi, Castelli and Cherubini, or the drastic reactions against everything the Founder and his Assistants decreed in favor of the brothers. All this led Berro to bitterly recall the suffering of the Founder. In this chapter of 1641, there were also two problematic situations regarding the recognition of Fr. Bonaventura Catalucci as General Assistant and Fr. Bernardino Chiocchetti as Provincial of Liguria. But both were resolved satisfactorily.[3460]

3459 EGC VII, p.350.

3460 Cf. Minutes, p.60, 63-65 and 73.

On the other hand, this assembly showed more respect and fidelity to Father General and his government, as well as to the integrity of his Constitutions, which was especially evident in the long and careful revision of all the decrees of the previous Chapter. Of all of them, apart from some that no longer made sense, 78 were confirmed, generally with some dissenting votes; 38 were not put to the vote because they had been proposed or apostilled by the presiding prelates or for other reasons, and 10 others were rejected.[3461]

3461 The revision of the Chapter of 1637 took place on April 18-21 (cf. Minutes, p.62-69).

Of the latter, two referred to the problem of precedence among the religious, and with good judgment the question was placed in the hands of the Pontifical Commission, presided over by the Cardinal Protector. Three others were rejected in accordance with the provisions of the Constitutions, including the very long decree of penalties against “apostates”; the inclusion in the Constitutions of what had been prescribed and confirmed by the General Chapters was also rejected; the tertiaries introduced by the Founder were again accepted; the decree forbidding superiors to change the houses of religious during the first three years of their residence, as the Founder used to do constantly because of the urgency of the situations, was repealed.

Among the 38 decrees that were not voted on, all those relating to the Chapter of 1627, which had already been revised by the Chapter of 1637 and some of which were corrected by the prelates, stand out. Among them, the decree on the institution of Cleric Brothers and the concession of biretta and tonsure, which was repealed by the members of the chapter of 1637 but left in force by the prelates with certain restrictions, deserve special mention. The members of the Chapter of 1641 have nothing to add or comment on this point, so that what was decided by these prelates remained in force and the decree proposed by the members of the Chapter was repealed, of which the following should be recalled here: “Henceforth he who clothes himself as a brother can study or learn no more than what he knew when he entered religion... and the schools shall henceforth be attended only by clerics and priests.” Both mandates were thus annulled. In fact, the brothers were not excluded from academic work either during the lifetime of the Founder or in its later history.[3462]

3462 See some examples for the years 1643-1645: EC, p.916, 926, 1190, 1303, 1703, 1763, 1943, 2019, 2033, 2142-2143.

Nevertheless, among the 78 proposals of the chapter of 1637, which were confirmed in that of 1641, there were still two that referred to the brothers, with restrictive nuances: to deprive them of their active and passive voice in the Chapters, but not only them, but all those who were not ordained ‘in sacris’; to forbid the admission of brothers who were younger than nineteen or came from noble families or had influence with persons in authority or had studied grammar, and this in order to avoid any outbreak of insolence and disorder in the Religion in the future.

One of the most important themes of the chapter of 1637 was the old insistence on obtaining confirmation or approval of the Order and its Constitutions from the Holy See and, in particular, the ability recognized therein for the General to exclude the incorrect. But the presiding prelates stopped the proposal. Nevertheless, the issue was taken up again at the Chapter of 1641 and a commission was even appointed to approach the Cardinal Protector and the Holy See with Father Founder in order to achieve what was possible in this matter.[3463]

3463 Cf. SÁNTHA, Ensayos, p.360-361; Minutes, p.69,72-73.

In view of the possible papal confirmation of the Constitutions, it is very likely that Father General himself gave them to the General of the Conventuals, Father John Baptist Berardicelli de Larino, a great friend of his like his predecessor in office, Father Bagnacavallo, for examination. Since his election (1632-1647), he had distinguished himself as a reformer of his Order and had already carried out the correction of the controversial Constitutions of his Order before 1637, which were called Urbanian because Urban VIII had approved them. Under the circumstances, his judgment could be worth a great deal before the Pope in order to obtain the intended confirmation. And it is interesting to remember that Calasanz had already given his Constitutions to the other mutual friend, Father Bagnacavallo, for revision in 1621 before they were approved, and he boasted of them.[3464]

3464 Cf. EGC II, p.172.

When the revision of the Minutes of the Chapter of 1637 was completed, Cardinal Cesarini ordered that Father Berardicelli’s corrections to the Constitutions of Calasanz be examined in a public session. These were only ten minimal apostilles, so insignificant that at the end the members of the Chapter declared: “It seems that there is nothing that needs to be changed in the slightest, given the decrees of the past and the present General Chapter.”[3465] In fact, none of these corrections were ever included in the text of the Constitutions. Nevertheless, it was a great compliment that such a person would present only such trifles as corrections, and this on the eve of an Apostolic Visitation that not only questioned the validity of the papal approval of the Constitutions, but also called for the drafting of new Constitutions.

3465 Cf. Minutes, p.71. It is noteworthy that in the detailed article Dos amigos de Calasanz: los PP. Bagnacavallo y Larino (Archivum 27 [1990] 81-147), by C. Vilá, there is no mention of this work of Fr. Larino.

The chapter commission set up for this purpose, of which Father Berro was also a member, discussed with Cardinal Cesarini the delicate question of the papal confirmation of the Constitutions, in particular the point concerning the General’s power to expel the incorrigible “at least once”, and the cardinal did not consider it appropriate or useless to go as far as the pope.[3466] And so, the matter remained at a standstill for the time being.

3466 Cf. BERRO I, p. 247.

Other chapter provisions

The General Chapter of 1637 ended at the end of November and that of 1641 began in mid-April. If the Order had continued to deteriorate from the conclusion of the first to the beginning of the second Chapter, such a disastrous situation should have been reflected in the minutes of the Chapter of 1641. It is significant, therefore, that the Chapter Fathers presented only some fourteen proposals during the Chapter, nine of which related to matters of poverty and administration, i.e. the collection of alms and its inconveniences; the conditions for accepting endowments or legacies; the election of treasurers and their obligation to render accounts; the prohibition on “touching the money’. Two others dealt with Visitators to the houses and the novitiate. And the other three referred to the renunciation of dignities and offices inside or outside the Order, which would later become part of the professed formula; to the prohibition of exerting influence to obtain major or minor orders; to the possibility of retaining the tertiaries, which was reaffirmed.[3467] And that was the whole problem of the moment?

3467 Cf. Minutes, p.60-61, 71-73.

Nor were the proposals put forward by the Provincial Chapters any more serious or interesting, about eight in number, namely: the incardination of the School of Chieti to the Province of Naples; the obligation of the Rectors to present a general inventory of the house to their successors; the express permission of the General to travel by carriage, palanquin or horse and to wear socks (they went with sandals on their bare feet); to use cloth but very simple one, instead of woolen handkerchiefs. Furthermore, when a brother asked to leave the Order, he was told to exercise his right; some brothers who did not want to renew their profession with the new formula were dismissed and their previous professions were declared null and void. It was also decreed that the brothers could only make their profession after four years of probation, two years of which were in the novitiate and two years in another house.[3468] And we ask once again: were there not even more serious and grave problems in the six Provinces that made up the Order?

3468 Ibid., p. 72.

Together with these proposals from the Provincial Chapters, “several memoirs, letters and writings of some particular persons” also arrived, and after they had been examined - it says in the minutes - “since many of the questions had already been settled and others could be settled by Father General, they were left in his hands so that he, with his Assistants, could do and dispose of what seemed expedient to them.”[3469] In other words, these are matters of ordinary administration in which it is not worthwhile for the General Chapter to intervene.

3469 Ibid., p. 73.

It should be added that some capitular commissions were appointed, such as the one already mentioned, to obtain the constitutional power of Father General to expel incorrigibles; another to draft the ritual or directory of Chapters; another to look again at the penalties for “apostates”, since what had been decided at the chapter of 1637 had been rejected. This commission decided at the last moment that the “apostates” and fugitives should be admitted and that the Provincials and Rectors were obliged to do everything possible to bring them back to the cloister; once they were home, they were to be absolved by the superior, leaving the application of the punishment he deemed appropriate in the hands of Father General.[3470] In doing so, they once again confirmed the complete trust they all had in the sense of justice and goodness of the “Old Holy Man”

3470 Ibid., p.78.

The last Chapter meeting was chaired, like the first, by the Cardinal Protector, who asked the Fathers - according to the minutes - “to say everything they could think of concerning the decrees and everything that seemed necessary or contrary to them for the good of the Religion and the validity of the Chapter, and after hearing what the Fathers considered appropriate to propose, he decided the following”:

- That a commission be elected to draw up, together with the Father General, “canons of penance” for transgressors of the Rules and Constitutions. The capitulars elected the four General Assistants.[3471]
3471 Ibid., p.74. These Penitential Canons begin to be formed in 1634, but will not be definitively approved until the General Chapter of 1686 (cf. SÁNTHA, Ensayos, p.363).

- At the request of the members of the Chapter, the Cardinal ordered that all questions and delicate matters that had been proposed and resolved by the papal commission under his presidency regarding the confused problem of the brothers and other “claimants” be read out in a public assembly, according to the minutes of the three meetings held up to that point on August 27, 1640, September 29, 1640, and March 25, 1641, which we have already discussed in earlier pages. In addition, there was the new professed formula for the brothers, which had already been approved by the papal Brief of February 21, 1641.

In reality, these were solutions that had been published and were applied as they had been decided. However, there were still some unresolved issues, such as the very complicated question of precedence, and the Cardinal promised that the solutions would be communicated as soon as they had been made.[3472]

3472 Cf. Minutes, p.74-78.

And there were no more. The Cardinal had “a fatherly exhortation to each one to advance in piety and religious perfection” - so it says in the minutes - and all those who were satisfied thanked “God, by whose favor, through the intercession of Our Lady, this Chapter has been well begun, better continued and optimally ended.”[3473]

3473 Ib., p.78-79.

Yes, there was something else. And Berro tells it in his memoirs: “One day during the Chapter, a stranger came to the door of San Pantaleo with a sealed letter to be given to the Chapter. They opened the letter and read: “Do and determine what you want in the Chapter, for you will always be persecuted by your enemies, because they have a special constitution in their book entitled Monita Superiorum.” Berro adds that “on a separate page, they put the full text of the said constitution, of which I keep a copy.”[3474] On later pages he quotes the book again and completes the title: Monita Superiorum Societatis Jesu, and copies the text alluded to here in full. While it is true that the Jesuits were explicitly counted among these “enemies”[3475], it is difficult to admit that the text copied by Berro was authentic, for it is a Machiavellianism that is inadmissible in a religious Order. Indeed, it states, among other things:

3474 BERRO I, p.247.

3475 On March 22, 1646, six days after signing the Brief of destruction of the Order, Calasanz wrote: “Here it is publicly said that this has been a whole operation of the Jesuit Fathers, since for some time now, some of them, in various provinces, have been telling our people that soon the Religion of the Pious Schools would be destroyed” (C.4347).

“It is necessary to instill in the minds of men that our Order possesses the perfection of all other religious, and in that in which other Religions excel, the Society in the Church of God shines in a more eminent manner... Point out all the shortcomings by which other religious fulfill the tasks in which they compete with us as less fortunate. We must act with greater determination against the religious who have schools to educate the young with dignity and fruit in the places where our Society has them. Let us show the Prince that such men disrupt society. Let it be suggested to the other Academies that these religious do more harm to them than to us. Let it be suggested to the princes that the Society is sufficient to educate the youth.”[3476]

3476 BERRO II, p.156-157. He also quoted it in ibid., p.75.

Berro rightly concludes the lamentable anecdote of the Chapter with the remark that the presiding prelate, the Father General, the assistants and all the others, including the Cardinal Protector, who was informed, were astonished, but did not attach due importance to the fact, as they placed their hope in God and the intercession of Our Lady.[3477]

3477 BERRO I p.247.

They were voices of ill omen that were heard from time to time and to which Father General advised them not to give ear, as he wrote a year earlier in a letter to Naples: “Do not listen to the words of anyone who says that our religion will be destroyed, for you may be sure that it is now more than ever confirmed, and there are already some signs of it.”[3478] These threatening rumors did not subside, but increased in the following pontificate, but not only against the Pious Schools and not only coming from the Jesuits, but also against other religious Orders, so that a kind of extinction psychosis developed, from which, it seems, not even the Jesuits themselves were spared. In June 1644, Calasanz wrote: “As far as our things are concerned, people are talking in very different ways here and there are those who say that six or seven Religions should be suppressed, including ours.”[3479] In 1652, the diarist G. Gigli wrote that Pope Innocent X had decided to abolish thirteen religious Orders.[3480] Two months after the reduction of the Pious Schools to a congregation without vows, in May 1646, they wrote from the Tuscan court to the ambassador in Rome: “The Jesuit Fathers ... seeing that some new religions have been abolished ... they are beginning to doubt whether they too will fall victim to the reform. For this reason, they have appealed to the Most Serene Prince so that His Serene Highness can make a good recommendation.”[3481]

3478 C.3302.

3479 C.4274. The date of this letter is not 1641 (cf. Bau: BC, p.794), nor 1645 (cf. CS II, c.633), but 1644, as is proved in C.4189, 4190, 4193.

3480 Cf. Ricerche, l8 (1986), 375.

3481 Cf. EGC IX, p.150.

In this whirlwind of fears and general threats, the Order of the Pious Schools emerged as another and not an isolated case. It was more noise than nuts, but unfortunately our Order was one of the few victims. But it is not fair to overstate and exacerbate the situation, to justify an unexpected Apostolic Visitation first and then to regard the suppression as an inevitable outcome, as some recent historians tend to do.[3482] It seems more accurate to assess the state of the Order and the collective conscience it had on the eve of the Apostolic Visit, as set out in the General Chapter of 1641, distinguishing between the discontented who complained of not being treated fairly and those who disturbed peace, justice and charity by demanding too much or too little, even though they were a small minority.

3482 We regret to say that the extremely negative Conclusion with which Sántha ends his cited study on the Gen. Chap. of 1637 and 1641 (Cf. Ensayos, p.391-392) does not correspond to the prolix analysis carried out in that article, in which there is no lack of inaccuracies. The same opinion is expressed on other occasions, and we find it equally unacceptable because of its crudeness, for example: “Ceterum rerum status in Ordine nostro post Cap. Gen. a 1641 celebratum talis erat, ut sponte quasi sua provocaret sollicitudinem ac interventum S. Sedis per Visitatorem Apostolicum faciendum” (EHI, p.IX). With marked reiteration Vilá insists on the almost constant catastrophic situation of the Order, which would fatally lead to its suppression, and this was forced by the undisguised pessimism and inhibition of Father Casani (cf. Juicio historico-critico..., p.210-221).

Tying up loose ends

Among the dissatisfied was the small group of brothers whose personal conditions did not correspond to the solutions of the Pontifical Commission to be declared as clerics. The problem of precedence, the cause of many worries and scandals, was unresolved. And the Holy See had not been given the authority to dismiss those who were unruly, rebellious and undesirable.

The Commission of Prelates met for a fourth and final session on August 23, 1641, at which Father General and his Assistants presented a memorandum asking for a solution to the three problems mentioned above.

The solutions they suggested were the following:

1. All brothers who had been professed before the age of 21 had been declared clerics in the session of September 29, 1640; therefore, all should be allowed to wear tonsure and biretta; the deadline for registering for religious examination was too short, and some could not even be registered. Therefore, an extension of another six months is requested.

2. All brothers professed as Cleric Brothers after the age of 21 with the fourth vow of teaching should retain that name and the use of the biretta, as decided by the prelates in the General Chapter of 1637, and those who have received the tonsure should also wear the tonsure and continue to be taught the classes of reading, writing and arithmetic, as is currently the case.

3. As for precedence, it should be abolished among the priests, among the clerics and among the brothers, as it is told to be the case with the Jesuits.

4. It is again requested that the provisions of the recent Bull de apostatis et eiectiis, be exceptionally dispensed, and so providing for the possibility of expelling some incorrigible troublemakers from the Order.[3483]
3483 See the Memorandum in EGC X, p.308-309.

It is noteworthy that even now, in August 1641, after the General Chapters of 1637 and 1641, which imposed so many restrictions on the brothers, especially the first one in which an attempt was made to put an end to the Cleric Brothers and Brothers’ dedication to teaching, the defensive attitude of the General and the Assistants in favor of the brothers is still firm. Moreover, they demand the logical consequence of what was granted to them in the Brief Religiosos viros and the official clarifications of the Pontifical Commission, that is, they side with the Brothers in what their petitions had justice.[3484]

3484 Recall C.2829, March 27, 1638, already cited in the text relating to n.3391 of this chapter.

To the proposals of the General and the Assistants, the Commission replied on August 23, 1641, simply:

- that all who, before or after entering the Order, had received minor orders or simple tonsure, even if professed after the age of twenty-one, were clerics;

- if anyone claims to have been admitted to the Order as a cleric for any other reason, he shall present his rights to the Cardinal Protector, who shall then decide whether he is a cleric or a brother;

- as regards precedence: superiors take precedence over all others according to their rank; priests take precedence over non-priests, without there being any order of precedence among them, just as all others among themselves, whether they are deacons, subdeacons, clerics or brothers;

- the former provisions limiting the moment of appearance for the holy orders examinations were abrogated and left to the discretion of the Cardinal, clarifying also that the General is free to grant or refuse dimissorial letters to those found suitable by the examiners.[3485]
3485 Cf. G. SÁNTHA, Probatio et institutio...; EphCal 6 (1966) 247-248, n.172.

In practical terms, we can say that by this time, in the second half of 1641, the problem of the “claimants” Brothers had been canonically resolved at its fundamental core, namely the declaration of clerics and their ordination to the priesthood.[3486] Everything indicates that after the final decisions of the prelates’ Commission, the door was practically open for those who fulfilled the necessary requirements to undergo the examination of their suitability for the priesthood. There were no excesses, but rather moderation in the granting of the priesthood.[3487] Nevertheless, some of them insisted for years to their superiors to be ordained to the priesthood, which they were denied perhaps because of their inadequate preparation or for other unknown reasons.[3488]

3486 To the complexity of the problem is added the confusion of dates attributed to documents, with which they seem to continue claiming in 1641 or 1643, for example, those who had done in 1639 (cf. EC, p.696, 2228, 2587, compared with EGC X. p.305).

3487 According to calculations made in the Catal. Rel. and other biographical data of the edited Epistolaries, in 1627, in which the Cleric Brothers were established, there were 81 brothers in the Order, and from 1627 to 1637, were dressed 25 for Cleric Brothers and 82 for Brothers. Of all these 188, only 38 were ordained priests, of which 16 while Calasanz was General (1636 to 1642) and the other 22 from his deposition until his death (1643-1648), that is to say, not all of them with his consent. And of these 38 priests. 15 left the Order during the difficult years.

3488 For example, Br. Antony Canellas, who persisted from 1641 until 1647, when he got to be ordained (cf. EHI, p.485-486; EC, p.464-472) and not with the support of the Father Founder.

The problem of precedence was a long and thorny one. As a consequence of the promotion of brothers to the clergy and priesthood, it was undoubtedly the most troubling aspect of the whole controversy. In a few words, the question was what place should be given to those who, having been brothers (lay people) until then, had received the tonsure and other orders up to the priesthood. Should they keep the place they were entitled to after the date of their profession with the brothers - as before - or with the priests and clerics? There were solutions in both directions, such as making precedence dependent on the date of ordination or the date of issue of the Brief ‘Religiosos viros’, which decided who was a cleric, etc.

The General Chapter of 1637 gave solutions to the problem, but the General Chapter of 1641 preferred to abstain and leave the question to the Prelates’ Commission.[3489] This commission dealt with the matter in its sessions of September 29, 1640 and March 25, 1641, evading the answer with a general “providebitur” (it will be taken care of)[3490] until, at the express suggestion of Father General and his Assistants, it decided the question in its last session of August 23, 1641, as we have seen. Nevertheless, some “ex-brothers” continued undaunted to fight for their supposed right to take the place to which they were entitled by profession, such as Augustine Pucci in Florence, Dominic di Rosa in Naples, Anselm Lunadeo in Poli, Dominic Morinelli in Genoa, the four signatories of that first memorandum of the 21 claimants; and of them, with the exception of the last, the other three later left the Order in the years 1646-1648.[3491] On the other hand, the small number of these “ex-brothers” - thirty-eight consecrated between 1636 and 1648, as we have calculated - and the extenuating circumstance that not all of them took the matter to heart, suggests that the matter was overstated.

3489 Cf. Minutes, p. 41 and 62. The Founder even went so far as to ask the new priests to “spontaneously” renounce their supposed “profession rights” and to take into account only the day of ordination (cf. RegCal 19, 306-344). But this was not a satisfactory solution either.

3490 Cf. Minutes, p. 76 and 78.

3491 Cf. EC, p. 155-161, 1291-1295, 1693-1694, 1886-1887.

Finally, in its decree of August 23, 1641, the Commission said nothing about the exemption from the Bull de apostatis et eiectis and the concession to exclude incorrigibles from the Order. They did, however, address the issue and advised Father General to submit a memorandum asking only for the grace that such religious might leave the order to enter another, even less exigent Order (‘ad laxiorem’), provided they were admitted. Apparently, this was the only thing that could be achieved. The memorial was sent and Urban VIII granted the request on September 3, 1641.[3492] It was not what had been hoped for, as the incorrigible or undesirable were not always inclined to leave voluntarily. But no doubt the opportunity was taken for some to transfer to other Orders, in addition to those who had their profession annulled and returned to the world.[3493]

3492 Cf. EGC X, p.303. The normal practice was that the passage was granted to another “more rigorous” Order, but not to a “more lax” one (ad laxiorem). In our case, therefore, they could pass to any Order.

3493 Cf. Reg. Cal. 66 (sentences of nullity of professions from 1639 to 1645); in the years 1641-1643 it is recorded in these sentences that five passed to the Franciscans. On the other hand, of the 21 initial “claimants”, 13 reached the priesthood, and of them, seven left the Order; the remaining nine remained Brothers, but eight of them left, that is to say, only six priests and one Brother remained in the Order.

In the meantime, something new was happening in Florence, something completely different from what might have been a problem in the Order until then. It was like a hurricane, and like hurricanes, it too had a name: Mario Sozzi.

Fourth part

The final drama

Chapter 23

The perturbations of Father Mario

At the beginning of this fourth part, which we have entitled The Last Drama, it is worth following the theatrical parable and “casting” the characters. Most of them are new and need to be introduced first. It is not easy, however, and has never been easy, to assign everyone their due responsibility in this complicated drama in which there are victims and executioners, innocent and guilty, deceived and deceivers, wickedness and holiness. But the historian must try to find the objective reasons for the events, the springs that moved the actions and reactions of the characters, the antecedents and the consequences of some of the most committed or responsible people. All this forces him to make an authoritative and reasoned judgment of each character, without leaving this task exclusively to the reader.

In the long history of Calasanctian biography, there have been many authors who, out of excessive caution or care, have not dared to mention the names of all the actors in this drama. Perhaps the most exaggerated was Armini, who managed to describe the events without mentioning Mario Sozzi, Stephen Cherubini, Sylvester Pietrasanta, Bishop Albizzi, Pope Innocent X or the Holy Office, apart from other serious omissions that make the whole thing barely comprehensible.[3494]

3494 Cf. ARMINI, Vita, III, c.19-21.

More common, however, was the controversy over the guilt of the Jesuit Pietrasanta, defended to the extreme by some Jesuit writers and unanimously denounced by Calasanctian, Piarist or non-Piarist biographers.[3495] We are of opinion, however, that this controversy has drawn too much attention to the Jesuit, and in so doing has lessened the responsibility or guilt of other persons, especially that of Asesor Bishop Albizzi, who was instrumental in pulling the strings of the whole plot, and who, in order to spare the honor of the Holy Office, has shifted the injustice and error to him. This was recognized with clean objectivity by the advocates of Calasanz’s beatification, especially by the one who, after intervening in the matter for almost half a century as defender, “devil’s advocate” and voting cardinal of the Congregation of Rites, was finally Benedict XIV and beatified him.[3496]

3495 Cf. G. BOERO, Sentimenti e fatti del P. Silvestro Pietrasanta della Compagnia di Gesú in difesa di S. Giuseppe Calasanzio e dell’Ordine delle Scuole Pie (Rome 1847); Réponse du Chanoine Timon-David a la brochure intitulé: Le Pére Pietrasanta. Rectification historique par un Pére de la Compagnie de Jésus (Marseille 1890); Spanish translation: Contestación del Canónigo Timón-David al folleto titulado “El Padre Pietrasanta. Rectificación histórica por un Padre de la Compañía de Jesús” (Zaragoza 1905); I. DE RECALDE, Une victime des Jésuites: Saint Joseph Calasanz. Le P. Pietrásanta, S. I. contre les Écoles Pies (Paris 1929).

3496 Commenting on what happened to Calasanz, he writes: «Romanae urbis tribunalia, Summorum Pontificum Consiliarii, ipsi Summi Pontifices magnam utiqui adhibent diligentiam, ut ex veritate et justitia prócedant:...sed, Deo ipso permittente, contingere potest (et sane aliquando contigit) ut praevalente hominum malitia, justitia coram ipsis obruatur ... et... putantes se iuste procedere, proindeque sine culpa, iniuste nihilominus procedant» (BENEDICT XIV, De Servorum Dei Beatificatione et Beatorum canonizatione [PRATI 1839-1842],.vol III, c.30, n.18). All this happened - tells the Dean of Roman Rota, Mgr. Aldovrandi, in giving his favorable vote to declare the heroicity of the virtues of Calasanz - “ad probandam Sui Servi constantiam, et ad patefaciendun illud Sac. Tribunal [of the Holy Office], quamvis alioquin spectabilissimum, non regi ab Angelis, sed ab hominibus errare aliquando valentibus in facto minus vere exposito” (S. GINER, El Proceso de Beatificacion, p.341, n.247).

On the other hand, some of the traditionally incriminated actors, even if they acted with obvious malice, were perhaps rather puppets hanging on the strings skillfully pulled by the all-powerful Assessor of the Holy Office, Msgr. Albizzi. But the task of clearing the shadows remains arduous because the archives of the Holy Office are still closed to the researcher and because the rich documentation collected in the General Archives of the Pious Schools concerning this matter was purged and maliciously burned around 1660, as Berro laments several times in his memoirs.[3497] However, what was saved from the fire and what remained in other archives is enough to form an objective and truthful picture of this whole drama and even to point the finger at those responsible without fear of being wrong.

3497 Cf. BERRO II, p.4, 26, 34, 47, 50, 59, etc.; S. GINER, o.c., p.102, n.28.

The first symptoms

Fatally, the lives of saints are never lacking in those who help them to become saints, who lead them down the road of bitterness, but then endure the hatred and condemnation of posterity. In the long life of St. Joseph Calasanz there was no lack of adversity and turmoil, but none like the one that began now, at the age of over eighty. The mastermind was Father Mario Sozzi, for all the Saint’s biographers a kind of “genius of evil”. The responsibility for what happened was certainly in the hands of those who had power and authority, but to a certain extent the malice or unconsciousness lay with Mario.

The reproaches that his behavior aroused from the beginning of his fatal protagonist role in Florence at the end of 1639 led biographers, relying on the first chroniclers of the Order, Berro and Caputi, to see in his past life some shadows or even symptoms of his future evil. It was said that when he entered the novitiate in Naples on May 19, 1630, he was already 40 years old and that Father General wrote in this connection that the provincial, Father Casani, should be very careful in admitting older novices.[3498] However, more recent research has shown that he was born on April 7, 1608 in Chiusi (and not in Montepulciano, as it was said) and was therefore only 22 years old when he entered the novitiate. The Founder himself obtained the necessary dispensations for him to be ordained deacon and priest in May 1630, a few weeks before the novitiate began, and promised him “that the Lord would make him one of his great servants.”[3499]

3498 C.1315, dated February 2, 1630.

3499 C.1378, dated May 3, 1630. See in Bau the pejorative concept of Mario, according to tradition, since the first news recorded about him (BAU, BC, p.851-885). The new clarifications, based on recent archival findings, are due to Fr. Vilá (cf. C. VILA, El P. Mario Sozzí: Archivum 5 [1979] 57-86; 7-8 [1980] 87-140).

It is very likely that in the first years of his religious-priestly life he behaved with a certain normality and that his activities - there were few priests in the houses at the time - were more pastoral than teaching, preferably attending to the confessions of the house and outsiders. During his first stay in Florence, however, Father Castelli writes to Father General in view of Lent of 1633 that he cannot have much confidence in Father Mario, who, moreover, “is more passionate than you think”.[3500] And it is likely that what Calasanz writes to Father Graziani in Naples a month later is related to this judgment of Castelli’s when he informs him, that there are three fathers in Florence who want to change to the newly reformed Franciscans and Father Mario to the Camaldolese, and - he adds - “even if it seems harmful to the Religion, I consider it useful because in this way the Religion is freed from these restless and arrogant religious with whom it is impossible to live when things do not go as they like.”[3501]

3500 EHI, p.606.

3501 C.2208. In April 1642 Calasanz wrote to Mario that he did not remember nor did he believe that he had ever asked him to pass to another religion (C.3980). There is no contradiction between the two letters, since in the second one he says that he does not remember, and in the first one he does not expressly state that Mario had asked him for a license, as the other three did.

There are complaints from his time in Poli that he sided with the local parish priest and against his own community in a particular controversy[3502], and that he wrote from Frascati to the Duchess of Poli and left a religious of that school in a bad place, which displeased the Duchess and the Founder who reported it.[3503] Without attaching too much importance to these disagreements in community life caused by him, it is possible that his rapid passage through so many houses in such a short time is linked to his restless and selective character. Indeed, after a year of novitiate in Naples (1630-1631), he is seen in Rome, Florence, Naples, Palermo, Rome, Poli, Frascati until 1637, when he returned to Rome and remained there until his departure for Florence in November 1639.

3502 Cf. BERRO II, p.6.

3503 C.2534.

Even more significant is what Berro reports about a bad habit that Mario had acquired and which, it seems, was related to his frequent contact with women, penitents or simple devotees, who came to the churches where he heard confessions:

“... in our house in Poli - writes Berro - I found him in possession of devotional objects and ribbons and the like worth several escudos. He claimed to have a license, but I informed the superiors and “he was reprimanded for the large quantity he possessed. However, when he went to Florence, he did even worse. He used the confessional as a storehouse for everything and created a thousand hiding places both there and in his room, where he kept sweets, candies, marzipan and all kinds of food, as well as ribbons and other gifts for all kinds of people. When he returned to Rome, a thousand oddities were found in his room, not only precious women’s jewelry, but also braids, mirrors and similar things that are not worthy of being in the room of a religious who is also barefoot like us and who has taken a vow of extreme poverty. It is not known where he found them or where he got the money to buy them.”[3504]

3504 Cf. BERRO II, p.6.

This magpie spirit is more than ridiculous, it is scandalous, and not because of his gluttony, but because of everything else, although it is true that, despite the many accusations leveled against him, he was never branded as licentious in any respect, as will be the case with his crony and successor Cherubini. The question of where he got the money from is answered by Berro himself, perhaps exaggerating the black ink in the denial and the very harsh accusation from the mouth of Sozzi’s own mother:

“... his mother said more than once to some of our people that she did not want him as her son because he always had bad habits and that the midwife had certainly changed him...”

And after repeating the same thoughts, he continues elsewhere:

“She complained a lot about the things and the money he took from her, and about the many Masses she had him celebrate, as Father Mario wrote to her; and she broke out in emotional and plaintive words, telling him: ‘Instead of saying Masses for me, I have to fulfill his obligations every day. He is not my son, he is not my son, they have changed him, these are not the customs of my children.”[3505]

3505 Ibid., p.15-16.

In contrast to these complaints and accusations, we have to tell that he was apparently vice-rector of Poli and Frascati, albeit only for a few months and not without protests from the communities.[3506] Even more honorable for him was that when the Provincial Chapters were held in 1637 in view of the General Chapter of the same year, Father General appointed Father Melchior Alacchi as General Visitator and President of all the Chapters and Father Mario Sozzi as their secretary. In this capacity he took part in the Chapters of the Provinces of Liguria, Rome, Naples and Sicily and represented the Rector of San Pantaleo as an alternate member at the Roman Provincial Chapter.[3507]

3506 C. VlLÁ, o.c., ٧-٨ (١٩٨٠) ١١٩-١٢٣.

3507 Ibid., p.123-131.

These last details, which do honor to Mario’s memory, were omitted by Berro and concealed by biographers who did not know them.[3508] Although such positions do not diminish the gravity of his future conduct, they undoubtedly show a certain trust and appreciation on the part of Father General for the personal gifts of Fr. Mario.

3508 See, as an example, BAU, BC, p.851-855.

If, however, his services to Calasanz and the four Italian Provinces were so satisfactory, and his personal and acquired reputation as secretary of the four Provincial Chapters so remarkable, as someone recently asserted,[3509] it would have been logical to reward his merits and make use of his experience and gifts by allowing him to participate in the immediate General Chapter as a member of one of the four Provinces - at least the Roman Province, whose Provincial Chapter he also attended as representative of the rector of San Pantaleo - or with a general office. But there was nothing of the sort.

3509 This is what Vilá believes, making Fr. Mario, without any documentation, practically the director of the two Chapters of Sicily and Naples, when Fr. Alachi withdrew from Narni (cf. Vila, o.c., p.130-131).

The Florentine community of the “Galileian Piarists”

Mario’s last stay in Rome was not very satisfactory, at least in the second half of 1639, if we follow the concordant statements of Berro and Caputi, who accuse him of having criticized the governmental measures of the Holy Founder and of having grumbled against Cardinal Cesarini, who had been appointed Protector of the Order in July of that year. For these reasons, the Cardinal asked the Founder to remove the insolent Mario from Rome, who was sent to Florence with four other fathers in mid-November. In this way, he fulfilled the promise he had made to the Rector at the end of October to send him a confessor for the church of Santa Maria dei Ricci, which was entrusted to the Piarists.[3510] And in this task in the confessional, he was to find the way for his future triumphs and misfortunes.

3510 C.3192 and 3181. Cf. C. VILÁ, o.c., p.132-134. The author rejects without convincing arguments the opinion of Berro and Capúti, thus abounding in the clearly vindicating nuance of the whole article in favor of Mario. The testimony of Berro and Caputi is accepted by both Sántha (cf. Card. Franciscus Albitius [I593-1684] et Scholae Pie: Archivum 11 [1982] 57) and Picanyol (cf. Le Scuole Píe e Galileo Galilei, p.126).

This Florentine community included a large group of religious admirers, friends and, to a certain extent, followers of Galileo Galilei. This cenacle of the “Galileian Piarists” had its origins in the first moments of the foundation of the Pious Schools in Florence. Before it was officially founded, Father Francis Castelli had Father General send him Fr. Francis Michelini, who had deepened his studies in mathematics in Genoa and was in personal or written contact with friends and followers of Galileo. When he moved to Florence in November 1619, he brought with him letters of recommendation from Galileo’s friends, with which he immediately introduced himself to the wise old man and entered the circle of his Florentine friends.

The incipient prestige that Br. Michelini acquired due to his undeniable talent as a mathematician and his relationship with Galileo and his friends led him, in addition to the modest abacus or arithmetic courses held in the Pious Schools for primary school children, to found another “school of algebra” or higher mathematics in the same premises for young people and adults, duly initiated in these subjects and forced by the intelligentsia and the aristocracy of Florence. These courses were also attended by young Piarists who were interested and encouraged by the superiors, especially Father Castelli from nearby, and the Founder from afar.

It is known that when Galileo published his Dialogs in 1632, he was reprimanded by the Holy Office for disregarding the judgment that had forbidden him to write about the condemned Copernican theory in 1615. In the first half of 1633, a new trial took place in Rome in which he was condemned as “suspected of heresy”. The first sentence imposed on him was commuted, at the end of the same year 1633, to enforced “retirement” or house arrest in the villa “Il Gioiello” (the Jewel), which Galileo owned in Arcetri near Florence. This rustic villa was frequented by his friends, including Michelini and the other Piarist disciples, without objection.

In February 1634, Calasanz summoned Michelini to Rome, and both the Grand Duke’s court and the “disciples of Algebra” feared that he would not return, so Cardinal Charles de Medici wrote to Father General: “The benefit that Father Francis [Michelini] of St. Joseph brings to this city is the reason that a group of nobles, since you summoned him, have asked me to make representations to you so as not to withhold this subject from them.”[3511] And if these words give an impression of the esteem in which Michelini was held in Florence, the words Michelini wrote to Galileo in October of the same year are no less eloquent. In it, he expresses the appreciation and gratitude that Father General felt for him, whom Michelini asked for some young people to form a group of mathematics students who would be close to Galileo: “Our Father General grants me only two young people to study because we do not have enough maintenance and space in Florence.” And the letter ended like this: “Our Father General feels obliged by the good deeds you are doing me and the other Fathers.”[3512]

3511 EHI, p.1434.

3512 EC, p.1865-1866.

It was therefore a deliberate initiative by Calasanz, who undoubtedly could not ignore the danger and audacity of encouraging his young disciples and other Florentine religious to follow the Master before a year had passed since his definitive condemnation by the Holy Office. The young men mentioned by Michelini were followed by others, both clerics and simple brothers, so that when Father Mario arrived in Florence in November 1639, he found in this community not only Francis Michelini but also Clement Settimi, who accompanied him on his journey; Angel Morelli, Savior Grise, Charles Conti, John Baptist de Ferraris, Dominic Rosa (brother of the famous Neapolitan painter Salvatore Rosa, who was a novice of the Piarists for a few months), John Francis Apa, and about ten days after the arrival of Mario and his four companions, Father Ambrose Ambrosi also joined this community.[3513] They were all around thirty years old, with the exception of the Rector, John Dominic Romani, who was older.

3513 Cf. C.3198. He did not last long, for on September 8, 1640 the General summoned him to Rome and he never returned to Florence (cf. O. TOSTI, Gli scolopi a Pisa. Ricerche 15 [1985] 282, n.4).

The year before, in 1638, Michelini, who had only recently been ordained a priest together with Ambrosi, had been called to the palace to teach mathematics to Princes Giancarlo and Leopoldo, the brothers of Grand Duke Ferdinand II, and he was forced to reside continually at court. When he left the algebra school out of necessity, he was replaced by Father Clement Settimi, and from then on it became a public school. Moreover, from 1637, when Galileo was practically blind, Settimi spent many hours a week with him as his secretary. However, as this was not enough, Galileo approached the Grand Duke to obtain further permission from Father General to have Father Clement at his side at night as well. The Tuscan ambassador Francisco Niccolini had a conversation with Calasanz in which he presented him with the Grand Duke’s and Galileo’s requests, and Calasanz conceded with moderation and respect for the Constitutions that - writes Niccolini - “if it is not enough for Mr. Galileo that the said Father goes to his villa once a week, he can call him and order him to do so more often. He [Calasanz] also says that if it is ever necessary for him to spend the night there, he can do so, as he has done until now, but he cannot be allowed to sleep outside the convent all the time.”[3514]

3514 Cf. L. PICANY0L, o.c., p.56-57. Letter from Niccolini to the ducal secretary, Andres Cioli, 16 April 1639. On the same day Calasanz wrote to the Rector of Florence: “And if perhaps Mr. Galileo should ask Fr. Clemente to stay one night, Your Reverence will allow him to do so and may God grant that he may know how to take advantage of it” (c.3074).

Father Angel Morelli, together with Michelini and Settimi, formed the trio of “Galileian Piarists” of the first rank and came into personal contact with the Master as soon as he arrived in Florence in September 1632. In the old catalogs of the Order, these three bear the appellative “mathematician”, which, on the one hand, is an honorary title, but on the other hand, from the time of Galileo’s condemnation in 1633 until very late in the century, implicitly carried a certain suspicion of heterodoxy.[3515] The others, more or less cultivated mathematics and were regarded as representatives of Galileianism in the Pious Schools.

3515 In October 1647 John B. Riccioli wrote to Vincent Renieri: “the Father Inquisitor [of Bologna] has stoped the new tables of your Paternity because when the books are of mathematics, they are very suspicious to this Father”. And on January 10, 1648, Raphael Magiotti wrote to Ludovico Serenai: “in this country mathematici do not have appretiation, nor honor, not to say worse... And I have known other beautiful minds who have not only seen the good authors in this profession, but they studied them more secretly than if they had been of nigromancy, not to lose any reputation.” (cit. in M. BUCCIANTINI, Eredità Galileiana e politica culturale Medicea: il caso degli Scolopi: Studi Storici 2 [1989] 391-392).

But perhaps Piarist historiography, especially in our century, has overemphasized this group of “Galileains” and their transcendence in the future of the Order.[3516] The rapprochement and appreciation that Calasanz and some of his sons showed for the controversial figures of Galileo and Campanella, both persecuted by the Inquisition, is more an expression of open-mindedness and appreciation for modern science per se, and even for the persecuted individuals, than an attempt to implant in the nascent Order currents of mathematical and philosophical high culture that necessarily had to remain outside the ordinary work of the school for children and against the explicit mentality of the Founder. He was always afraid that high culture and the academic titles associated with it would keep his followers away from school work. Therefore, it would be more accurate to speak of “an interest and a quality that never went beyond basic scientific training and should preferably be used in primary education.”[3517]

3516 The two main authors are: P. G. GIOVANOZZI, Il Calasanzio e l’opera sua (Florence 1930) and L. PICANYOL, o.c. In his cited article Bucciantini recognizes the merit of Picanyol’s historical study on this subject, regretting at the same time “the author’s declaredly apologetic intentions” (o.c., p.385).

3517 Cf. M. BUCCIANTINI, o.c., p.388.

In reality, this Galilean cenacle of Florence did not have a significant impact on the scientific-cultural environment of the time,[3518] nor on the other Provinces of the Order[3519]; nor was it of sufficient duration and permanence, since it was dissolved in 1641 due to the disruptive action of Mario Sozzi; nor was it a very pleasant experience, since of the ten religious mentioned, all left the Pious Schools in the coming fateful years, except Morelli, Ferraris and Apa. The latter, however, did not distinguish himself as a Galileian or mathematician, but as a Latinist. He wrote a Latin grammar, which was published in Rome in 1643 and was based on the principles of Schoppe, but in Italian and not in Latin, as had been customary until then. She also founded a “school for nobles” in 1638 to meet the wishes of the Florentine aristocracy, who did not want to mix their children with the other “plebeian” students of the Pious Schools or even send them to Jesuit schools.[3520]

3518 Suffice it to recall that none of the Galileian Piarists published any scientific work, except Michelini, already outside the Order, and not of “Galileian” or mathematical content, but hydraulic and it was: Trattato della direzione dei fiumi (Florence 1664).

3519 Bucciantini observes that the voluminous epistolaries of the Founder and the Piarists contemporary to him, in their more than 6,000 pages “contain rare references of scientific and philosophical nature: in particular they are entirely assenti -eccettuate le lettere del nucleo fiorentino- references to works and subjects of Galileian interest, and this is before and after the condemnation of 1633” (ibid.).

3520 Cf. L. PICANYOL, La Scuola dei Nobili nelle Scuole Pie fiorentine e il suo fondatore P. G. F. Apa (Rome 1939).

The inquisitorial case of “Mother Faustina”

In Florence lived a rich widow named Faustina Mainardi, who had taken a group of poor girls into her home with the pious aim of protecting them from evil and educating them by supporting them with her money, alms and personal labor. They lived in a kind of “conservatory” or boarding school, with a distinctly religious flavor, with daily mass and frequent sacraments in various churches in the city, all under the special care of the Canon, Father Pandolfo Ricasoli, who was related to the Medicis. The work was admired in the city, and both the canon and the head of the center, who was popularly known as “Mother Faustina”, were considered upright and virtuous people.

In April 1636, Father Giovanni Mauro della Fratta, a Franciscan conventual, was appointed Inquisitor of Florence and soon received the suspicious news that the model conservatory was practically a kind of disguised brothel where “rich young people” - as Berro emphasizes[3521] - used to hang out, with the consequent approval of “Mother Faustina” and Canon Ricasoli. And the most serious aspect of the case was the theological justification of these liberties, for both said that everything was permitted as long as the girls did not violate their physical virginity, so that the matter was not only a kind of pimping in practice, but also a heretical opinion in theory.[3522]

3521 BERRO II, p.7.

3522 Berro clarifies: “it was a principle of the worst heressy, since it had been said to the said girls that ‘tactus impudici etiam in partibus verendis’ were not sins, provided that ‘vas naturalis non frangeretur’” (ibid.).

We do not know how far the Inquisitor della Fratta’s investigations, clarifications and discoveries went. The fact is that someone with sufficient authority - probably the Grand Duke of Tuscany - managed from Rome to have him removed from Florence before the disgrace sullied the good name of the Ricasoli and even the city on the Arno with such a scandal. Father John Muzzarelli, a Conventual Franciscan, was appointed the new General Inquisitor in 1637, and his predecessor was recalled to Rome, appointed Qualifier of the Holy Office, and promoted to the see of Nusco, suffragan of Benevento, in 1642.[3523]

3523 Cf. G. SÁNTHA, Card. Franciscus Albitius...: Archivum 11 (1982) 57, n.7.

Two years after Father della Fratta’s departure, Father Mario Sozzi arrived in Florence in November 1639 and soon after learned by chance of the delicate affair of “Mother Faustina” when one of her pupils confessed to him. He recognized the seriousness of the case and advised the young penitent, with an astuteness bordering on recklessness, to tell him once again outside the confessional, for which he set up two hidden witnesses to testify to the penitent’s repeated revelation. And with this statement signed and confirmed by them, he made an official complaint to the General Inquisitor, Father Muzzarelli.[3524]

3524 Berro and Caputi agree substantially in the account, although they differ in details. Cf. Caputi’s summary, given by Bau together with other complementary texts (cf. BAU, BC, p.857-858). See BERRO II, p.7-8.

Although Mario was neither the first to learn of the case nor the one to denounce it, few may have known that this primacy was the merit of Father della Fratta. Both Mario and Muzzarelli managed to impose the idea that Mario was the first to fully discover and denounce the case.[3525] The truth is that, although not chronologically the first, it was he who succeeded in bringing the case to light in detail, bringing it to trial and convicting the guilty parties.

3525 And so it has been handed down by biographers to the present day (cf. BAU, 1.c.). Santha attributed the merit again to Fratta (cf. SÁNTHA, o.c., p.57-58), as Berro had already clearly done, although Picanyol blamed the latter for the error (cf. PICANYOL, o.c., p.123, n.2). Father Settimi wrote in a letter of December 14, 1641: “I know for certain that this Father Mario was the first and only one in this manifestation” (ibid., p.147). However, the same Settimi wrote a week later that the Holy Office feared that the “Galileian” Fathers would hinder Fr. Mario “in the uncovering of the Faostina, according to what happened the first time, in epoch of the Inquisitor Fratta” (ibid., p.147).

The revelation of the scandal led to a deep friendship between Mario and Muzzarelli and at the same time to a progressive infatuation and unbearable arrogance on the part of the informant, who went from anonymity to becoming a collaborator of the Holy Office. He had only been in this Florentine community for a few weeks, but they were enough to confirm that the scholarly atmosphere there went far beyond his usual culture and that he probably felt marginalized. Father Clement Settimi invited him several times to study mathematics, but he dismissively declined the invitation.[3526] The conversations they had together were certainly about mathematics and often also about Galileo and his theories, and there was no lack of the almost obligatory allusions to the condemning attitude of the Holy Office. Mario now presented himself to his “Galileian” brothers as the defender of the honor of the Holy Inquisition, so that his reputation grew from day to day, as did his threats of new denunciations. At the same time, irony and inconsistent jokes about the Holy Office and its condemnations became more and more frequent in the community.

3526 Sozzi himself acknowledges this in one of his slanderous Memoranda to the Holy Office (cf. EC, p.2526).

Both Berro and Caputi and others remember several anecdotes without being able to sort out them all. One of the most remarkable occurred during Carnival, which fell in the middle of February 1640. Castelli tells us about it: In view of the General Chapter, a new provincial of Tuscany had to be appointed, and in this community of Mario some young men made an old Father believe that the Pope had appointed him through the mediation of the Grand Duke; foreseeing that the official news would arrive during Lent, they persuaded him to celebrate in advance. The poor old man managed to raise some money and prepared a fraternal picnic. In the festive atmosphere of the carnival, the young people drew up a proclamation in pidgin Latin, inviting everyone “to come to the dining room with great hunger, under threat of excommunication for those who do not show up”. Mario did not miss the appointment, but then he rushed to the General Inquisitor and accused his brothers of mocking the Holy Office because the allusion to “appearing under threat of excommunication” that was the official formula of the Inquisitors.[3527] The denunciation also quickly reached Father General, who regretted what had happened in a letter to Father Rector on February 24th.[3528]

3527 Cf. EC, p.2823; BAU, BC, p.859-860.

3528 C.3287.

But the cases and matters piled up to such an extent that the Florentine Fathers were fed up with Mario’s defiant attitude and asked Father General to remove him from Florence, to which he replied in a letter to Father Rector in mid-March: “As for Father Mario, there is no other priest at the moment who can confess publicly in the church, and it does not seem right to me that either you or he should leave this church.”[3529] Perhaps the Rector’s attitude is a reaction to another unfortunate fact: one fine day, Inquisitor Muzzarelli, moved by Mario’s talk, entered the Church of the Pious Schools, which was full of people because of a feast day, and ordered the Rector to leave the confessional and put Father Sozzi there.[3530]

3529 C.3317.

3530 Cf. BERRO II, p.9.

In Father General’s letters, he continued to complain about the mistakes and carelessness of the Florentine community, which was restless and somewhat disturbed by Mario’s presence. It is curious that the General wrote to the Rector in June with these words: “You are hereby ordered to inspect all the rooms and other premises every month with the help of two priests, to remove anything superfluous and to make sure that no one has locked anything...”[3531] As a result of these visits, many sweets such as marzipan, pastries, cookies, cakes, candies, etc. were found in Mario’s room and the Rector ordered them to be distributed in the dining hall. There was derisive laughters and protests from Mario, who admitted that it was his own stuff, but he lost no time in denounce the matter to the Inquisitor under sinister interpretations.[3532] Mario explicitly alluded to this and other similar offenses in a pamphlet, known as Slanderous Memorandum, which he addressed to the Holy Office in early 1643, saying:

3531 C.3457. Other complaints: C.3350, 3446, 3454, 3466.

3532 Cf. BERRO, 1.c.

“In the year 1640, Fr. Mario of St. Francis, of the Order of the Pious Schools, found himself in Florence, and having heard of the enormities of Faustina, and having at the same time seen in the house of Florence many instances and excesses of Inquisition on various occasions like ridicule, committed by the same religious of the Pious Schools, and lest all this should lead to serious harm to so many souls, moved by nothing but zeal, honor and the glory of God, it seemed to him that he was bound in conscience to inform the Holy Office of Florence, which he did.”[3533]

3533 EC, p.2528.

The General, moved by the complaints of the Florentine community, obediently ordered Father Mario to go to Narni in September to put an end to the unrest. Mario went to Muzzarelli and made it clear to him that this transfer was intended to prevent the trial of Mother Faustina and Ricasoli from taking place, perhaps through the superior intervention of those who had already succeeded with the Inquisitor della Fratta. The trial had already begun on August 9th, and one of the main players was Mario as whistleblower; Father Muzzarelli considered the transfer a serious maneuver, and they decided that Mario would leave Florence directly for Rome, with all sorts of explanations and justifications that he would present to the Assessor of the Holy Office, Msgr. Francis Albizzi, to make him understand that Mario urgently needed to return to Florence for the honor of the Holy Office.[3534] And so it happened. Mario left Florence and arrived in Rome at the end of September or beginning of October 1640.

3534 Ib., p.2528-2529; cf. L. PICANYOL, o.c., p.124, 130-131.

In the meantime, Father General prudently informed the Cardinal Protector of the situation in Florence and both decided to send Father Ludovico Raimondi as Visitator and commissary general so that he could report properly on everything that had happened. The letter was signed on October 2nd, and on October 10th the visitation began, of which Mario succinctly said “it consisted almost entirely of collecting reports against the said Father [Mario].”[3535] With them he formed “a thick volume”,” says Berro, “which he took with him to Rome. The result of the visitation was the dismissal of the rector, Father Romani, and his immediate transfer to Rome. Father Octaviano Pizzardo took his place until December, when Father General would appoint Father Luke Bresciani. On October 25th, he opened and presided over the Provincial Chapter, and the two delegates for the next General Chapter were elected. At the end of the month, the Visitator returned to Rome.[3536]

3535 EC, p.2528-2529.

3536 Cf. L. PICANYOL, o.c., p.131; BERRO II, p.15-16.

New scuffle, accusations and trial

On October 20, the Cardinal Secretary of the Holy Office, Francis Barberini, wrote to the Florentine Inquisitor: “After hearing Father Mario in court, these Eminences [Cardinals of the Holy Office] have decided to send him back there, as Your Reverence wishes, but O.L. [the Pope], who has been informed by the letter you wrote to Msgr. Assessor [Albizzi] and by the statement of Father Mario himself, recommends to you skill, prudence and vigilance in such an important matter, so that all evil may be exposed, etc.”[3537] Two years later, Mario, for his part, recalled in his Slanderous Memorandum that as soon as he arrived in Rome, “he presented himself to the Assessor [Albizzi], who wrote to Father General not to molest him, and in the meantime he was summoned and examined several times by the Most Reverend Father Delegate [Father John Baptist Martinengo, O.P.], and after a few days the same Reverend ordered him to return to Florence... to help the Inquisitor of Florence to clarify the affairs of Faustina”.[3538]

3537 Cf. L. PICANYOL, o.c., p.130.

3538 EC, p.2529. John B. Martinengo, O.P., who succeeded Fr. Vincent Maculano, O.P., who was the Delegate of the Holy Office from 1632 to 1639, and Martinengo from 1639 to 1649 (cf. I. TAURISANO, Hierarchia Ordinis Praedicatorum [Rome 2 1946], p.57, 74, 104). At the beginning, the Assessor and the Delegate intervened in our affairs, but later everything was left in the hands of Albizzi. The name of Fr. Martinengo was unknown until now in the Calasanctian biographies.

It is clear from these texts that Mario’s journey to Rome was a triumph and that, at the age of 32, his name was already known to the Assessor, the Delegate and Cardinals of the Holy Office, the Secretary of State and the Pope himself. And they were all very keen for him to return to Florence to expose Mother Faustina and her accomplices, the source of the heretical infection. So as far as he was concerned, there was no obedience to the contrary. Father General had to leave him alone. Moreover, it is not unwise to assume that in the various “judicial” interrogations to which he was subjected and in the other conversations he had with Albizzi in particular, although the central issue was the Faustina-Ricasoli affair, he described in his own way the hostile attitude of his brothers in the community and presented himself as an innocent victim of their mockery of the Holy Office.

For fear of reprisals from the Florentine community - he says - he asked not to be sent to Florence, but he had to accept to obey the Holy Office.[3539] And by the end of October, he was back in the city of the Arno. Most likely, however, he returned with the hidden satisfaction of facing his brothers to assert his new powers and boasted of the treatment he had received from the cardinals and prelates of the Holy Office in Rome. And it is also likely that the Florentine community was not ready to celebrate his new triumphs. Berro’s anecdotes suggest that there was a certain mutual tension, from which sparks often flew. And again, it was during the joyous carnival days of 1641 that the most notorious case occurred.

3539 EC, p.2529.

Berro recounts it in detail. While the rector was absent on Fat Thursday lunchtime, an old and sickly priest gave the blessing in a voice so sluggish that it was barely heard or understood. And some of those present laughed. The meal was over, and as they left the refectory, one approached Father Ambrosi and said to him, “You laughed during the blessing.” And Ambrosi replied: “And who did not? Is laughing in the dining room a case for the Holy Office?” Father Mario, who had taken the hint, angrily rebuked Father Ambrosi, who tried to soften his expression. Father Settimi intervened and said: “Please, Father Mario, calm down. Today is a feast day, do not let us spoil it.” Mario turned to Settimi, slapped him hard on the face and said, “And you are against me too?” The offended man folded his arms and, looking at those present, said with dignity: “You are all witnesses, this father is excommunicated” (this was the punishment prescribed by law for anyone who maliciously struck a clergyman). Mario, even more blinded by his anger, tried to hit him again, but was held back by Brother Cesario Landucci, on whom the second slap fell. Berro says that the young brother wanted to hit him back, but Father Morelli prevented him, so that “Father Mario was not touched by anyone”. Foreseeing the coming storm, he slipped away and went straight to the house of his friend the Inquisitor, and told him, sobbing, “This is how the Fathers have treated me for denouncing Faustina to the Holy Office; they have all thrown themselves against me and treated me badly, as your Reverence can see”.[3540] If no one had touched him, he could hardly show signs of aggression and mistreatment. It would be an exaggeration to assume that he injured himself in order to blame his companions. So, it is very likely that Brother Cesario soundly beat up the cheeky bastard with the intervention of someone else, as Mario himself explains in his Slanderous Memorandum:

3540 BERRO II, p.11-12.

“... out of obedience he returned [to Florence], where shortly after the discovery [of Faustina], on the pretext that the said Fr. Mario was a spy of the Holy Office, he was beaten and flogged by the same Fathers of the convent, among whom was the mathematician [Michelini], and to save his life he was forced to flee alone in the middle of the day and seek refuge in the house of the Most Reverend Inquisitor of Florence. His face was so disfigured that he could not leave the house for eight days, and since neither the superior nor the fathers wanted him in the convent, he stayed in the house of a priest friend for a month.”[3541]

3541 EC, p.2529.

The matter became complicated. The inquisitor sent his vicar to the Pious Schools with the instruction that no one was to leave the house under penalty of excommunication. In the days that followed, a trial was opened against the alleged assailants, but it seems that what directly accused Father Mario was omitted from the record. The interrogated man then decided to write a separate statement protesting the omissions in the trial and submitted it to the Inquisitor, who sent the Minutes to Rome once the trial was over.[3542]

3542 Cf. BERRO II, p.9-13. He speaks of two processes made by Muzzarelli against the “enemies” of Mario, but it must be only one, of which Mario also speaks (cf. EC, p.2529).

This was done with great speed, because on March 2, 1641 - the Fat Thursday that year had been February 7th - Cardinal Francesco Barberini wrote this letter to the Inquisitor General of Florence:

“Reverend Father, the trial instituted by Your Reverence against the Fathers of the Pious Schools who abused Father Mario of St. Francis has reached this Sacred Congregation [of the Holy Office] and has been examined, and these Eminences [the Cardinals] have decided that all the delinquents be sent to Rome and that a new family be sent there so that Father Mario may return home and not be disturbed. Therefore, Your Excellency will tell all the accused to come as soon as possible and face this Supreme and Universal Inquisition. In the meantime, do not fail to send us the record of the things found in the possession of the said Father Mario, and explain to us for what reason he had them.”[3543]

3543 Cf. l PICANYOL, o.c., p.135-136.

Those whom Father Muzzarelli considered criminals and defendants traveled to Rome. And on March 23rd, Cardinal Barberini again wrote him this short but very interesting letter:

“Fathers Angel [Morelli], Clement [Settimi] and Richard [Antoni] of the Pious Schools have arrived, whose cause we will try to put to rest. We have also seen the note with the things that Father Mario had in his room, whom Your Excellency will ask to behave decently and curb the force of his wild temper, so that this Sacred Congregation will not have to lament him.”[3544]

3544 Berro undoubtedly confused the names of the protagonists - he writes about twenty years after the events -, among whom there could not be Ambrosio and Cesario, since both were called to Rome by Fr. General on September 8, 1640 (C. 3501). According to this letter of Barberini -a month and a half after the events- the “delinquents” were Frs. Settimi and Morelli and Br. Richard.

In the Holy Office they had read the trial against them and they had just heard it in person. It seems that the cardinals have nothing to say against the “delinquents”, but they draw attention to Fr. Mario because of his fiery reactions and because of all the inexplicable little things he had in his room. It is easy to see that the “condemned” are considered innocent and Mario guilty. But against all odds, they must keep him in Florence until the end of Faustina’s trial. On May 11, Father Settimi wrote from Rome to Prince Leopold de Medici, the friend and protector of the “Galileians”, and gives him interesting details about the whole affair. First of all, he thanks him for his urgent recommendation to some cardinals of the Holy Office to treat him kindly. And he says, among other things:

“... our cause has come to an end with great satisfaction and the Lords of the Sacred Congregation have already recognized that it was a mere persecution of friars and not zeal for the Holy Office. All those who came to Rome by order of the Tribunal of Florence can return... although I do not think they want to return, and many are trying to persuade Father General not to send them there because they fear new injustices.”[3545]

3545 EC, p.2465.

The unrest in Florence had a direct impact on Father General, who had been instructed by the Holy Office not to disturb Father Mario, who had to remain in Florence until the conclusion of the trial against Faustina. He had to change communities so that Father Mario - who, he said, had sought refuge in a friend’s house for a month - could return home. That the “delinquents” called to Rome, although declared innocent, should wait for the end of the trial to be able to return. And in the meantime, Father General was to look for new religious to fill the vacancies in Florence. As late as August 3rd, he wrote to Father Michelini: “I have written to Fanano to send Father Francis to Florence, and when the matter [of Faustina] is concluded, or if God wills otherwise, the members of this house who are here now will return there.”[3546]

3546 C.3689.

The worst denunciation against the Galileians

Father Morelli did not return to Florence, but Father Settimi did, perhaps with some defiance. Mario maintained his belligerent attitude and relied on the protection of the Holy Office. In the few letters from Father General that have survived from this period[3547], you can see his fear of new unrest and his desire not to provoke Mario and his powerful patrons. Thus, on July 6th, he writes to the Rector: “As for the two who say they are under the protection of the Holy Office [Mario and the other], give them all the freedom they want so that they cannot tell the Father Inquisitor otherwise... and it seems good to me to pray to God for them in compensation for the evil they say about us.” On August 3rd, he says: “I say nothing to Father Mario, only that the good Lord enlighten his understanding so that he may find the true path of religious perfection”. On August 10th, he regretted that a priest had insulted Father Mario and said to the interim superior: “You have acted saintly by removing him from office.” On September 7th, he wrote to Father Luke Bresciani, the Rector: “I especially hope that Your Reverence will treat the Father Inquisitor favorably, who I believe will no longer be hostile to us from now on, but benevolent, but be careful not to do anything that displeases him.”[3548]

3547 From July 28, 1640 to July 6, 1641 (C.3474 to 3629) there is no letter from Calasanz to the Rector of Florence. Someone made them disappear or intentionally burned them along with so many other documents, according to Berro (cf. L. PICANYOL, o.c., p.130).

3548 C.3629, 3689, 3703, 3737.

We do not know what this confidence in a change of attitude on the part of Father Muzzarelli is due to. But we can only suppose that, if he was a just and intelligent man, he must have begun to change his mind in view of recent events, for the Cardinals of the Holy Office were right in releasing the “criminals” accused by Mario without any punishment, reproaching him for his intemperate impetus and other oddities. Their own investigations into the facts and the people involved should have coincided with the opinion of the curials in Rome and called into question Mario’s sincerity and good intentions. But he could not inflame the mood of the curials any further until the Faustina trial was over.

There was something else. When Father Settimi informed Prince Leopold that the Roman trial of the Florentine defendants had ended “with great satisfaction”, this news reached Mario’s ears at about the same time. What was a triumph for the alleged “criminals” was a defeat for Mario. And he responded in his own way, maliciously changing the subject of his new accusations and hitting them where it could hurt them most. It was an outright denunciation, addressed “to the Father Inquisitor General of Florence” Here are a few paragraphs:

“Father Francis [Michelini] of St. Joseph, of the Pious Schools... also maintains that the earth moves and the sun is immovable, and holds these and other doctrines of Mr. Galileo so firmly that he considers all others to be false and worthless, since they are contrary to Aristotle, calling him very ignorant, and call Mr. Galileo an oracle and holding his opinions to be oracles; he exalts the said Galileo to be the first man in the world, with other splendid and great titles, not only Fr. Francis, but also Fr. Ambrose [Ambrosi], Clement [Settimi], Charles [Conti] of S. Gaspar and Angel [Morelli], since being his disciples think and feel the same, and all the said Fathers say and boast that they are the wisest and most intelligent of all, and deride all other religious and consider them ignorant.

With this philosophy they have overfilled the Grand Duke, then Prince John Charles... Prince Leopold...

I know that [Father Michelini] kept the books of Mr. Galileo that he could find, and also had them copied by his students...

Many times, he spoke to me of the doctrines and opinions of Mr. Galileo, and especially that the earth moves and the sun stands still, and held this to be so true, though condemned as false, that it came out of his mouth that His Holiness had wronged Mr. Galileo in condemning it... moved also by the enemies of the said Mr. Galileo, especially the Jesuit Fathers...

Father Clement says that the world has no beginning and that all things are created and governed from heaven and that there is no other creator or ruler.

Father Ambrose says that all bodies are composed of atoms ... (and) asserts that there are no colors, which is contrary to one of the accidents admitted in the Blessed Sacrament ... besides all this, if your reverend Father will investigate, you will find other extravagant opinions more suitable to atheists than to Christians.”[3549]

3549 EC. p.2525 - 2526.

Mario delivered this vicious accusation to the Florentine Inquisitor probably at the end of May or in June, but we do not know how he reacted. From what Father General said, perhaps Father Muzzarelli distrusted the veracity of the serious accusations and took no steps to process the same defendants “anew.” He must not even have forwarded the accusations to Rome, because Cardinal Barberini wrote to him on November 9th: “Father Mario of the Pious Schools has presented the attached copy of the document to the Sacred Congregation [ of the Holy Office]. Your Reverence will receive extrajudicial reports on its contents and will communicate them here.”[3550] The document in question was the denunciation, a copy of which Muzzarelli had possessed for months. What had happened?

3550 Cf. L. PICANYOL, o.c., p.144.

Everything indicates that Muzzarelli, who had become disillusioned, dragged his feet and after a few months Mario realized that there would be no new trial against “the Galileians”, so he decided to return to Rome to promote it. He arrived on October 6th and met personally with his friends and protectors of the Holy Office to present them with the new accusations, which this time focused on Father Clement Settimi. Cardinal Barberini took the bait again and wrote indignantly to Father Muzzarelli on October 19: “Upon receipt of the present letter, Your Reverence, have Father Clement of the Pious Schools summoned and banish him from this city under penalty of fines and other punishments at the discretion of this Sacred Congregation, on whose behalf you will tell him to come to Rome and face the Delegate of the Holy Office.”[3551]

3551 Ibid., p.143.

The perfidious Father Mario did not content himself with verbally informing Father Settimi and the others, but also submitted another copy of his first denunciation to Muzzarelli to the Holy Office, enclosing a new letter against Michelini in which he said

“Father Mario of the Pious Schools, most humble servant of Your Eminences, declares with all reverence that months ago, on the advice and to clear his conscience, he submitted to the Inquisitor in Florence a copy of the enclosed folio, the original of which is in his possession, and that he has named other trustworthy witnesses to make clear the truth that Father Francis [Michelini] of St. Joseph teaches a false and damnable doctrine... He also adds that the persons named [in the attached document] have a school of mathematics in Florence.”[3552]

3552 EC., p.2523-2524. The last accusation confirms the idea, already alluded to, that mathematics were suspected of heresy (cf. n.3515 of this chapter).

We do not know whether the Florentine inquisitor carried out the research requested by Cardinal Barberini into the doctrines and teachings of the accused. What is certain is that both the Grand Duke and his brother Prince Leopold wrote to Cardinal Sacchetti and the Tuscan ambassador Niccolini as soon as they learned of Settimi’s new summons to the court in Rome, imploring them to protect him “so that - according to Leopold - the persecutions would stop immediately”[3553] Perhaps Mario thaught, that given the seriousness of his accusations, there would be a resounding trial against these new “heretical Galileians” But apparently there was no trial, and for the only representative who was summoned, Clement Settimi, this was the result, as he himself wrote from Rome on 14th December to Prince Leopold:

3553 Cf. L. PICANYOL, O. C. P. 145 - 146. The letters are dated respectively October 25, 1641 and November 9, 1641.

“Msgr. Assessor [Albizzi] has let me know that I have nothing more to do with the Holy Office, whereupon he will issue me a patent stating that no inquiries have been made about me, which will be of use to me before all those who have suspected me. The biggest accusation Father Mario made against me was that I had been intimate with Mr. Galileo.”[3554]

3554 EC, p.2467.

He did not even know that he had accused him of being an atheist, of claiming that the world neither had a beginning, nor was created by God, nor was ruled by him. And it was all in vain. Then Cardinal Barberini’s anger had been unjust and Mario’s serious accusations had been false. And for the second time. And with the inconvenience of two useless journeys. But there is no record of His Eminence having apologized even once to the alleged wrongdoers or that there was even the slightest punishment for the recidivist slanderer. Quite the opposite. In fact, the big news of the moment was that on November 24, 1641 - as we read in a Florentine diary of the time - “in the refectory of Santa Croce, the abjuration of Pandolfo, Francesco Ricasoli and Faustina Mainardi took place. Ricasoli and Faustina were sentenced to life imprisonment.”[3555] This ended the arduous trial and the protection of the Holy Office of Rome over Father Mario also changed sign. The time had come to reward his services. And the reward was to appoint him Provincial of Tuscany.

3555 Cf. L. PICANOL, o.c., p.124. This is the Diario del Settimani, vol. IX, to date. Cf, BAU, BC, p.858-859; PASTOR, o.c., t.28, p.282. It is interesting to remember that on July 12, 1615, in the Roman church of Santa Maria sopra Minerva, the so-called “Mother Julia” and her accomplices, abjured the same crimes who had committed in Naples, and ended their days in prison (cf. EEC, p.199, n.21).

The beginnings of a bad government

Things happened very quickly. Mario was in Rome, Msgr. Albizzi asked him - according to Berro - “in what way he wanted to be rewarded by the Holy Office for such a denunciation, and he asked to be appointed Provincial of the Pious Schools of Tuscany.”[3556] Msgr. Assessor took it upon himself to ask Father General to make the official appointment. Father Jacob Tocco had taken up this post on October 20th last year, but had to leave Florence a few days later for health reasons. The position was vacant.[3557]

3556 Cf. BERRO II, p.17; Caputi’s version in BAU, BC, p.883.

3557 Cf. L. PICANYOL, o.c., p.147, n.2.

Neither Father General nor the Cardinal Protector were happy to accept this appointment. But the members of the Holy Office, to whose congregation Cesarini also belonged, “took no heed of our Lord Cardinal - wrote Father Settimi to Prince Leopold on December 14th - who had taken great pains to prevent the said Father from exercising such a dignity, putting forward reasons which were not only suitable to deprive him of the provincialate, but were also sufficient to put him in prison. But to these proposals the said gentlemen replied (as they have often told me) that they knew the said Father and his qualities very well, but that nothing else could be done now, as it was of great importance to the Sacred Congregation that this man should be recognized and rewarded.”[3558] It is to be understood that by saying that “they knew the said Father and his qualities very well”, they did not mean that they considered him suitable and worthy of the office because of his gifts and virtues, which would mean that they had forgotten everything they had read in the trials and the oral declarations; but that, although they knew what he was like, they considered it necessary to reward him by giving him what he asked for. Berro also notes that Cardinal Cesarini had also read the trials against Father Mario.[3559] This confirmed the bad opinion he had had of him from some time ago.

3558 EC, p.2466-2467. The whole letter is a complaint or an attack against the Holy Office’s way of proceeding. See this other paragraph: “…the Holy Congregation has remunerated him with the said Provincialate, wishing also that there [in Florence] appear the honors that are given to similar men who reveal to the Tribunal the unworthiness of people”. Rightly Albizzi said - adds Settimi - “that I was a good Religious, but it seemed to him that I had little esteem for the Holy Office”. Remember, moreover, that he was Galileo’s occasional secretary and confidant.

3559 Cf. BERRO II, p.16.

Father General had to accept and extend the official appointment on December 4th. But Mario was not satisfied. When he thought of Florence, he was not prepared to meet again with one of those who had humiliated and even beaten him. And he asked for full authority to select from the entire Order the religious who would form the community of the Florentine house in which he had lived and would continue to live as Provincial. And the Holy Office forced Father General to accept this crazy whim. Berro adds the detail that the first patent of appointment, which was the normal one, was not liked; he drafted another with broader powers, which was also rejected; whereupon “ the founder asked the Most Reverend Lord Assessor to draft a patent according to their wishes, which he would sign and affix his seal to. And they did so with all the requests and wishes of Father Mario.”[3560] Whether it was one way or another, the fact is that Father Mario received these extraordinary powers. The first time Father General alludes to them is on December 14th, when with heroic simplicity he declares his full obedience to the Holy Office, which is the equivalent of obedience to the Pope. He said:

3560 Ibid., p.17. Here Berro confuses the ideas, alluding to the future appointment of General Vicar. This last and definitive patent has disappeared. The Saint seems to allude to it in C. 3955. Sántha presents the first one, dated December 4, 1641, saying at the end that it differs from the normal ones, because it commands that all the religious of the Order, and not only those of Tuscany, must obey Mario. He is mistaken, however, since the text is identical to other appointments of Provincial, for example, that of Alachi (cf. EGC X, p.316). The phrase in question simply distinguishes between “the local Ministers in the same Province” and “all the other religious” - it is understood - of the same Province. (cf. G. SANTHA, Card. Franciscus Albitius..., p.61-62, n.26).

“Y. R. should know that the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, which normally does not give orders without the knowledge of His Holiness, has ordered that Father Mario return to Florence as Provincial... and that he should select the subjects of his choice, which I have willingly obeyed, and I have given orders to all those whom the said Father has on the list to go to Florence as soon as possible, and I will give them all the usual obedience to comply with this order of the Sacred Congregation.”[3561]

3561 C.3824. In other letters he specifies: “and for the House of Florence he has the licence to elect the family that he wants to” (C.3834 and 3835, 3839, 3840, 3847...).

And the transfer began. Mercilessly, Father Mario began to take fathers and brothers from the schools in Italy, regardless of the disorder he caused there, leaving classes without adequate teachers, houses without rectors or administrators, with an insatiable greed and a senseless spirit that makes us wonder whether he was really concerned with the prestige of his own Florentine house or with the catastrophic ruin of the entire Order. And the poor Father General had to explain the reasons for his transfer to everyone who was sent to Florence and urge them to obey the orders of the Holy Office.

From the time he was appointed Provincial at the beginning of December 1641 until the end of January 1642[3562], he stayed in Rome without any justification except to wait for the General to found the new Florentine community of the elect and to appease the minds of all those who were probably opposed to his appointment. And indeed, during these two months, Father General wrote with heroic patience and resignation to all of Mario’s chosen ones to leave their school and their activities and go to Florence.[3563] Moreover, on January 1, 1642, the Old Saint signed a humiliating circular letter to the Province of Tuscany in which, after a few brief words of recommendation and confidence in the zeal, charity and good wishes of the new Provincial, at his undoubted request, he abrogated all the orders hitherto made as General of the Order and proclaimed the new powers of the Provincial, practically recognizing his full autonomy. He said:

3562 On January 11, 1642 the General said that Mario would leave Rome in ten days (C.3870), and the first letter he writes to Florence is dated February 2, 1642 (C.3908).

3563 See the numerous letters that follow: 3834, 3835, 3839, 3840, 3841, 3842, 3847, 3852, 3865, 3868, 3877, 3880, 3881, 3906. And two models of obediences of later date: C.3956 and 3957.

“...by virtue of this letter...we hereby...abrogate all orders, privileges, faculties or licenses of a general or special nature which we have in the past granted to our religious, both superiors and subordinates, residing in the said [Tuscan] province, and declare them of no value unless they are confirmed by the Provincial... nor will we hereafter grant any faculty or license without the knowledge of the said Provincial, and if any religious, whether superior or subordinate, residing in the said province... should receive from us any license or faculty or privilege, even a minimal one, without the knowledge of the Provincial... we declare it surreptitious and without value....”[3564]

3564 C.3854a.

The enormous gravity and injustice of this enforced Decree should not be underestimated, for not only did the General renounce his legitimate rights over the Tuscan province, but the Provincial retained the omnipotent freedom to dismiss whomever he wished from his province and to appoint whomever he wished from the others. And he did so without accusing the General of guilt in the slightest, but only to satisfy the informant about Faustina’s abuses.

When Mario arrived in Florence at the end of January 1642, many changes had already been made, but he was still not satisfied and did not stop asking for more people. On February 2nd, the Saint wrote to him that eleven people had already left for Florence from Rome alone, and he gave him the explanations for seven more requests.[3565] Until March 22nd, the saint continues to write him a letter every week, telling him in detail what requests he has made and what difficulties are in his way, because they are in full swing and it is not easy to fill in the gaps. Every week he also writes to the provinces of Naples and Genoa, in which he presents and urges the requests of the impatient and insatiable Mario.[3566] But despite everything, he complains to the Holy Office that Father General is not obeying the Sacred Congregation. And in turn he is believed in the Holy Office, and without ascertaining whether he is telling the truth or lying, a notary is sent to San Pantaleo on March 22nd to read out a communiqué insisting that “without any reply, all the Fathers of the said Order called and demanded by Father Mario are sent to Florence … under penalty of punishment at the discretion of the Sacred Congregation itself.”[3567]

3565 C.3908. Cf. also C.3910.

3566 Six sent to Mario, six to Genoa and two to Naples (cf. EGC VIII, p.78-105) are preserved and all deal with the subject.

3567 Cf. BARTLIK, o.c., 4 (1954) 90.

It is therefore not surprising that on the same day, March 22nd, Father General writes to Mario and tells him of eleven more Fathers he is sending to Florence, adding sentences like these: “If you think there is anyone else in the whole Religion who is suitable, tell me and I will send him to you at once”; “Please let me know at once whom you wish to send to Florence so that I can send them to you and look after them as well as possible”; “I will not interfere in any way to undo what you are doing, but will help you with whatever is necessary.”[3568] No less significant is what he wrote to him on April 26th, with explicit reference to Mgr. Albizzi’s personal will:

3568 C.3955.

“A few days ago, I went to the Most Reverend Assessor to show him the list of Fathers and Brothers whom your Reverence had desired for the house in Florence, and others whom your Reverence asks again, especially in view of the fact that many have left the Order and declare their profession null and void, and that there are few subjects left who can conduct the school well. The said bishop has with all kindness felt the lack of subjects, but still he wishes the necessary ones to be sent to Your Reverence....”

And he ends:

“I beg you very much to consider the harm that may be done to some houses by taking away the necessary subjects, but I am willing to comply with what the Most Reverend Assessor directs.”[3569]

3569 C.3980.

Similar complaints can be found in other letters, as well as the concern that all obey the Tribunal of the Holy Office.[3570] Read this last moving letter, in which the Saint puts his finger on one of the wounds that hurt him most: the poor children. He writes:

3570 C.3966, 3969, 3978, 3982, 3985.

“As for Father Dominic Anthony, although here [in Rome] the school is lost to the children who earned their bread with a little music they learned, I send him nevertheless, although he expressed to me a great desire to go to Naples to see his mother, a poor old woman, but I would not grant it, but ordered him to go to Florence as soon as possible.”[3571]

3571 C.3999. To top it all, he reminds him that the last General Chapter had forbidden the holding of music classes outside Rome.

The Holy Founder and his Order - without knowing it - reached a dead end, driven by the malice and foolish ambition of Mario Sozzi. At the same time, however, the responsibility of those who could not understand or accept that the confrontation with Father Mario under the given circumstances represented a bold challenge to the Holy Office, in which everything was at stake, also grew.

Rebellion and political complications

Of all the “Galileans”, Father Michelini, “the mathematician” par excellence in Sozzi’s viper’s pen, was the most reviled by Mario and accused of heterodoxy. It was against him that the very serious memorandum was directed, which was first presented to the Florentine Inquisitor and then, after a few months, to the Holy Office in Rome, together with another similar memorandum also directed against Fr. Michelini.[3572] Also in the Slanderous Memorandum of 1643, in which he recalls the beatings he had received during the carnival of 1641, the only one he explicitly mentions is the “mathematician”, implying that he was one of “the “delinquents”: “He was beaten and flogged by the same Fathers of the convent among whom was the Mathematician”, he says.[3573] Here too he quotes only him, leaving the others anonymous when he speaks of his return to the Province. And in this case, his cynicism is outrageous, because considering the upheaval he caused with so many changes before and after his arrival, this was his impassioned judgment

3572 EC, 2523-2527.

3573 Ibid., p.2529.

“... it was necessary for Father Mario to return to Florence to exercise his office [as Provincial], albeit against his will, because he knew very well the quality of the subjects he was dealing with, many of whom were unchangeable because of the great protection of His Serene Highness and especially Father Mathematician, who lived with his freedom at Court; so that all his authority and order to be able to change the family was greatly impaired.”[3574]

3574 Ibid., p.2530.

It is not true that “many” remained unchanged. Practically all the “Galileians” had disappeared, starting with the most prominent, such as Settimi, Ambrosi, Morelli, Romani... But Michelini remained, the most hated and at the same time the most significant, the most important, the most untouchable. It is noteworthy that, although he was the one most accused by Mario and whose name was therefore read out by Muzzarelli, Albizzi, Barberini and the other cardinals of the Holy Office and even by the Pope, he was not molested by anyone, nor was he once sent to Rome by the Florentine Inquisitor, as he sent Settimi and others, nor was his presence expressly requested by the furious Cardinal Barberini. And he was just as “criminal” or even more criminal than the others, as Mario denounced. This kind of “political immunity” is the best proof that he enjoyed the strong protection of the Medici Court.

The dislike between Mario and Michelini was mutual, and since the appointment of the former as Provincial of Tuscany, the Holy Founder was very concerned about the latter’s personal reaction and the undoubted effect his negative behavior would have on the others. For this reason, as soon as the Provincial’s patent was signed, the Saint endeavored to instill in Michelini resignation, prudence, patience, obedience and the hope that the new Provincial would treat him and the others with charity and leave his hands free to continue in the service of Prince Leopold and the Court. At the end of December, he even proposes legitimate solutions to circumvent Mario’s direct authority, as he sincerely fears that they will not get along despite the latter’s promises. And with this in mind, he also writes to Prince Leopoldo on January 11, confirming all the permissions granted to Michelini to remain in his service.[3575]

3575 C.3811, 3841, 3850, 3851, 3873, 3814.

However, when Mario arrived in Florence at the end of January 1642, Michelini found himself in the community of the new House of Pisa, which had been founded only a year earlier, thanks above all to the intervention of Michelini himself with Grand Duke Ferdinand II, who had requested it.[3576] His presence in Pisa prompted the community to oppose Father Mario from the outset, refusing to recognize and obey him as Provincial Superior. On February 8th, the Saint wrote to Michelini: “I have received a letter signed by four of our Fathers, and I believe that they should not make any decision until they have seen in practice the government of Father Mario, who has promised to behave with great kindness and charity towards all.” And to the Rector, Fr. Scassellati, he said on the same day: “I am sorry that from the beginning the spirit of our religious have been disturbed in this house.”[3577] Since then, in his letters to the Rector and the Provincial, he has repeatedly expressed serious concern about this rebellion. He urged the Rector to calm the minds and to bring obedience and submission to the Provincial, and him to be patient and trust that they would recognize him, never ceasing to exhort them to submission and obedience.[3578]

3576 Cf. O. TOSTI, Gli Scolopi a Pisa: Ricerche 15 (1985) 281-285; EGC X, p.290 and 301; EC, p.698.

3577 C.3917 and 3918.

3578 C. 3923, 3924, 3932, 3937, 3939, 3939, 3944, 3945, etc.

Mario undoubtedly foresaw that his provincialate would not be well received either by the religious or by the Ccourt of the Grand Duke, and that it would not be easy to counteract the protection that the latter would exercise over his opponents. Before leaving Rome, he therefore took precautions and confirmed his authority before his religious and the Court itself, as Father Settimi informed Prince Leopold on December 21, 1641: “The said Father [Mario], while kissing the feet of His Holiness, spoke of Your Serene Highness, but I do not know about what; and he told one of his friends that he would have no fear of the Most Serene House because he was delivering a message to His Lordship the Grand Duke.” And in mid-January he wrote again: “The Sacred Congregation has granted another patent to Father Mario to show that he is a benefactor of the Tribunal [of the Holy Office], and in it is this clause: communicantes ei nostras vices et voces, which, in short, seems to mean no more than this: that if he fears anything in Florence, he can appeal to the Holy Office and show that he is their man.”[3579]

3579 Cf. L. PICANYOL, o.c., p.149-150.

Michelini and those of Pisa, for their part, maintained that since its foundation this house had been directly subordinate to Father General and the Cardinal Protector, and that the Provincial of Tuscany was therefore neither its superior nor had the right to visit it. This prerogative is neither confirmed nor denied by the General, who continues to insist that they must obey and submit to the Provincial.[3580] Cardinal Cesarini, for his part, as the Tuscan ambassador Niccolini writes from Rome to the Grand Duke’s secretary, recognizes the privilege, but believes that, given the authority Mario has received from the Holy Office, the wisest thing to do is to let him visit the house and acknowledge and obey him in order to avoid worse, especially as Father Mario promises to be benevolent and prudent and to make a very short visit. Cesarini also asks the Grand Duke to intervene to make the rebels submit and confesses that this attitude of the Pisans has already made him think several times of no longer being their protector, “because it seems very strange to him that four barefoot men keep him in suspense with endless worries.”[3581]

3580 Cf. the 25 letters of the General addressed to Pisa or to Provincial Mario from December 1641 to August 1642.

3581 Cf. L. PICANYOL, o.c., p.156-157.

There is no lack of allusion to Michelini as the main cause of the whole conflict, for the resolution of which the Cardinal has come “to promise the desired satisfaction to father mathematician of the Most Serene Lord Prince Leopoldo, since His Eminence knows that he is more obstinate than the other religious.” The statement is very important, both for the recognition as leader of the rebellion and for the suggestion to give him “desired satisfactions”, because Albizzi will also go to the same extremes by adding very serious threats, which will ultimately be the end of this drama.

Neither Father General’s insistent exhortations to the rebels, asking them to submission and obey, nor the Cardinal Protector’s attempts to force effective intervention by the Grand Ducal Court through Ambassador Niccolini, were able to move the Pisans or Michelini.

As the new Provincial, Father Mario decided in April to visit three other houses of his Province that were outside the Grand Duchy of Tuscany, namely those of Fanano, Guglia and Pieve di Cento. He was received correctly, although coolly and with some protests. When the visit was over, he returned to Florence. In June, the representatives of these three houses met in Fanano and decided to withdraw from Father Mario’s jurisdiction and proposed the foundation of a new Province called Lombardy. They appointed Father Dominic Barberini as procurator before a notary, who was to travel to Rome to discuss the matter with Father General, the Cardinal Protector and the representative of the Duke of Modena, in whose territory Fanano was located.

On July 12, Father General gives Father Barberini permission to travel to Rome to discuss the matter and promises him that he will be received by the Cardinal Protector, who will decide what is appropriate. On the same day, he also wrote to the rector of Pieve di Cento, Fr. Lucas Bresciani, informing him in very harsh words: “I am very sorry that you have taken such a decision without first consulting Rome.” And he let him know that Father Mario was already there[3582], indicating that the Provincial had learned of the secret meeting in Fanano and had preceded them to discuss the matter in Rome, both with the General and with the Holy Office, for it was a new trump card in his favor to prove the general rebellion throughout his Province against his person and... against those who had provided him with the provincialate and continued to protect him.

3582 C.4018, 4019.

There is no doubt that the Holy Founder protested against this new act of rebellion, as he expressed in another letter of July 16th to Father Simon Bondi, Rector of Fanano,

”... I am very sorry that in these houses the spirits are so agitated and that they have taken a decision on such a serious matter for the religious; because before taking it they should have consulted Rome and asked for remedy. But now that you have made the mistake, everyone should calm down and comply with great zeal, and all of us here will try to free you from the fear they have devised of being under the obedience of a Father who does not depend on Father General.”[3583]

3583 C.4020.

He did not promise to free them “from the obedience” of Father Mario, but “from the fear” that this submission caused in them. And it was the same thing he tried to achieve with those of Pisa by insisting on Mario’s supposedly good intentions and promises. Mario, however, accused Father General of having secretly approved the decision of those of Fanano[3584], and no doubt he was resourceful in spreading the idea throughout the Province that he was encouraging disobedience and insubordination to the Provincial. Father Apa communicated this to Calasanz from Florence, and the poor general wrote to him on August 2, very indignant, these very harsh words:

3584 In Slanderous Memorandum he says that in Fanano “they rebelled and appointed a new Provincial... usurping in this way the authority of Fr. General, with the secret knowledge of whom they did this” (EC, p.2530).

“In regard to the very false and unworthy opinion of my office, which an evil tongue has invented, that I want our people to be restless to proclaim that Father Mario is not fit for the office of Provincial, I answer that I want all to be of one heart and one soul in the service of God, and that Father Mario be a minister worthy of his office, for thereby I shall receive benefit and honor, and not reproach. And also, to think that I regard these religious of ours as amputated members of the body of Religion and as if they did not exist, and that anyone who does not rebel against Father Mario is rebuked by me, this seems to me unworthy of you not only to believe it but even to write it, for neither you nor anyone else has ever seen anything like it in me, but quite the contrary.”[3585]

3585 C.4028.

Prisoners of the Holy Office

When Father Dominic Barberini arrived in Rome in mid-July to discuss the possible foundation of the Province of Lombardy as procurator, he easily obtained an audience with Cardinal Cesarini, as Father General had promised him.[3586] Father Mario had gone ahead of him to thwart the secession plans of “the Lombards”, but although he had tried to be received by Cesarini and had begged him several times, the Cardinal had refused to grant him an audience.[3587]

3586 C.4018.

3587 Cf. the testimony of Fr. Bianchi in BAU, BC, p.904.

In this situation of rejection and impatience, Mario reverted to his old behaviour and let loose his serpentine tongue against the General and against Cesarini. He was politely rebuked, but he paid no attention. Mgr. Sebastian Gentile, the vice-protector, reprimanded him again, but Mario - writes Berro - “answered him with such insolence... and spoke so badly in his presence before His Eminence the Cardinal Protector and the Order and its venerable Founder and General, saying that he had so much material in his hand, not only to punish Father General, but also to destroy the Religion, adding other absurdities against His Eminence”[3588], that the Monsignor could not help but communicate this to the Cardinal.

3588 BERRO II, p.26-27. Caputi and Br. Ferrari say that it was Mgr. Cecchini (cf. BAU, BC, p.907 and 917).

This boasting of Mario aroused Cesarini’s spirit, and when he saw - writes Berro - “that O. V. Father General the Founder, in view of the great support Father Mario enjoyed from the Monsignor Assessor of the Holy Office, was unable to solve the problem himself, he thought of solving it by bringing legal proceedings against their non-religious acts, and indeed it was very thick ... and they found much to consider even against the sacred vows, and especially against property”.[3589] One doubts the veracity of this new trial, since there are already many of those recalled by Berro; but Mario himself confirms it by speaking of it in his Slanderous Memorandum.[3590]

3589 BERRO II, p.26.

3590 EC, p.2530-2531.

Precisely to add new evidence to the pages of this trial, the Cardinal decided to search Mario’s room[3591], hoping to find all the compromising documents against him and Father General that Mario had bragged about so much. As soon as Father General learned of the Protector’s plan, he tried to dissuade him by first sending his secretary, Father Jacob Bandoni. When this was unsuccessful, he went himself, accompanied by the secretary and an assistant, to urge him to give up and to make him aware of the reprisals that could be imposed on the Order in view of the protection Mario enjoyed by Msgr. Albizzi and the Holy Office. Cesarini reassured him, assuring him that he had been informed that Mario enjoyed no exemption from the Sacred Congregation, but that “he is my subject,” he said. The Old Holy Man continued to kneel at the Cardinal’s feet, but as the latter was adamant, “he raised his eyes to heaven,” Berro concludes, “and said with great feeling, ‘God’s will be done; His Divine Majesty wants something great from me.’ And when he took his leave, he returned home and began to pray.”[3592]

3591 “...he resolved (the Cardinal) to continue the process begun with the visit of the room where Father (Mario) lived” (BERRO II, p.27). Caputi proposes as the main reason for the search the supposition that Mario intercepted the correspondence that arrived from Florence to Father General, but it is not plausible, as Bau has already proven (cf. BC, p.907 and 909).

3592 BERRO II, p.26-28. Berro supports this account by specifying: “This I know said from the mouth of O. V. Fr. and who was with him “.

On the afternoon of August 7, 1642, Cesarini sent his auditor, Count Corona, accompanied by a notary, to the Pious Schools. When he arrived in the sacristy, he called Father Mario and some religious as witnesses and, in the name of the Cardinal Protector, demanded with all the solemnity of an official act that Father Mario hand over all the documents, papers, money and other things he had with him. Mario resisted, claiming that some of the papers belonged to the Holy Office, but Count Corona pointed out that Cesarini also belonged to that Congregation, but out of deference he placed them in a waxed and sealed bundle. (As it later turned out, this was merely an inventory of the sacristy that Muzzarelli had made). He asked him for the keys to his room and continued the thorough search. Berro states that “various things were found that were neither necessary nor useful for a religious, but the hiding places where he kept the less decents things were not found.” Everything was inventoried and handed over to the cardinal.[3593]

3593 BERR0 II, p.27-28; CAPUTI, cit. in BAU, BC, p.908.

It is not difficult to imagine Mario’s state of mind. At least two of them, Fathers Cherubini and Glicerio Cerutti, went to comfort him and advised him to inform Bishop Albizzi of that incident immediately. It is likely that they all falsified the version together, interpreting the facts more or less maliciously. The bustle of that morning, first Father Bandoni and then Father General and his companions on their way to and from Cesarini’s palace, had something to do with what happened in the afternoon. Mario wrote an account in which he informed Msgr. Assessor of Count Corona’s unpleasant visit and “blamed everything,” according to Berro, “on Father General and Founder, saying that he had appealed many times to the Emo. Protector and that he had therefore sent his secretary and had come himself with his assistants to force His Excellency to make the said registration.”[3594] The message was delivered by Mr. Ursino de Rosis, a friend of the house who lived opposite the church of St. Pantaleo in Palazzo Mannini, the former seat of the Pious Schools.

3594 BERRO II, p.29.

The next morning Mario went in person to Albizzi to confirm the news verbally and probably to emphasize that the culprits knew that among the confiscated papers there were some that belonged to the Holy Office, but they paid no attention to them and carried out the confiscation. Once again, the furious Monsignor Mario gave full credence to this and, without convincing himself of the veracity of such an untruth or consulting Count Corona or Cardinal Cesarini out of caution, he informed the nepote Cardinal Francis Barberini in his own way, who in turn informed the Pope. And he, Urban VIII, decided that the guilty parties should be imprisoned and severely punished.[3595] What was the final version that reached the Pope’s ears?

3595 Ib., and CAPUTI in BAU, BC, p.910-911.

Around noon on August 8, Mgr. Albizzi arrived in a carriage, accompanied by a group of followers, got out at the door of the church of St. Pantaleon, which overlooks the main square, and went into the sacristy. In an authoritative voice, he asked where Father General was. The Old Saint was sitting there in a chair. When he heard that he was being asked for, he stood up and introduced himself to the Monsignor, who asked for the presence of the entire General Curia. The Father General replied that of the four assistants, Father Castelli was in the Nazareno, Father Bonaventura Catalucci was ill in bed and the other two, Father Peter Casani and Father John Garcia, were at home; the Procurator, Father John Baptist Costantini[3596], was out of the house and the Secretary General, Father Jacob Bandoni, had begun Mass in the church. The Monsignor ordered the latter to return to the sacristy and call the two assistants who were at home. In the meantime, for safety’s sake, he went to the sick man and, seeing his condition, told him to consider himself a prisoner in his own room. He returned to the sacristy and uttered the ritual words in front of the stunned prisoners: “You are prisoners of the Holy Office.” None of the chroniclers or witnesses of the beatification process who describe this dramatic scene - and there are quite a few of them - suggest that Bishop Albizzi gave even the slightest justification for this imprisonment, nor that any of the prisoners dared to ask for explanations. And that was a pity, because it would have avoided the embarrassing spectacle that was about to begin.

3596 On April 23, 1642 Fr General had dismissed Fr Cherubini and appointed Costantini until May 16, 1643, when Fr. Pietrasanta dismissed him and reappointed Cherubini (cf. EEC, p.341, n.1).

Berro relates that while Albizzi was making sure that Father Catalucci was ill, some of those present informed the Marquis de Torres and Prince Peter de Massimi, neighbors of the house, of what had happened so that they would try to prevent it. Both gentlemen agreed and asked the Monsignor Assessor to spare the Fathers such an embarrassment, but they only succeeded in preventing them from being tied up.[3597] Then they left the house through the main door in the direction of Pasquino Square. They walked in pairs, Father General and Father Casani in the lead, followed by Father Garcia and Father Bandoni[3598], all four on foot, bareheaded in the midday sun, in the middle of the Roman August, and surrounded by henchmen, like common criminals, followed by Monsignor in his carriage.

3597 Cf. BERRO II, p.30. Massimi deposed as a procedural witness in 1651, but he did not remember this detail, saying simply: “I saw him when he went to the Holy Office; it was with such serene joy that I was astonished” (cf. S. GINER, El proceso de Beatificacion..., p.75, n.82).

3598 Caputi adds Fr. Procurator and Fr. Catalucci (cf. BAU, BC, p.912); Berro first speaks of “tutti quattro”, but then it turns out to be five when he says that behind the General and Fr. Peter went the two General Assistents with the Secretary” (BERRO II, p. 31); Br. Lorenzo Ferrari, infirmarian and witness, declares that Fr. Catalucci remained in his room as the person in prison, specifying later that they were “Fr. General... Fr. Peter from Lucca and Fr. Castiglia and Fr. Jacob who was secretary” (ProcIn, p.605).

Not a sign of respect was done for the Old Holy Man, almost 85 years old, who was known throughout Rome as the Founder of the Pious Schools, of which more than a thousand children populate the busiest streets of the city every day in five endless rows. It would have been possible to wait for the evening hours, or to make the shameful transfer through less crowded streets, or to put her in a poor carriage to escape the stares and easy mockery of passers-by.

But no. The infamous parade took place precisely on the so-called “Via papale”, (Pope Street) the most solemn and public street in Rome, because it was the route of the sumptuous procession that moved from the Vatican to the Lateran a few days after the coronation of the popes to take possession of the basilica. Specifically, it left Piazza San Pantaleo and continued through Piazza Pasquino and today’s Via del Governo Vecchio, Via dei Banchi Nuovi, Via Banco Santo Spirito, over the Sant’Angelo bridge and through the streets of the now vanished Borgo, bypassing the old St. Peter’s Square until it reached today’s Palace of the Holy Office.

Coincidentally, August 8, 1642 was a Friday, like the one on which Christ walked along the Sorrowful Way with the cross on his back. And the Saint thought about it, as he expressly revealed to Father Jerome Simone: “The Servant of God told him that at that moment he had been meditating on the sorrowful way that Christ our Lord had taken to Calvary.[3599] A year later, on August 29, 1643, he comforted Father Gabriel Bianchi, who had been dismissed as rector of Savona, and reminded him of this scene without dramatization, saying: “I can only advise you to bear the insults with patience, because I am also the one who was brought to the Holy Office without knowing why, and when I was told, I knew that I was innocent of it.”[3600]

3599 Cf. BAU, BC, p.921; TALENTI, o.c., p.336.

3600 C.4125 and 4123.

Nor was there any lack of a touch of mockery, reminiscent of the mockery of Good Friday. It would hardly be credible if it were not a quote from an eyewitness. Berro writes: “The patricide, I mean Father Mario, was at the window of the said Mr. Orsino de Rosis, laughing and rejoicing greatly to see the Founder and Creator of the holy habit he wore in this trance, and said words which betrayed so much joy that the said Mr. Orsino rebuked him severely, though not as his impudence deserved, as the said Mr. Orsino told me verbally shortly afterwards.”[3601]

3601 BERRO II, p.31.

Once in the Holy Office, the accused were led into a large waiting room. The Monsignor retired to his quarters to eat in peace – it was lunchtime - and then take a nap as if nothing had happened. Meanwhile, the prisoners continued to puzzle over the reason for their imprisonment, with the exception of the ‘Old Holy Man’, who, as Bandoni explained, fell asleep peacefully.[3602]

3602 BAU, BC, p.913 (Caputi), 918 (Bandoni).

Unjust reaction of the Holy Office

Late in the afternoon, Albizzi reappeared and reprimanded the prisoners, saying: “You will not leave here until you have returned the writings that were taken from Father Mario yesterday afternoon.” The General explained to him that they had nothing to do with the search and that everything had been done on the personal orders of the Cardinal Protector to his auditor, Count Corona, who had taken all the papers and handed them over to Cesarini. The Monsignor was not very happy with these excuses and insisted that they would not leave until he had the documents in question. The General asked to be allowed to send a message to the Cardinal and wrote the following:

“The General and the Assistants of the Pious Schools, having been forced to go to the Holy Office and detained there for many hours by the false supposition of Father Mario that we vehemently urged the confiscation of the writings, and having no other means of proving to the Sacred Congregation the falsity of such a false supposition, humbly beg you to declare it true.”

When the Cardinal received the news, he wrote on the same paper at the foot of the petition, “The petitioners have not themselves or through others made any application for the said confiscation. Card. Cesarini.”[3603]

3603 Cf. S. GINER, o.c., p.211, n.88; EGC X, c.40282.

It was already past six o´clock in the afternoon when Count Corona arrived at the Holy Office with the unfortunate writings and the Cardinal’s written reply. He went in to speak to the Monsignor and gave the appropriate explanations. But apparently neither the declaration signed by Cesarini, nor the declarations of Count Corona, nor the fact that the Cardinal also belonged to the Congregation of the Holy Office, nor the ridiculousness of the only paper accused of belonging to the Holy Office, because it bore the signature of the Florentine Inquisitor was a simple inventory of the sacristy, were enough to convince the Monsignor of the innocence of the accused. Not even a simple polite apology, not even a trace of humility as he acknowledged his own error, the imposing mistake made by him, Cardinal Barberini and Pope Urban for his imprudence and his incredible faith in Mario’s malicious words. Not even a symbolic gesture of justice to punish the false informant and recidivist slanderer. None of that.

The one who responded with dignity was Cesarini, who ordered Count Corona, as reparation for the humiliated and disgraced innocent prisoners, to drive them home in the cardinal’s carriage with the curtains up through the same streets they had driven through like common criminals under henchmen. The ‘Old Holy Man’ insisted that they should drive through less crowded streets or at least with the curtains drawn, but he was not heeded. Of course, the Monsignor was bound to notice this unexpected “triumph” that so seemingly corrected his noontime mistake. But his honor could not be insulted with impunity, even if in this case it was a cardinal defending justice and innocence. They would have to pay for it. The next morning a notary, sent or even accompanied by Albizzi, appeared at San Pantaleo and imposed a penalty on the General, his Assistants, the Procurator and the General Secretary not to leave the house without a permit from the Holy Office.[3604]

3604 BERRO II, p.32-34; BAU, BC, p.919-920 (Caputi).

As if Cesarini’s declaration were not enough, that same night or the next day Father General wrote a letter to Cardinal Francesco Barberini with the following wording:

“The General of the Pious Schools declares to Your Eminence in all humility and truth that in the matter of the writings purloined from Father Mario of St. Francis, neither the said General, nor his Assistants, nor any other of his people made any mistake; everything was done on the own initiative of his Em. Cardinal Protector. However, all are ready to carry out with all punctuality whatever may be ordered by Your Eminence or by a Minister of the Holy Office.”[3605]

3605 EGC X, C 428(1).

But neither this explanation nor that of the Cardinal could calm the indignation of Albizzi, Cardinal Barberini and the Pope himself. The word of the denied slanderer Mario, or simply the obsession that everything done against him was an insult to the Holy Office, even if it was proven that he had lied, carried more weight. In fact, on Thursday, August 14th, during the ordinary Congregation of the Holy Office, held in the presence of Urban VIII at the Quirinal Palace - his summer residence - the matter of the famous search and subsequent arrest of Father General, assistant and secretary was discussed. If anyone in that meeting could give an exhaustive and reliable explanation, it was Cardinal Cesarini, a member of the Holy Office. But he was not present. Why was that? Who had caused him to be excluded or advised him not to attend? The answer is obvious, given the immediate background: Albizzi must have passed the matter on to Barberini and the latter to the Pope, and all three were offended by Cesarini’s gesture. And here is a summary of the six sections of the decree issued on this occasion:

1. The Pope approved everything that Msgr. Assessor had done with regard to Father General and the Assistants.

2. His Holiness ordered that Cardinal Protector Cesarini be informed and that Father General, the Assistants and others be made aware that Father Mario, the Provincial of Tuscany, was under the protection and jurisdiction of the Holy Office and therefore neither the Cardinal Protector, nor the General, nor other officials of the Order had any jurisdiction over him.

3. His Holiness also instructed to hand over to the Holy Office or its Assessor the lawsuits brought against Mario by either the Cardinal Protector or Father General.

4. Likewise, His Holiness ordered the General and the Assistants, by virtue of holy obedience and under penalty of the indignation of His Holiness and the Sacred Congregation, to see to it without fail that both the Superiors and the other religious of the Tuscan Province obey Father Mario; otherwise, the said Sacred Congregation would take action against the disobedient.

5. His Holiness also ordered that from now on no new houses should be founded without the permission of His Holiness and the Sacred Congregation.

6. Finally, His Holiness exempted Father General and the other Fathers from the commandment imposed by Albizzi not to leave the house.[3606]
3606 EC, p.3070-3071 The copy preserved in the Gen. Archives of the Order was the one sent to the Founder as soon as the Decree was issued, and in it had been deleted all references to Card. Cesarini, who would receive another complete copy. Historians wondered why Cesarini had not defended the Holy Founder in this session of the Holy Office and why he had not intervened in the increasingly complicated problems of the Order since then. In 1982 Fr. Vilá obtained a photocopy of the original document from the Archives of the Holy Office and published it (cf. PosCas, p. 1187-1189). This leads us to believe that many unpublished documents concerning these very serious problems of the Pious Schools must still be in the Archives. At this session were present, besides the Pope, Cardinals Roma, Cueva, Ant. Barberini, Verospi, Scaglia and Francis Barberini, and the Assessor Albizzi, Father Commissary Martinengo and the notary Antony Bomaso.

We do not know whether Cardinal Cesarini was offended, resigned or satisfied, but he remained on the sidelines of the events of the Order ever since, whose protection he considered leaving more than once “because it seemed too strange to him that four barefoot men kept him in suspense with endless worries.”[3607] And not only “four barefoot men” - those of Pisa - but the Holy Founder and the whole Order were now without a Cardinal protector when the great tribulation really began and they therefore needed him most.

3607 Cf. L. PICANYOL, o.c., p.157.

On the other hand, this decree is still extremely strange and even shameful because it is unjust; without taking into account the truth of the facts and without giving the accused - including Cardinal Cesarini - the opportunity to defend themselves, it has confirmed the error committed by Msgr. Assessor, overlooked the unjust public humiliation of the victims, silenced their innocence, exalted the person of the slanderer Sozzi, exonerated him from any jurisdiction of the Order and the Cardinal Protector, and forced the Father General to impose the odious authority of Mario over his entire Province.

Perhaps it would be more convenient and less frivolous to dispense with such judgments about the behavior of the Holy Office in this and other subsequent cases and simply refer to what was said about these events in the following century by other, more qualified persons, such as the dean of the Roman Rota, Msgr. Aldovrandi, according to whom God permitted these things “to prove the steadfastness of the servant of God [Calasanz] and to make it clear that this Holy Tribunal, although on the other hand very respectable, is not presided over by angels but by men, who can sometimes err in a fact that has not been truthfully presented.” Benedict XIV’s judgment is even harsher:

“... the tribunals of Rome, the advisers of the popes, the popes themselves are certainly very anxious to act with truth and justice... but, if God permits it, it can happen (and sometimes it does happen) that justice collapses before them because the wickedness of men prevails... and believing that they are acting justly and therefore without guilt, they nevertheless act unjustly.”[3608]

3608 Cf. n.3497 of this chapter.

Sántha, rather cautious and moderate in his judgments against individuals or ecclesiastical institutions, speaks in this case of “almost intolerable regulations” imposed by the Holy Office or by Albizzi because they “gave full credence to the calumnies of Mario” without even listening to the other party; such decrees “seem much more serious than any the defects of which Calasanz and his assistants are accused”; such seriousness can hardly be explained without suspecting another (at least psychological) motive, such as “an excessive fear on the part of the assessor that this might damage the authority of the Holy Office”, in view of the excessive partisanship of some prelates of the Holy Office in favor of the Medicis and the Farneses - whose protection the Piarists of Tuscany, enemies of Mario, enjoyed - in those days when the vicissitudes of the recently declared Castro War between the said lords and the Barberinis were of such importance.[3609]

3609 Cf. G. SÁNTHA, Card. Franciscus Albitius..., p.66.

Even more than among the prelates of the Holy Office, there is no doubt that the negative effects of the Castro War on the misfortunes that befell the Pious Schools and their Founder were to be found in the false suspicions and malicious accusations of espionage. Mario and his followers accused Father General and his curia, before Albizzi and the Barberinis, of having a suspicious correspondence with the Medicis and their allies, as Caputi and Berro note[3610]; and on the other hand, Mario was accused, also falsely, before the Dukes of Tuscany and Modena of being a spy of the Barberinis.[3611]

3610 Cf. BAU, BC, p.925; BERRO II, p.35-36. Bau exaggerated, as a new thesis, the repercussion of this war on the dramatic issues we are dealing with. Here is a summary of the dates: papal “monitorio” against Odoardo Farnese, owner of the Duchy of Castro (August 1641). Tadeo Barberini occupies Castro (October 13, 1641). Trial, excommunication and spoliation of the Farnese’s goods (January 1642). League of Tuscany, Modena and Venice against the Barberinis (August 1642). Trial against the Duke of Modena (December 1642). Farnese undertakes the reconquest of Castro (September 1642). New treaty of Tuscany, Venice and Modena to attack the State of the Church (May 1643). The war of Castro is resumed (June 1643). Peace of Venice between the Pope and the League (March 31, 1644): the Pope returns Castro to the Farnese (cf. PASTOR, o.c., t.29, p. 192-208; BAU BC, p. 900-901, 922-942, 953-954).

3611 This is lamented by Mario (EC, p. 2532) and Albizzi (EC, p.200, n.5).

As a “psychological motive”, Albizzi’s mood and the atmosphere in the Holy Office were perhaps more influenced by the very serious Jansenist polemic, which - apart from its doctrinal content - undermined the authority of the said Congregation to interpret and decide on orthodoxy. And it was precisely Albizzi who was the central figure, a fervent opponent of Jansenism, who was supported in and by the Jesuits and even wrote the bulls condemning the Augustinus.[3612] And since neither Bulls nor censures made it easy to control this European whirlwind of nascent Jansenism, perhaps unwittingly the hand was laid with disproportionate severity on some poor defenseless men accused of rebellion against the Holy Office. Regrettable!

3612 The dates are very suggestive: Urban VIII forbids the printing of Jansenius’ Augustinus (August 21, 1640). But it is published (September 1640). Its distribution is forbidden and the copies are ordered to be withdrawn, uselessly. It is reprinted in Paris (1641). The Holy Office condemns the Augustinus (August 1, 1641). The University of Louvain and the Archbishop of Malines do not cease to recommend the book. With the bull In eminenti (8 March 1642), written almost entirely by Albizzi, the book is banned. He was also the author of the apostolic constitution Cum occasione (31 March 1653), which condemned as heretical five propositions of Augustinus (cf. G. SÁNTHA, o.c., p.55; L. CEYSSENS. Le Cardinal François Albizzi (1593-1684). Un cas important dans l’histoire du jansénisme [Rome 1977], p. 97-98, 102-103, 121-122).

Pacification of Tuscany and banishment of Mario

With heroic obedience, the Holy Founder submitted to the demands of Mario and Albizzi in order to achieve what was demanded in point 4th “of the last decree of the Holy Office”: to ensure that all the religious of Tuscany obeyed their Provincial. And they started with the “Lombard rebels”. The plan was for Father General to send a commissioner to initiate a comprehensive procedure against the three houses that had tried to become independent by founding the new province of Lombardy and thus breaking away from the obedience of Mario. And to ensure the desired success, both Mario and Albizzi asked the General to appoint Father Esteban Cherubini as commissioner, who had not only begun to distinguish himself as a close friend and collaborator of Mario, but who had been removed in April from his position as Procurator General by the founder “for just cause”. Father General signed the patent as requested on August 20th, barely six days after the condemning session of the Holy Office, reserving the final judgment.[3613]

3613 Cf. G. SÁNTHA, o.c., p.66, n.52; ID., Tria Brevia Pontíficia P. Stephano Cherubini concessa...: EphCal 9-10 (1960) 262.

The trial went ahead as planned. It was more than 300 pages long. All the religious of the three houses were found guilty, with the exception of Father John Antony Ridolfi, who from then on worked closely with Mario and Cherubini, causing the Order to fall from grace. Father General had to take upon himself the humiliation of passing judgment, accepting as true everything that the commissioner did. He put it on thick, piling up the accusations against the guilty parties, which they all were, and absolving Father Mario absolutely of them. The final text, signed by the General on October 17, 1642, has the appearance of having been written by Cherubini and Mario in agreement, for the contrast between the crimes of the accused and the innocence of Mario is so great as to border on mockery and sarcasm.[3614] It is therefore difficult to believe that Father General signed this judgment in complete freedom of thought. And as if the simple reading were not enough to convince us, Fr. Mario explicitly tells us in his Slanderous Memorandum, in which, logically, not everything is slander:

3614 Cf. BAU. BC, P.897.

“... Father General - he says - had no choice but to pronounce a judgment favorable to Father Mario, which he did; but he published that the trial in question was conducted by persons in bondage to Father Mario, and that the defendants and witnesses, if they had not testified in favor of Father Mario, would have been punished by the Sacred Congregation, and that he forcibly stated the acquittal.”[3615]

3615 EC, p.253I.

If in this way an attempt was made to force “the Lombards” to obey Mario, another decree or circular, signed on August 30th by the General and the four Assistants, demanded the complete submission of the entire province of Tuscany:

“The Most Reverend Commissioner of the Holy Office having communicated to us the enclosed decree [dated August 14, 1642] issued by the Holy Congregation, we hereby command you, in execution and immediate obedience, to recognize Father Mario of St. Francis as the true Provincial of this Province of Tuscany and to obey his orders without any reply, regardless of any pretext to the contrary.”[3616]

3616 C.4030a.

Although it was Father Commissioner Martinengo who issued this decree, it was Albizzi who pulled the strings and things had to be done his way. He interfered in the choice of Commissioner for the trial of “the “Lombards” and Calasanz turns to him again, presenting him with the draft of the above-mentioned circular to see if it pleases him, “and if it does not please him - he writes to the messenger - let him write himself what is to be done, and it will be done punctually.”[3617]

3617 C.4030.

Of the six houses that made up the province of Tuscany, the three “Lombard” ones (Fanano, Pieve di Cento and Guglia) were under the supervision of the Commissioner Cherubini; of the two in Florence, the novitiate of “Pellegrino” seemed to offer no resistance, nor did the professed house, residence of the Provincial and the schools, since its community had been personally selected by Mario. Pisa remained the most rebellious center, which, thanks to Michelini’s pressure, could rely on the protection of the Medici Court.

While in the first half of August the serious events described above took place in Rome, provoking the decree of the Holy Office that finally focused on the rebellion of the Tuscan Province, the influences of Michelini had obtained from the Grand Duke a definitive order for the Piarists of Pisa, transmitted before August 20, which ordered them neither to obey the orders coming from Rome nor to receive superiors coming from outside without first appealing to His Serene Highness. The religious of Pisa accepted the Grand Duke’s decree.[3618]

3618 Cf. EC, p.2697.

In fact, on September 6th, they received a circular from Father General, together with the decree of the Holy Office of August 14th, informing the Grand Duke’s commissioner in Pisa that they would continue to obey His Highness’s orders.[3619] As the Grand Duke even feared reprisals from Rome, he had ordered the Inquisitor of Pisa, if he received letters from Rome concerning the Pious Schools, not to answer them but to comply with the Grand Duke’s orders. And the Inquisitor also bowed to the prince’s will.[3620]

3619 Ib.

3620 Ib, p.2698-2699.

Things became very complicated, because political obedience to the will of the protecting Court meant religious disobedience to the Holy Office and Father General. Castelli, a Tuscan and founder of the Province as well as a friend of the Medicis, learned of the orders given to Pisa, which prescribed disobedience to Rome. And on August 30th, he wrote to Prince Leopold:

”... i write at length to Father Francesco [Michelini] in reply to I do not know what orders he communicates to me, but in view of the fact that at present a little more head wind is enough to sink our little boat, I cannot remain calm if I do not add to the other considerations I have written [to Michelini][3621] my entreaties to my princes, our patrons, that... they condescend to relieve us from such dangers by suspending, at least until better circumstances, any order concerning our affairs.”

3621 From this it is inferred that Michelini was no stranger to the decision to give such a very serious order to those of Pisa in order to free himself from the obedience of Mario.

He also informed him that Mario no longer felt the desire to return. Moreover, Cardinal Cesarini had assured them that he would not return and that, if he had more sense, he would have to resign his office to avoid clashes and danger.[3622] But Castelli was completely wrong on the latter point. His letter did have an effect, however, for on September 13th the Grand Duke let the people of Pisa know that they would not lack his protection, but he left it up to them to accept or reject the orders from Rome as long as they informed the Palace in advance.[3623]

3622 Ibid., p.2806-2807.

3623 Ib., n.4; L. PICANYOL, o.c., p.162-164.

At the end of September, Father General wrote to the Rectors of Pisa, Fanano and Pieve, confirming receipt of their letters and expressing his pleasure at their willingness to receive Father Mario as Provincial and to obey him.[3624] The latter, however, did not leave Rome, perhaps because they wanted to await the conclusion of the trial against “the Lombards”, the final verdict of which was handed down on October 17th. And indeed, on the 21st of the same month, Father General announced the imminent arrival of Father Mario to the Rector of Florence.[3625] Mario himself had already written to the Grand Duke during these days to inform him of his return to Florence, but the Court had decided to prohibit the unwanted Father Mario from entering the Grand Duke’s states.[3626] Nonetheless, he arrived in Florence on November 4th, no doubt pleased with the favorable verdict Father General had honored him with, and perhaps even arrogant before the Curt.[3627]

3624 C.4036, 4037, 4038. Dated all three on September 27, 1642.

3625 C.4035.

3626 Cf. EC, p.2898.

3627 Cf. L. PICANYOL, o.c. p.165. Berro reduces to only one the two arrivals of Mario to Florence as Provincial, emphasizing his defiant arrogance in front of the Princes. (cf. BERRO II, p.22-24).

On November 6th, from Siena, where he was staying, the Grand Duke informed his brother, Prince Leopold, who was in Florence: “Let Father Mario of the Pious Schools be instructed to leave the State within the stipulated time [of 24 hours] and not to dare to come here, for he would be humiliated, and the Marquis Gonzaga has already been warned. His audacity and imprudence are truly intolerable and reprehensible.”[3628]

3628 EC, p.2899.

Mario had no choice but to leave Florence and make his way to Pieve di Cento and Fanano. But when the Duke of Modena, Francesco I d’Este, to whose duchy Fanano belonged, heard about this, he also banished him, “or because His Highness - according to Berro - did not want such a tongue and such a subject in his State, or because he feared offending the Most Serene Grand Duke, or for other reasons that I do not know.”[3629] And he returned to Rome and came back - Berro continues - “full of rage, venom and hatred, fruits of his pride, his chimeras and passions... that not words but venom came out of his mouth when he told anyone what had happened to him. He went to Mgr. Asesor... and vomited poison... he blamed everything that had been done to him by the aforementioned Serene Highnesses on our - and not his - Ven. Father General and Founder...”[3630]

3629 BERRO II, p.24. Mario says in his Slanderous Memorandum: “and already for three months that I have been banished from Tuscany, and forbidden to go to the state of Modena” (EC, p.2534). On his going to Pieve, cf. L. PICANYOL, o.c., p.165.

3630 BERRO II, p.25.

Sometimes the suspicion arises that Berro is exaggerating and viciously attacking Mario Sozzi, as in these paragraphs we have just read. But when compared with the version that Mario himself gave of these facts in his Slanderous Memorandum, three months after his exile, we are convinced that Berro is telling the truth. Here is Mario’s slanderous version, written for the Holy Office:

“Father Mario asked Msgr. Assessor to grant him the grace of not being allowed to leave Rome. But he obeyed, although he foresaw that the Fathers, both those of the House of Pisa and the others provoked by Father General, would not desist from their wickedness, as we have seen, for when he arrived in Florence barely three days had passed... He was urged by His Serene Highness that he should depart (though being indisposed) and not return to the state where the said Father, who is a vassal, has brethren, relations, and other important interests. And he was given barely 24 hours to leave. This was done under the pretext that he was an unfaithful vassal, cunning, a false spy and a rebel against his prince... Father Mario was forced to obey, he was mocked and insulted, insulted and slandered, and everything was done with the approval of His Eminence, the Cardinal, the General and the Assistants...”[3631]

3631 EC, p.2532.

Incredible impudence and imposture! But even more incredible is that this man, who had already been caught several times in slander and shameless lies, was still credible before Monsignor Assessor and Their Eminences and the most reverend members of the Holy Office, who wanted to honor him with new distinctions.

Michelini’s guilt and the very serious threats of Albizzi

It is very likely that Michelini had the idea of banishing Mario.[3632] In this way, he circumvented the imperative obligation to accept him as Provincial in Pisa, without opposing the mandate of the Holy Office and Father General, and hid behind the decision of the Grand Duke, who had his “political reasons” for the banishment, given the suspicions of espionage raised by the Castro war.

3632 Minister Gondi writes to Prince Leopold on October 22, 1642 that the Grand Duke wants him to say Mario through the mouth of Vettori that he does not want him in his State, and Gondi tells him that he will send him all the dispatches concerning the matter (EC, p.2898); on October 25, 1642 he tells him that he will send him that dispatch after obtaining “the absolute mandate” of the Grand Duke (ibid., n.9); on November 6, 1642 he informs him that the Grand Duke “fully approved” of Mario’s banishment (EC, p.2899). All this suggests that the idea is proposed by Leopold to the Grand Duke, from whom he gradually achieves “absolute consent”. And logically it must be assumed that the one who proposes it to Leopold is his protégé and teacher, Father Michelini.

Michelini had become the bulwark of the Pisa community’s defense and attack against Mario from the very beginning. And Rome knew it. Let us recall that, in March, in view of the refusal to receive his visit as legitimate Provincial, the Ambassador Niccolini wrote, referring to Cardinal Protector: “What he could do to resolve this matter was to promise Father Mathematician of the Most Serene Lord Prince Leopold, the desired satisfaction, since His Eminence knows that it is he who is more obstinate than the other religious.”[3633] It is Michelini who, together with Prince Leopold, rebuffs Mario after calling him to Livorno to clarify the matter.[3634] It is Michelini who provokes the Grand Duke’s order not to accept any orders, not even from superiors coming from Rome.”[3635]

3633 EC, p.2941.

3634 Ibid., p.2943.

3635 Cf. n.128 above.

On this last trip of Mario to Tuscany, Msgr. Albizzi was finally determined that the House of Pisa would receive the Provincial’s visit, easing things at most by explicitly asking Prince Leopold to order the Pisans to receive him; that he would go on Father General’s orders (and thus not on his own authority); that he would treat them well and the visit would be very short. And - most interestingly - “he also promised to be Father Mathematician’s Procurator so that he could get the promotions he wanted in his Religion.”[3636] This sounds almost like a bribe, like the Cardinal Protector’s earlier proposals, but neither Albizzi nor Cesarini managed to break the stubborn resistance of Michelini, whose historical responsibility in this very serious conflict has not been duly emphasized by historians, given the immediate consequences.

3636 EC, p.200, n.5. Niccolini’s letter to Gondi, signed in Rome on November 8, 1642.

The letter from the Tuscan ambassador Niccolini with these requests and promises from Albizzi arrived late in Florence, as Mario had already been banished. And when he arrived in Rome, he informed the Monsignor of everything that had happened and hurled his anger and slander against the innocent Father General, the Assistants and the Cardinal Protector. And Monsignor once again, and not for the last time, gave full credence to Mario’s version and spoke “with great eagerness” to Ambassador Niccolini, who wrote to Florence on November 17th and communicated the Assessor’s very serious threats. Here are the most important points:

“Monsignor Albizzi, Assessor of the Holy Office, tells me again that, by the banishment of Father Mario of the Pious Schools, he now foresees the complete ruin of his Religion. For the Congregation of the Holy Office, which wanted to free him from the envy of his followers who persecuted him for exposing the abominable sect of Faustina, is now obliged by its own dignity and reputation to defend him. And since he could not accomplish this by reintegrating himself into the grace of His Highness and returning to his happiest states, he would accomplish it by destroying the Order itself. The same Monsignor also compromises his priestly dignity and his own reputation with Our Most Serene Lord, that all the quarrels were concocted by friars and are true malignities, to which they will have added some State interests. Monsignor also swears that the said Father did not negotiate in Rome with the Pope, nor with the Barberinis, nor with others, ‘but only with me’. He also adds that he requests this grace from His Highness and reverently implores it in view of his own reputation, since the persecutors of Father Mario, assuming that some decisions of the Congregation of the Holy Office against them [Father General and his assistants, as Mario expressly says?] proceeded from him in view of the said Father, have contributed to the ruin of this poor religious, through no fault of one or the other.”[3637]

3637 Id., second letter from Niccolini to Gondi, dated l7 November 1642.

The ambassador’s quote is long, but meaningful. It is like turning all the cards face up and making a precise judgment about what has been done and what should be done, with the reasons for it. It’s like revealing the outcome of the drama when it has only just begun. And the outcome of the drama is already planned in the mind of the Monsignor, who will carry it out and impose it on the Congregation of the Holy Office, the cardinals and the popes, depending on the circumstances.

The “touchpoint” is Mario’s banishment, because it is only now that the terrible threat of “the total ruin of the Order” appears for the first time as an inevitable consequence of the banishment. It sounds like blackmail, just as it sounded like a bribe, the offer to Michelini. The Grand Duke has spoken his last word: Banishment. Albizzi is still trying to negotiate with the dilemma: either the banishment is lifted or the Order is destroyed. The Grand Duke refuses to turn back and Albizzi holds on to the threat until it is carried out. From this moment on, it is clear that the destruction of the Order does not depend on its state of corruption or non-compliance, nor on its internal problems or its need for reform. It is predicted that it will die without being sick. But then they will try to make it appear that he was. That was the great historical injustice. Rarely has the insulted reputation of a simple monsignor of the Curia cost the Church so dearly.

Glorification of Mario and humiliation of Calasanz

The wrath of the exiled Mario fell on the General through Albizzi. In any case, it is hardly permissible that the astute, intelligent, subtle, diplomatic and extremely clever Monsignor Assessor should have been so naïve and gullible as to fall into Mario’s nets and - once again - take at face value the slanderous version that the banishment was at the instigation of the old General and his Assistants. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that the only thing Albizzi regretted in all this was Mario’s humiliation. And he had a personal encounter, or at least his protests reached Father Founder, who in consultation with his Assistants - as one of them, Castelli, writes - “offered the said Father [Mario] the Provincialate of Rome, and some Assistants their own positions.”[3638] But Mario rejected the proposals.

3638 EC, p.661.

His malice and impudence became more and more obvious. He openly accused the General of political conspiracy with the Medicis, the Estes and the Farneses against the Barberinis[3639] in order to provoke the angry reaction of the Pope and his nephews. Above all, he then tried to remove him from office for the good of the Order, telling Monsignor Albizzi and other members of the Holy Office that Father General was a crazy old man who no longer knew what he was doing; that he had lost his memory and could no longer remember the orders given and that he was writing contradictory letters on one and the same subject, causing confusion and disorder in the Religion; that he was unable to solve problems; that he did not respect the Holy Congregations; that he acted in a way that was not in accordance with the rules of the Order; that he stubbornly acted on his own without seeking advice from anyone. He also did not shy away from insulting him in public, as Berro recalls: “One day he said to him in the presence of many: “You are a liar!” And the poor Father General replied: “One day, God will make sure that my lies are recognized as truth.”[3640]

3639 Cf. previous n. 3610.

3640 BERRO II, p.34.

This shameful campaign of slander raised doubts in the Holy Office, and to make sure, some trustworthy people were sent to talk to the Holy Old Man and check his mental faculties. The unanimous verdict was that, although he was already 85 years old[3641], “he had his head in the right place, his memory was very good, his speech was very clever and he followed the subject perfectly, for which the entire Holy Inquisition was admired.”[3642] He could not be suspended or deposed or cornered, either for incompetence or for he was a shocking person; but something had to be done to make amends to the exiled and despised provincial of Tuscany, even if his latest calumnies against the poor old General had just been proved.

3641 This affirmation of Berro supports the thesis that Calasanz was born in 1557, since this occurred in November or December of 1642. Nevertheless, Berro himself proposed in disjunction the years 1556 or 1558 (cf. BERRO I, p.53).

3642 BERRO II, p.35.

In great haste, Albizzi decides - and receives the Pope’s approval - to appoint Mario as Vicar General of the Order. Here is the decree Albizzi gave to the secretary of Briefs, Msgr. Maraldi:

“By direction of His Holiness, a Brief is to be issued, but in secret, appointing Father Mario of St. Francis as Vicar General of the Order of the Mother of God of Pious Schools, because of the advanced age of Father General and for other reasons that move the soul of His Holiness. The letter is to be delivered to Msgr. Assessor of the Holy Office. [Francis degli Albizzi.”[3643]

3643 Cf. G. SÁNTHA, Quomodo perventum sit ad Decretum “In causa P. Marii”, die 15 jan. 1643 emanatum? EphCal 12 (1963) 399, n.4.

The Brief was issued and dated on December 30, 1642, strictly according to Albizzi’s instructions, i.e. Mario was appointed vicar general “so that the congregation... of the Pious Schools does not suffer any harm, either spiritually or materially, because of the advanced age of its current General Prefect (sic)... and for other reasons that move our spirit.”[3644] The Brief remained secret, as Albizzi wished, but in his hands. A few days later, however, Father General learned of it, and communicated it in a letter dated January 10th to Father Apa, living in Florence, saying “I am sure that others will write with more detail about the Brief received by Father Mario as Vicar General of the Order, and when it is communicated to us, we will receive it and act on it immediately.”[3645] But neither Father General nor the other religious, when they learned of this, knew how to explain the significance of such an appointment, since it was not provided for in the Constitutions.[3646] That is, there was no place for an effective Vicar General without the voluntary resignation or deposition or suspension of the General in his functions. Therefore, the appointment was believed to be purely honorary, with the results that Mario indignantly - but without cause - deplored in his Slanderous Memorandum:

3644 Ibid., p.395-396. Both the brief and Albizzi’s order to Maraldi requesting it, were found and published by Sántha in the aforementioned article. Picanyol came to doubt that it had existed, in spite of the express references of Calasanz and Mario, which we will quote (cf. EGC VIII, p.182).

3645 C.4082.

3646 Vicar General was to be named by Fr. General to govern the Order in the interval between his death and the election of his successor in Chapter (CC, n.263). If by reason of old age or sickness it was seen that he was unfit to govern, he should be advised to elect a Coadjutor, and if he opposed, the Assistants, together with certain other religious, would elect him the said Coadjutor (CC, n.256). Undoubtedly there was another solution, and that was the voluntary resignation of the General in favor of a Vicar General, as he wanted to do in 1640 (c.3491).

“Now he [Mario], together with the Sacred Congregation, is being made more and more ridiculous by the recent Brief, motu proprio issued by the Pope, of Vicar General, saying that this was done out of pure pomp, so that Fr. Mario receives letters from the Province of Tuscany and from others, even from lay people, all with the title Vicar General and even with Most Reverend..., and this happens because Father General has written and published throughout the Order that Father Mario has been appointed Vicar General by the Pope in order to excite tempers even more.”[3647]

3647 EC, p.2534.

But neither in Albizzi’s mind nor in the text of the Brief was it an honorable appointment, but quite the opposite. In defiance of the Constitutions, the Santo Vecchio, the Old Saint, was to be deposed from the government and retain the honorary title of General, while Mario, with the title of Vicar, was to assume all the authority and effective powers of the General.[3648] As it was therefore not possible to take over the supreme command of the Order as long as Father General exercised his functions, the intention was to relieve him of this directly. However, the act had to be justified with convincing reasons, and so Father Mario - probably at Albizzi’s suggestion - wrote the so-called Slanderous Memorandum in his own defense and in direct accusation of Father General and Assistants, and presented it to the cardinals and prelates of the Holy Office.[3649]

3648 The Brief read: “...Vicarium Generalem cum omnibus et singulis facultatibus, auctoritate, praeeminentiis, praerogativis, honoribus et oneribus ad officium Vicarii Generalis hujusmodi pertinentibus” (G. SÁNTHA, o.c., p.395).

3649 Full Italian text in EC, 2528-2534; translated into Spanish in synthesis in BAU, BC, p.948-951. From it we have quoted many paragraphs. It is not dated, but the narration of events ends with the allusion to the Brief of appointment as Vicar General (December 30, 1642).

And once again - we repeat - the slanderer was believed by Albizzi and also by the other prelates and cardinals and even by Urban VIII, who all promulgated the decree In causa P. Marii in the ordinary session of the Holy Office on January 15, 1643, in which they decided:

1. That an Apostolic Visitator be appointed for the entire Order as soon as possible;

2. That Mario be appointed First Assistant General, who would lead the Order together with the said Visitator and the other new Assistants;

3. That from now on it is forbidden to found new houses and to admit novices without the permission of the Pope and the Holy Office.

4. Father General, Joseph of the Mother of God, is suspended from his duties as General by the Vicegerent of Rome.

5. The four current General Assistants will be relieved of their duties.[3650]
3650 Cf. EGC IX, p.115-116; EC, p.3072; BAU, BC, p.952. Present were the Pope and Cardinals Rome. Ant. Barberini, Pamfili, Spada, Verospi, Scaglia, F. Barberini and Ginetti, and Mgr. Assessor Albizzi and the Commissary Martinengo. Cesarini did not attend.

This is disturbing! It is a decision of the Tribunal of the Holy Office. And one wonders silently, with deep perplexity: What kind of court is this that suspends the General of a Religious Order from his functions and dismisses his four Assistants without a canonical and juridical procedure, without summoning them to court, without at least informing them of what they are accused of and without giving them the opportunity to defend themselves? What kind of judges are these who only trust the accusations of a man whose lies, slander and deceit they have been scrutinizing ever since they found him? And even if one recognizes the injustice of these decisions, one does not know which is worse, the humiliating suspension of Father General or the unworthy glorification of Father Mario Sozzi.

However, these two things together were not the most serious aspect of the decree. As Father Sántha states, “this decree goes beyond the case of Father Mario and the attempt to resolve it, and concerns the entire Order in height and depth. What refers to Mario in the decree is only his appointment as First Assistant and also the suspension of Calasanz and the dismissal of his Assistants, while the other things in the decree refer to the entire Order.”[3651] And these other things were the Apostolic Visitation, the ban on founding new houses, and admitting novices. In other words: Remembering what Albizzi told Ambassador Niccolini, one could hope that the new elevation of Mario and the punishment of his “persecutors” would reward the “exile from Tuscany” while saving the compromised dignity and reputation of the Holy Office and its Assessor Albizzi. But apparently not content with this, the decree continues to threaten that “the banishment of Father Mario of the Pious Schools now (Albizzi) foresees the complete ruin of his Religion.”[3652] And this decree gives the bitter impression that the ax is already being laid at the root of the tree. The obvious disproportion between offense and punishment corresponds to the mentality expressed by Msgr. Albizzi in one of his published works, which reads: “Whoever offends the officials of the Holy Office, it is said, commits a very serious crime and must therefore be punished cruelly, say the authors.”[3653] And so it was. But with the caveat that the alleged offense was never proven, not even with regard to the main defendants: Father General and his four Assistants. Otherwise, St. Joseph of Calasanz would not be wearing his aureole today.

3651 G. SANTHA, Card. Fran. Albitius..., p.71.

3652 EC, p.200.

3653 F. ALBIZZI, De inconstantia, cit in L. CEYSSENS, o.c., p.84.

The first Apostolic Visitator, Father Ubaldini

Until March 4th, when the grave decree of the Holy Office of January 15th was promulgated, nothing was known about its content or even its existence, because the day before, Gondi wrote from Florence to Ambassador Niccolini: “Father Mario is now waiting to be appointed Vicar General, and one can expect from him all kinds of bad deeds, etc.”[3654] The fact is that such appointment never took effect, but was replaced by the appointment as First Assistant.[3655] The delay of a month and a half was no doubt due to the search for a Visitator and the three new General Assistants. It seems that a Carmelite Father, who was consultor of the Holy Office, was considered, but “he humbly declined because he felt reverence for our Ven. Father, Founder and General,” Berro said.[3656] The Somascan Father Augustine Ubaldini was then called in to help. He was forty-one years old at the time and a qualifier of the Holy Office, and given his office, he must have heard something about the problems caused by Father Mario. He accepted the assignment out of obedience to the “bosses” (Padroni) who had sent him with repeated requests, as he himself admitted.[3657]

3654 EC, p.2900.

3655 Sántha believes that he was both Vicar General and First Assistant, “et cum duplici hoc titulo universo Ordini nostro praefuit usque ad mortem” (G. SÁNTHA, o.c., p.73, n.75). It would be inexplicable that, given his undoubted ambition for power, the title of Vicar General did not appear in some public or private document of Mario, if in fact he was. (cf. EC, p.2527-2540, 3002) On February 15th, he named his faithful friend Fr. John A. Ridolfi, Vice-Provincial of Tuscany “cum plenitudine potestatis” and signed himself “Fr. Provincialis”, but neither Vicar nor Assistant General, since neither appointment had been promulgated.

3656 BERRO II, p. 36.

3657 Ibid., p. 37.

On March 4th, the Vicegerent of Rome, Mgr. John Baptist Altieri, appeared in San Pantaleo and read out the decree of the Holy Office in the domestic oratory before a notary, suspending Father General from his office and dismissing the Assistants. At the same time, he announced the name of the Visitator, Father Ubaldini, although the Brief of appointment had not yet been signed. The three new assistants were also not appointed.[3658] The reading of the decree undoubtedly caused irritation and confusion among the majority. The Old Holy Man,” says Berro, “without any protest, without a single word in his defense, accepted this mortification from the hands of God with complete external and internal calm.”[3659] But neither he nor anyone else initially knew the purpose of the Apostolic Visit, nor did the Holy Office bother to explain it. In fact, the Founder and certainly the majority of the religious, with the exception of Mario and his followers, thought what the Saint wrote to Father Conti, Provincial of Germania, on April 18: “Your Reverence will perhaps know that the Pope has sent us an Apostolic Visitator to remove the disturbances which at present prevail in our Religion because of Father Mario. I hope, blessed God, that through this Apostolic Visitator of the Somascan Order our affairs will be settled (sic).”[3660]

3658 Cf. G. SANTHA, o.c., p.72. On Father Ubaldini and his Visitation see: C. VILÁ, Ubaldini, Visitador de las Escuelas Pias: Archivum 3 (1978) 3I-69; M. TENTORIO, P. Agostino Ubaldini: Archivum 2 (1977) 181-192.

3659 BERRO II, p.35.

3660 C.4103. He wrote the same to Warsaw, to Fr. Orselli, on March 28, 1643, but without naming Mario (C.4096).

Ubaldini’s letter of appointment is dated March 6, 1643, and everything indicates that it is a common and stereotypical form applicable to any apostolic Visitator, whose content can be summarized in this simple opening sentence: “Desiring that in the Congregation ... of the Pious Schools the observance of regular discipline be preserved and restored where it has fallen...” So there is neither a specific point justifying the visit, nor a simple general allusion to the fact that this discipline is regrettably at its lowest ebb and needs to be remedied urgently or by extraordinary means. There is also no allusion to First Assistant Mario and the three others not yet named, nor to the powers of government to which they are entitled under the decree of January 15th. However, the full and far-reaching powers granted to the Visitator seem to make him practically the General of the Order.[3661]

3661 See the Brief in C. VILÁ, o.c., p.37-38. There is even some ambiguity in the Brief, which calls him “generalem et specialem Visitatorem”. It is once signed “Agostino Ubaldini G. e Vis. Apostolico” (BERRO II, p.37). The Somascans considered him “Minister General of the whole Order” (quoted in C. VIlÁ, o.c., p.61). Mario and his Assistants accused him of this, as we shall see.

The three new assistants were Fathers Santino Lunardi, John Stephen Spinola and John Francis Bafici, outstanding religious whose choice - as they later admitted - was made “with the advice and support” of Father Ubaldini[3662], although we do not know for sure whether they were proposed to Ubaldini by Mario or by Father General. Since they were not in Rome, the Visitator had the courtesy to wait for them and postpone the investiture, which took place on March 22nd. He chose Father Muzio Caracciolo from his own Order as secretary for the visit.[3663]

3662 Cf. EGC IX, p.119.

3663 Cf. C. VIlÁ, o.c., p.42-43.

After reading the letter and making the ritual Visitation to the church and sacristy, he suddenly asked Fr. Mario for the keys to his room and entered with his secretary, as Berro says,

“…he found many things unworthy of a religious, such as money, pastries, jam and other food and drink sufficient for several people, perfumed gloves, women’s jewelry, wigs, braids, very fine precious ribbons, precious women’s rosaries and other devotional objects in abundance, of which he made a precise inventory; he was very astonished and regretted it with O.V. Fr. Founder and V.Fr. Peter [Casani] Lucchese and also informed the Reverend Msgr. Assessor of the Holy Office of this.”[3664]

3664 BERRO II, p.38. On Caputi, cf. BAU, BC, p.964.

This came as no surprise to Albizzi or to the entire Congregation of the Holy Office, for they no doubt remembered what Count Corona had found during the search in August of the previous year, and other searches in Florence in March 1641, of which Cardinal Barberini had written to the Florentine Inquisitor to send him the inventory “of the things found in Fr. Mario’s room” and to advise him to be more modest...[3665] This convinced them that Mario was still the same old magpie. But once again they drew a thick veil over the misery of their protégé. In the other rooms, however, the Visitator found nothing that was abnormal or unworthy of a religious.

3665 EC, p.2686-2687.

During the visit to the people, he lingered mainly to talk for hours with the Founder, whom he “venerated like a saint” and publicly proclaimed as such - according to Berro -... and he realized more and more that this was a most unjust persecution promoted by Father Mario.”[3666]

3666 BERRO II, p.38-39.

After his Visitation to the house of San Pantaleo, he wrote a detailed official report and handed it over to the Congregation of the Holy Office. It must have remained hidden there, because none of our historians have ever seen it, not even a copy.[3667] He also signed two decrees on April 13th, which were read out publicly at the end of the Visitation. The first summarizes in eleven points the regulations that should reflect the deplorable state of the house, which, as head of the Order and seat of central government, is an example to all others. However, if one reads the decree with an open mind, one sees no reason that would justify an Apostolic Visitation, because it only mentions details and generalities of ordinary failings, aggravated by the fact that some of the faults could refer exclusively to Mario, given what was discovered in his room.

3667 Berro assures that such a report existed (ibid., p.39). It is curious that the Relations of Pietrasanta have been preserved, but not that of Ubaldini.

Namely, there is mention of participation in prayer; of obedience to superiors; of moderation in words; of not depositing money; of presenting all gifts received to the superior; of not leaving the house alone but accompanied; of not remaining at the door, in the sacristy or in the church without sufficient cause; of not entering the rooms of others without the superior’s permission; of moderation in conversations with lay people and students outside of class; that they should not make visits without permission, take anyone home or speak to those who have left the Order because of their scandals; that they should not receive or write letters without the permission of the superior; that silence and modesty should reign in the refectory and no extraordinary food should be given to anyone; that those who accompany the children home should be punctual and leave when the Prefect indicates.[3668]

3668 BARTLIK, EphCal 2 (1956) 44-45; C. VILÁ, o.c., p.٥٢-٥٤.

The second and final decree ordered that unneeded books should be returned to the library and that the librarian should be informed of the books retained; from now on, no one was to remove books “without our express permission”[3669]

3669 C, VILÁ, o.c., p.54-55.

More than one reader will be surprised at the outcome of this visit. Did not the Visitor have more to say? Was this the diagnosis of the disorders that deserved an Apostolic Visitation? On the contrary, there is no lack of modern authors who, faced with such benign and banal decrees, conclude that “Ubaldini did not understand the most serious problems of the entire Order if he thought that they could be solved in such decrees.”[3670] However, it must be emphasized once again that the serious problems that had troubled the Order in previous years had lost their gravity, as we have already seen at the General Chapter of 1641. And the judgment of this Apostolic Visitator confirms this.

3670 G. SÁNTHA, o.c., p.74. The same believes C. VILÁ, o.c., p.60, 67.

We must bear in mind that Father Ubaldini had as direct informants Father General and his four Assistants and Father Mario and his three new Assistants, as well as Fathers Cherubini, Ceruti and Ridolfi, Mario’s followers. So, he was able to learn from two opposing versions of the current problems of the house and the Order. And it would be unfair to think him so ignorant and obtuse that he could not form a complete picture of reality. Or is it that none of the interviewees had any idea of what were then “the most serious problems of the Order”, which deserved nothing less than an Apostolic Visit? On the other hand, we cannot ignore the fact that up to that point no one from the Holy Office - as far as we know - was interested in what the suspended General and his deposed Assistants thought about the enigmatic person of Mario and his repeated accusations. Ubaldini was the first “officer” of the Holy Office to have this opportunity... But he was not believed either!

Father Mario felt uncomfortable and indignant from the start at the way the Visitation was going and soon began to use his cunning and sharp tongue to make the Monsignor Assessor realize that the Visitator’s purpose was to prove the innocence of the General and his Curia and the injustice with which the Holy Office had treated them, to the dishonor of the Supreme Court, the Monsignor and the Barberinis. He also complained to his Assistants that the Visitator had usurped the title and powers of the Father General, disregarding them and dishonored the Founder. And the Assistants believed him. It was therefore necessary to get him out of the way.[3671]

3671 Cf. BERRO II, p.39-40; C. VILÁ, o.c., p.60-62.

Ubaldini was far from resigning, for in the decrees he signed on April 13th, which were read out in San Pantaleo at the end of the local visitation, in one he left the penalties for transgressions to his future discretion, and in the other he demanded his own permission to remove books from the library.[3672] He thus indicated that he wanted to continue the visitation in the other houses in Rome and in other provinces. However, biographers - since Berro - have created the false tradition that “Ubaldini realized that he was wanted for something quite different from an impartial and objective visit... and he submitted... his resignation.”[3673] But the documents suggest to us the more serious version that Mario and Albizzi succeeded in removing Ubaldini from office. Father Baldi, for example, wrote in a famous memorandum of 1644 that Father Mario, “I know not how, had annulled the Brief of Apostolic Visitator made in the name of Father Augustine Ubaldini,... and he himself wanted another Apostolic Visitator to be chosen because such a Father did not make the Visitation to his liking.”[3674] On May 7, 1643, Msgr Albizzi, after receiving the minuta of the Brief appointing Father Ubaldini’s successor, he wrote to Msgr Maraldi, the Secretary of Briefs, to add the clause: “Revoking any Visitator sent by our authority or something similar,” he said, without naming Father Ubaldini.[3675] And it would be wrong to speak of “revocation” if it had been a “voluntary resignation.” It is true that in the Memoirs of the Somascan Fathers it says that “Father Ubaldini resigned as Apostolic Visitator of the Pious Schools on April 29th3676; but in a sort of diary of the Spanish Embassy they noted on April 30th: “Yesterday Father Silvester Pietrasanta was informed by Msgr. Assessor that he is Apostolic Visitator of the Order of the Pious Schools.”[3677] If Ubaldini had voluntarily tendered his resignation on April 29th it is difficult to understand why Albizzi would decide on the same day who should succeed him. It would be logical for the monsignor to have already chosen the successor and then announce the resignation of one and the election of the other on the same day.

3672 Cf. C. VILÁ, o.c., p.53-55.

3673 BAU, BC, p.966-967; BERRO II, p.40-41.

3674 EC, p.204-245. Valeriano Magni says in his Apology of the Pious Schools that Ubaldini “submotus est” (EC, p.3089). This is also the opinion of Vilá (cf. o.c., p.61-67) and Sántha (cf. o.c., p.74).

3675 Cf. G. SÁNTHA, o.c., p.74, n.81.

3676 Cf. M. TENTORIO, o.c., p.189, n.17.

3677 Cod. 170, p.34 (quoted in RegCal 73, p.3). Pietrasanta was well known in the Roman Curia as an excellent sacred orator and author of many works written in Latin on various genres, such as poems and eulogies to well-known personages, biographies, travel accounts, biblical, theological, controversial and pious themes. He was familiar with many cardinals, bishops and prelates. He had been entrusted with important matters of the Holy See and was in Germany for a decade in the service of Nuncio Carafa. He was also rector of the Jesuit College of Loreto before moving to Rome definitively (cf. EC, p.2068-2077; C. VILÁ, Fr. Silvestre Pietrasanta S. I.: Archivum 1 [1977] 49-112).

The new Visitator Pietrasanta and the General Assistants

Things developed very quickly and decisively. On April 29th, the Monsignor communicated his decision to Fathers Ubaldini and Pietrasanta; on May 9th, the final letter was signed, and on Sunday, May 10th, Father Pietrasanta officially took office in the domestic oratory of San Pantaleo.

The old chroniclers and biographers claim that the choice of Pietrasanta goes back to Mario.[3678] Sántha proposed Albizzi[3679], and this seems to have been the case, as can be seen from what has been said and is confirmed by the very close relations that the monsignor maintained with the Jesuits, especially those of the Casa Generalizia del Gesù, where Pietrasanta resided. Not without exaggeration, one author says that “as early as 1645, Albizzi exercised such dominion over the Jesuits that no religious changed his room in the Generalate without his permission.”[3680] But even if the first insinuation came from Mario, it is of the utmost importance to take note of this deep friendship between Albizzi and the Jesuits in order to understand the strange course that the events of the Apostolic Visitation later took in defense of the interests of the Society of Jesus.

3678 Cf. BAU, BC, p.970-971. Berro leaves it in doubt (BERRO II, p.41).

3679 Cf. G. SÁNTHA, o.c., p.74.

3680 J. BOURGEOIS, quoted by L. CEYSSENS, o.c., p.204. The Jansenist struggle strongly strengthened Albizzi’s relations with the Jesuits, as Ceyssens shows, who gathers testimonies of several authors, according to whom Albizzi relied on the Jesuits to make his career; therefore, in return, he was always ready to intervene when their interests were at stake. The Jesuits rewarded him with a life pension. Albizzi ordered in his will that when his legitimate heirs died out (he had been a widower since 1623 and had five children) all his goods would pass to the Jesuits, who had greatly favored him in placing his children, etc. (cf. ibid., p. 4). (cf. ibid, p.74, 183, 239, 203-205; S. GINER, En torno a una reciente monografia sobre Mons. Albizzi: AnCal 40 [1978] 559-60).

The letter of appointment from Pietrasanta is textually identical to the one given to Ubaldini, except for some very interesting details. This confirms us in the assumption that it is an ordinary form, in which there is no particular reason why the Visitation of the Pious Schools was ordered, and therefore no indication is given to the Visitator, nor are any particular problems proposed to him for clarification and resolution. The same ambiguous and monotonous purpose is repeated: “that the observance of regular discipline be preserved and restored where it has declined.”

There are two new details regarding Ubaldini’s Brief: the clause already mentioned above that ‘the former Visitators are revoked’ (sic, in the plural, although there was only one); and the paragraph specifying the powers of the new government, which were announced in the original decree of January 15th3681 and not clarified in Ubaldini’s Brief. The new paragraph grants the Visitator “full and ample authority to govern and direct the entire said Order together with the dear sons Mario [Sozzi] of St. Francis, Santino [Lunardi] of St. Leonard, J. Stephen [Spinola] of the Mother of God and J. Francis [Bafici] of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary...who together with you will have but one decisive voice in the governance of the said Order.”[3682] This means that the four Assistants have the same governing power, without Mario making a difference, being the first Assistant; that the decisive vote is held by all of them, but not in matters of the Apostolic Visitation. Mario was thus placed on the same level as the other three Assistants, which hurt his pride and ambition.

3681 It simply stated: “qui [the First Assistant] una cum Visitatore praedicto ac aliis Assistentibus incumbat in Gubernium dictae Religionis” (EGC IX, p.116). It is a collegial government in which everyone seems to have equal authority, although the main subject of the sentence is the First Assistant.

3682 Cf. the whole Brief in EGC IX, p.117-119. Note that the main subject of the sentence is now the Visitator.

On Sunday, May 10, 1643, Father Pietrasanta took office in the historic Oratory of San Pantaleo and read out the letter of appointment from the previous day. The entire community rendered him obedience and he addressed a greeting to them, paraphrasing the words of the prophet Jeremiah: “I have set you at the head, ‘ut evellas et destruas, et aediffices et plantes” (that you may root out and destroy and build and plant).[3683] And on the 15th of the same month, he wrote the first circular letter in which he introduced himself to the entire Order and expressed his good wishes: “I assure you - he said - that I will do my utmost to fulfill and support the holy will of our Lord [the Pope], which is to confirm, build up and improve the things of his Order for the glory of God and the benefit of Christendom.”[3684]

3683 Jer 1:10. BERRO II, p.45.

3684 EC, p.2065-2066.

For their part, the four Assistants sent a circular letter dated May 13 to the entire Order in which they asked, among other things, “not to listen to those who, perhaps with little maturity and judgment, censure our actions before they have seen their effects”, since this “would give us little encouragement to continue the enterprise we have begun, which is none other than that of establishing general and particular, internal and external peace in our Order.”[3685]

3685 CE, p.184-185.

The appointment of both Pietrasanta and the four Assistants was received positively throughout the Order, as can be seen from the numerous letters that have survived to this day, with which the communities as a whole and many individuals responded to the circular letters received. In some of them, a certain coldness is noticeable, as polite congratulations[3686]; others simply reflect the good wishes expressed in the Roman circulars, that “our things” will be better[3687], that peace, unity and charity[3688] will be achieved; in others, flattery is noticeable, to obtain favors, such as transfer to other houses, promotion to the clergy for those who have not yet achieved this, or to thank for the graces received.[3689] Some hope that the Visitator will soon be able to obtain the “reintegration” of Father General “in view of his innocent life”, trusting that Father Mario will not oppose.[3690] The letter from the community of Florence is very interesting. It feels guilty for the turmoil and confirms the idea, already expressed by the Founder, that the Apostolic Visitation had the purpose of restoring the peace disturbed by Fr. Mario, a peace to which the Assistants also alluded in their circular letter: “We know - they wrote - how much this house needs every help, for it was, let us say, the nest of all troubles”.[3691]

3686 Cf. EC, p.490, 1891, 2325.

3687 Ibid., p.161, 379, 1475, 2329.

3688 Ibid., p.333, 987, 1777.

3689 Ibid., p.14, 17, 228, 273, 1296, 2150. Some continued to ask for the priesthood and complained that it was not granted to them by Pietrasanta (as Calasanz had done before), in spite of the promises (cf. EC, 464-472; 2146-2150).

3690 Ibid., p. 414.

3691 Ibid., p. 1028-1029 and the Founder’s letters 4096 and 4103.

The peace under the new superiors was short-lived. The restless and ambitious Mario did not accept this collective government, in which the First Assistant had the same powers as any of the other three. And he soon began to do his own thing. In a circular letter to the Order signed by the assistants Spinola and Bafici on December 1, 1644 (Lunardi had already left Rome), they declared under oath that

”... after we had taken possession of our office and governed for a month, compelled by the bad conduct of Father Mario of St. Francis, and in order not to support such a man to the detriment and ruin of the whole Order, seeing that it was not possible to bring him to forms of good government, and since we could not support him because of the support he had in Msgr. Assessor of the Holy Office, who threatened us with the Holy Office if we tried or proposed anything that did not correspond to his plans and whims, we decided to resign from the Assistance, which we did. But Fr. Pietrasanta, who knew very well that we were in the right and gave it to us even before Fr. Mario, before he was imbued with other feelings by Mgr. Assessor, and who, moreover, had always said that he would not accept such a resignation, was so ingratiated that a few days later he forced us to resume the office, which we accepted and held for another month.

Then it happened that ... Father Santino ... after he had said ... why Father Mario had arrogated to himself the authority to offer the provincialate and the rectorate of Rome to a Father [Cherubini?] without saying a word to us, Father Pietrasanta, who had already been forewarned, rose up in his anger not only against Father Santino but also against us innocent and silent ones, treating us all as rebels and disobedient to the Holy Office ... and said that he would no longer come to our meetings, etc., and in fact he left us and never met with us again, nor participated in anything of the government. Instead of defending us, a few days later he sent us a little note ex abrupto, ordering us not to interfere any more in the government or in anything concerning it, without listening to our reasons or showing us by what authority he was depriving us of our office, which, however, we immediately accepted for the sake of peace.”[3692]

3692 BERRO II, p.47-48 and 51. Latin version in EGC IX, p.175-176.

Berro clarifies that this authority usurped by Fr. Pietrasanta and Mario was based on a simple written notice by Msgr. Albizzi, of which the Holy Office was unaware, as it later turned out when a list of all the decrees issued by the said Tribunal was made available.[3693] Father Pietrasanta, in a report dated the following October 1st, gave his personal version of the facts, but he shortened the story by saying that he had decided not to meet with them anymore, omitting not only the reasons for the differences between the four assistants, but also the most serious: to have excluded them from the government with a simple decision of his, based on a secret short paper by Bishop Albizzi, which was entirely personal and which no one had ever seen.[3694] Later, however, pressed by the general protests against his unfortunate government, Pietrasanta, in order not to lose his responsibility, admitted in a circular letter to the entire Order: “I was ordered to govern with the help of only one, who for a few months (until his death) was Father Mario.”[3695]

3693 BERRO II, p.50.

3694 EC, p.2089.

3695 EGC IX, p.167 (circular letter of February 7, 1644).

Of course, this fact became known immediately when Mario and Pietrasanta took over the leadership of the Order. And a year later, in two famous memoranda against the government of the two, the arbitrariness with which the three Assistants had been dismissed without giving them or the Order a legitimate reason was recalled in very harsh words.[3696]

3696 Memorandum of Fr. Baldi, August 18, 1644 (EC, p.209-210) and Memorandum of Nikolsburg, August 22, 1644 (EC, p.1081-1082).

The direct collaborators during the Visitation

In addition to this dismissal of the three Assistants, two important appointments were made to complete the team of the new central leadership of the Order. These are Father Cherubini, who was appointed Procurator General by Pietrasanta on May 10th, probably at the instigation of the First Assistant, to reward in some way his performance as Commissioner in the trial against “the Lombard rebels”, which had brought Mario the Founder’s declaration of innocence.[3697] He will be the one to replace Mario at the head of the Order until its extinction.

3697 Cf. O. MANETTI Chronological Inventory, p.11, n.77. For this purpose, Fr. Costantini, was removed. He had been appointed by Calasanz on April 23, 1641, when Cherubini was dismissed “per giuste cause” (cf. G. SANTHA, Tria Brevía Pontificia...; EphCal 9-10 [1960] 262 and 270, n.7).

The second appointment was that of Father Giovanni Antonio Ridolfi, the only one of the “Lombard rebels” to be declared innocent. He was Mario’s spy and was appointed Vice-Provincial of Tuscany by him on February 15, 1643[3698] and recalled from Florence in mid-May 1643 to be Mario’s secretary and also secretary of Pietrasanta and the Apostolic Visitation.[3699] The religious greatly regretted their disastrous performance because - Baldi writes - “no one could speak to the Visitator unless he was first instructed by Father Mario or one of his followers what to say, and in order for this to happen, he wanted Father John Anthony (Ridolfi) to become the Visitator’s secretary ... so close and faithful to him that he transmitted to him all that he had written.”[3700] And if this happened to those who spoke to the Visitator in person, the same happened to absentees who answered him by letter, as those from Nikolsburg lamented: “Our whole Religion - so they wrote in a circular - or the greater part of it has not dared to do so [send their reports to the Visitator], as we knew for certain that all letters passed through the hands of Father John Anthony of the Nativity [Ridolfi], the secretary ... who cannot be trusted with secrets for fear of our own ruin.”[3701] But even later, when things had found an unexpectedly satisfactory solution, his cunning actions were to bring about the final decision on the ultimate catastrophe.

3698 Cf. p. 2527.

3699 Cf. EGC VIII, p.45-46; EHI, p.1777, n. I; BERRO II, p.52.

3700 EC, p.205. This method was already used in Florence, in one of the trials (cf. BERRO II, p.9-10).

3701 EC, p.1079-1080.

So here is the central staff in charge: the Visitator Pietrasanta with his collaborators Mario, Cherubini and Ridolfi, and above them, as the transmitter of superior orders and their author or inspirer, Msgr. Albizzi.

A long month after taking office, Pietrasanta informed the entire Order that it was his wish to meet with everyone in person, but his many occupations and even physical ailments prevented him from leaving Rome. However, everyone would have the opportunity to write to him with full guarantee of secrecy by handing over their sealed letters to some Jesuit fathers appointed by him, who would be responsible for sending them to his hands.[3702]

3702 EC, p.2078-2079, 2098.

It is not recorded that he intended to have the entire Order visited by specific persons, but he ordered that “some houses” should be visited where there seemed to be a particular urgency[3703], thus implicitly recognizing that if the reason for the Visitation was a specific evil, this was not generalized, but reduced to a few houses. And to visit these he appointed delegates, practically reduced to three, at the undoubted suggestion of Mario and Cherubini, as they were his supporters and friends.

3703 EC, p.2098.

The first was Fr. John Luke di Rosa, who was appointed provincial of Naples in mid-May 1643 and then visited the Province; the second was Fr. Nicholas Mary Gavotti, who was elected Visitator of the Province of Liguria in August 1643; the third was Fr. Glicerio Ceruti, who visited the province of Naples in early 1645.[3704] It seems that by the beginning of February 1644 they had only visited the houses of Genoa, Savona, Carcare, Cagliari, Cáller, Pisa and Chieti and still they were visiting the houses of Campi and Bisignano.[3705]

3704 BERRO II, p.54-55; EC, p.299, 1358, 1496, 1499, 1508. Biographical notes on the three: EHI, p.886, n. 1; 1227, n. 1; 750, n. 1.

3705 Cf. EC, p.2098.

Gavotti’s election was unfortunate, as his scandalous conduct exactly spoke for the credibility of those who had elected him. He alone visited the houses of Genoa, Savona, Carcare, Cáller and Pisa... He arrived in Sardinia - Berro writes - (not as a barefoot and poor religious of the Mother of God of the Pious Schools, but dressed like a soldier or a comedian, for underneath he wore a leather jacket without sleeves and pants trimmed with gold and so many other vanities that I would be ashamed to write them down”[3706] even if I remembered them in detail.” Father Salazar Maldonado wrote to the Founder about his departure from Cáller: that it was loaded with cheese, pomegranates, Indian roosters, capons, chickens, four small donkeys and many other things, and - he adds - “the backs of 14 porters who carried it all to the port know it well... all bought with money we paid for the visit or with donations from our benefactors.”[3707]

3706 BERRO II, p.54-55.

3707 EHI, p.1869. On his visit to Genoa, cf. EC, p. 1046, 1564, 2214. On all his general actions, see the collective letter of the Community of Genoa to Pietrasanta (BERRO II, p.194-198).

Berro also accuses Father Glicerio Ceruti of greed for money and other things when he visited Naples while Berro himself was living in community in one of his houses; moreover, he considers him “contrary” to the Founder and “not only dependent, but also an advisor and perhaps a promoter” of Mario and Cherubini, “destroyers of our poor Order.”[3708] But what is particularly important to Berro is to remember that it was Ceruti who burned the rich collection of documents on this dramatic period of our history in order to cover up traces and save past responsibilities in which he himself was involved. And this happened around the year 1660.[3709]

3708 BERRO II, p.130. In a letter to the Founder dated July 15, 1645, Berro enumerated the things that Ceruti sent to Rome, among others: “boxes of butter, bottles of cologne, necklaces and crystal earrings, boxes of confections, trinkets, half a barrel of wine, etc.” (EHI, p.302).

3709 BERRO II, p.26, 4, 34, 47, 50, 59, etc.

The purpose of the Apostolic Visitation

After all that has been said about Mario and his tricks, the letter he wrote to Berro on May 23rd, as soon as the Apostolic Visitation was opened, sounds presumptuous to say the least. In it, he exposes his ideas for reform in comparison with all that the Founder of the Order and his government have done since its foundation. We read:

“For a long time I have wished that our Order might be freed from so many concerns which hindered the service to God and neighbor of the Order itself, and what grieved my heart most was to see how little spirit there was in general and in particular, which so oppressed the spirits that it was concluded that it was necessary to put it out of the world because it was not useful to Holy Church, although the Institute was and is holy and good, but it was not well conducted. Now I hope that my wishes will be fulfilled, which are to give the Order a form that has never been given to it, and also to achieve what has not been achieved in 20 years of pontificate, namely the stability of our Order, and on the occasion of this visit, with the mercy of God, everything will be put in order and arranged properly... I have put aside my interests for the general good of the Order and I will be the means for its order and not for its destruction, as some angelic spirits have said. The end praises the work. Be assured that the Order is so broken up that whatever is done will be almost a miracle, for indeed we find neither beginning, nor means, nor end.”[3710]

3710 EC, p.2539-2540.

This letter seems to us to be of the greatest importance, because it indicates for the first time what is intended by the Apostolic Visitation, namely nothing other than a radical reform, not because there is a relaxation or a regular non-observance; it can be assumed that in his conversations with Albizzi, Mario came to the conclusion that the Monsignor’s idea of “destroying” the Order” was tempered by the idea of “transforming” it”, but with a transformation that amounted to destruction. Some “angelic spirits” heard Mario speak on this subject and interpreted it as “destruction”, while for him it was “an arrangement” (accomodamento). In fact, neither Albizzi nor Pietrasanta ever speak of a destruction or extinction of the Order, but of a “reduction” to the original state, to a congregation without vows, etc. This transformation will provide the opportunity to review essential points about poverty or the limitation of the teaching area or the Constitutions themselves, etc. And that will be the subject of discussion and final decisions.

Mario says he hopes that the visit will fulfill his wishes that he expressed “a long time ago”, which leads us to believe that the dismissal of Fr. Ubaldini was because he did not agree with Mario’s ideas[3711], especially after he had spoken at length with the Founder. The three assistants also disagreed, with whom it was impossible to carry out the “reform” planned by Mario, “to the detriment and ruin of the Order” - as they said - and for this reason they were also dismissed, leaving Mario and Pietrasanta’s hands free, thanks to the dubious intervention of Albizzi, who managed to obtain papal Briefs to legitimize all the initiatives. It is indeed curious that Mario communicated these ideas to Berro on May 23rd, just two weeks after Pietrasanta’s appointment. This suggests that Mario, who knew the Order, shared his reform plan with the new Visitator and won him over to his cause, just as he had already won over Msgr. Assessor, Cherubini, Ridolfi and several others. This would also explain Mario’s interest in being succeeded by Cherubini in order to realize his idea of “reform”, which others - until the end - interpreted as “destruction”

3711 On March 20, 1643, two days before the Visitator Ubaldini took possession, Mario wrote to Fr. Apa, saying that they should have recourse to the Visitator especially those who have always desired not only peace in the Order, but also “that the desired end of the arrangement and increase of the Order be achieved by giving it a little form, which has always been my purpose” (EC, p.2538).

In order to simplify and standardize the content of personal interrogations or written communications, Pietrasanta compiled a list of 34 points.[3712] And it is logical to assume that, without knowing the Constitutions, customs and mores of the Order, as well as the problems of observance, the prevailing concerns, etc., he used the advice, reports and intimations of Mario, who then had the great opportunity to form his plan for the reform of the Order in broad outline, as we have just seen.

3712 EC, p.2079-2080, n.2.

The first notable observation is that in the 34 points there is no explicit mention of the problem of the Cleric Brothers, nor of “the claimants”, nor of the precedency, which gives the impression that these were not “the main problems of the Order” for the initiators of the survey, nor was there any interest in insisting on them - although they come to light later -, just as there is no insistence on verifying whether or not there is a regular observance. The attention is mainly focused on what the Order thinks about the advisability of changing certain provisions of the Constitutions, rules and customs, with a very clear tendency to soften austerity, moderate poverty, ease daily hardships, soften religious life, humanize existence more. And that, it seems, is what the intended reform was all about.[3713] These were topics more suited to a General Chapter than to an Apostolic Visitation, and in view of the fact that two General Chapters with a very rich subject matter had recently been held, it seems inappropriate to want to impose from above and by surprise through a Visitator what the Order had not seen fit to change in its regular Chapters.

3713 Of the 37 points, about 20 revolve around these changes or reforms. Questions are asked about the validity of the Constitutions, having stable entries, life or temporary generalate, who should appoint the superiors, election and duration of assistants, sufficiency of means to lead a life of perfection, formation of the religious... It is about moderating fasts, austerity in food and clothing, taking better care of the sick, mitigating the fatigue of daily work, accompanying children to their homes, having enough recreation or rest, remaining in the province itself. Logically, it is also asked if the four vows are fulfilled, distinguishing details of each one; if there are scandals, persecutions... Father Pedro Casani wrote on February 6, 1638 that the poor Order did not have much form of Religion (per non haver’ella molto forma di Religione) (EC, p.581). But the very austere and exaggeratedly demanding model in matters of extreme poverty of Fr. Casani forces us to think that “the form” that he desired was very far from the one intended by Mario. It is not admissible to bring the two characters together in this sense (cf. PosCas, p.1196).

Thus, we can understand the harsh words with which Berro describes this questioning, saying that it was the fruit of a “Machiavellian policy” or “the doctrine of an enemy of God and his holy Church” and that Father Pietrasanta was trying to “destruere et evellere” (to destroy and to demolish) the Order of Pious Schools.[3714] This was, in poor words, the correction of the Founder and thus the destruction of his work. However, it must be honestly said that the person responsible for this plan or ideologue was not Father Pietrasanta, but Mario, to whom both Pietrasanta and Albizzi submitted. The Jesuit’s fault, one could say, was that he did not impose his all-powerful will as Visitator, as the letter of appointment allowed him to do, but his weakness, because he did not know how to oppose the will of Mario, Albizzi and Cherubini, and later had to bow to the decisions of the Pontifical Commission, which was also headed by Albizzi.

3714 BERRO II, p.55; EHI, p.300-301.

Short-lived government and tragic death of Mario

Towards the end of July 1643, the three General Assistants Lunardi, Spinola and Bafici were dismissed by higher authorities, leaving Father Pietrasanta and Father Mario alone in charge of the Order. The Founder’s letters contain complaints about Mario’s way of governing, which confirm the complaints of the Assistants who were forced to resign. Thus, in a letter to Father Salazar dated August 28, he wrote: “We are very concerned about the war [in Castro] directed against the Church and also about our own particular discord emanating from the damned Father Mario.”[3715] But there is no doubt that the arrogance of the First Assistant made itself felt very soon, perhaps as soon as he took office in mid-May, as the protests of the Assistants suggest.

3715 On July 18, the Assistants still counted for something, as Calasanz writes: “if these Assistants do not order otherwise” (C.41l6).

Mario’s personal attitude towards the suspended Father General deteriorated noticeably, which is not surprising considering that he had previously committed and provoked very serious assaults against the ‘Old Holy Man’ that could not be excused by any reasonable cause. Now he was more secure than ever, at the height of his power, honorably supported by his faithful protector, the all-powerful Assessor of the Holy Office, and by the Visitator. And he abused all this, to the point of humiliation, to the point of maliciously intending to humiliate the Old, Venerable and debased Founder, who still rightfully bore the title of Father General.

The chroniclers of the first series and the witnesses of the processes have left a wealth of statements of facts seen and heard, which alone are sufficient to judge the moral infamy of this man, no matter how much we try to soften the tones or attribute exaggerations to the righteous indignation of those who cited their recollections to exalt the memory of the venerable and beloved Father Founder. One of the later speakers, Fr. Armini, recalled that when he was no longer superior, “every time he left or entered the house, he asked Fr. Mario’s blessing. And although he was an old man, he always knelt down to do this. One of the assistants, Father Lunardi, protested against these humiliations of Father General, but the Old Holy Man never wanted to be exempt from this practice and said that “it was a great consolation for him.”[3716]

3716 BAU, BC, p.976. When Armini made these declarations in the process of 1690-1692 he was General of the Order (cf. S. GINER, El proceso..., p.169-170). It evokes what was already declared on January 22, 1653 by Br. Lorenzo Ferrari (ProcIn, p.609).

Berro, always lavish in detail, has a great page in which he soberly summarizes a long list of grievances from the period:

“He never complained in writing or in words, saying, “Let God work...”

He never sought any favor for himself; he would not speak to the ambassador of Spain, nor to other princes who could do much and offered to help him, nor would he plead for his own defense...

He never complained that the letters which came to him from abroad were taken away from him, nor that his own letters which he wrote to others, ours or laymen, were hindered, withheld or taken away from him, and that they also told him so and made fun of him.[3717]

3717 It is striking that from July 31st to December 31, 1643 only 27 letters of the Saint are preserved (C.4121-4148) and that from October 10th, when he wrote three, to November 28th, when he wrote two, there are only three (C.4140-4142.), and in none of them nor in the later ones does he allude to the death of Mario, which occurred on November 10th (C.4140-4142.).

He did not complain that the Secretary [Bandoni] was taken away from him, nor did he try to keep him.

He showed no resentment when they took away his public and private religious books.

He did not say a word when they tore up his book Fondamento della Religione, in which he had written down all the professions made since the declaration of Religion by Gregory XV.

He did not resist when they took away the heart of the holy servant of God, Glicerio Landriani.

He did not protest or speak out when he saw that it was forbidden to go to his room and those who went there were humiliated and even banished from Rome.

He did not get upset when Mario himself reproached him and simply replied: “God will judge between the two.”[3718]

3718 BERRO II, p.61 and 45-46,48-49; EC, p.1085; BAU, BC, p.978-.979.

This sublime cataract of silence, as admirable as an anthology of miracles, ends with this golden brooch:

“A Prince sent him about a hundred escudos to take care of his defense, along with other generous offers. Our V.Fr. Founder and General thanked His Excellency for the alms and offerings and immediately took all the money to Father Mario, who received it with great joy without giving him a penny. The old saint humbled himself and said to him: “Some of our people from outside often ask me for holy cards; if it would be good for you to give me something to buy some, since I have none left...” So, Father Mario said to him: “Here, take some.” And he counted, put a few giulii in his hand and said: “One, two, three, four, etc.” When he had reached 25, the ‘Old Holy Man’ said: “Enough.” And without offering him another one, he dismissed him.”[3719]

3719 BERRO II, p.61-62; BAU, BC, p.979. A Roman ‘escudo’ was equivalent to ten ‘giulii’.

No less lavish in his recollections was Brother Lorenzo Ferrari, who usually speaks as an eyewitness. Among the dramatic scenes from that time, the following is worth mentioning:

“I remember that one day, after letters had arrived from the superiors of the houses outside Rome, discord broke out between Father Mario and his Assistants. Father Mario sought out Father General and said to him words that were not very respectful, namely: “Old fool, old fool, they do not want to obey me and you can not calm them down. I have almost brought the Order to ruin and I will not rest until I have razed it to the ground,” and other words of anger. Father General then replied to him with all gentleness: “You chose these men; I did not give them to you. Beware of God’s punishment for the damage you are doing to the Order; may his wrath not soon fall upon you.” Mario left. This happened in the oratory near Father General’s room, where I was staying while they were walking around. I was in the room and I could hear everything, and I could hear it well because they were talking loudly. This happened two months before Father Mario died. When he entered the room, Father General said more than once in great sorrow, “God forgive him. He will remedy us.” And indeed, the punishment was not far off, because within 15 days he got a kind of very small scab, and to cure it he took purges; they gave him very strong remedies, even to the point of giving wine with viper’s venom, baths; they put him in a calf cut open alive, and it was all in vain. The doctors said it was a lousy leprosy, and the more remedies they administered, the more it grew. When the sheets were changed, squamae were found in abundance....”[3720]

3720 ProcIn, p.615-616.

With more or less elaboration and detail, many others, notably Caputi, Berro and Bianchi[3721], speak of this terrible, fatal disease of Father Mario, almost all agreeing that it was leprosy; but not even the doctors whose diagnoses they remember were in complete agreement, suggesting that it was perhaps syphilis. The disease was as repulsive as the remedies used and the diet, of which Berro reports: “The doctors treated and prescribed him medicines as if he were a supreme and absolute prince and spared no expense, not even a very great one, without the Order ever backing down.”[3722]

3721 BERRO II, p.62-67; BAU, BC, p.986-988.

3722 BERRO II, p.64.

The course of the disease was extremely rapid, considering that he was thirty-five years old and had “the strength and complexion of a bull,” according to Berro, who says that the disease began to manifest itself in August. But Brother Ferrari, an eyewitness, seems to be more precise in his calculations, saying that the conversation mentioned between Mario and Caiasanz took place two months before the former’s death, and that the first symptoms of the disease appeared fifteen days after; that is, the disease lasted only a month and a half. Since he died on November 10th, the disease must have broken out around September 25th. And this seems to be confirmed by a letter from Father General, written on September 19th, in which he speaks of Father Mario and says nothing about his illness. And he should have said something if the illness had already been diagnosed in August and had such frightening characteristics. On the contrary, he presents Father Mario in full commanding euphoria and prepotency in front of everyone. And the fatal premonition that this will soon end catches our attention, which, without being too subtle, could appear as an astonishing prophecy with which he confirms the one quoted by Fr. Ferrari: “May his [God’s] wrath not soon come upon you. Thus writes the saint:

“... it is very certain that Father Mario, with the favor of Msgr. Assessor of the Holy Office, rules and commands the Order according to his whim, to the great displeasure of many members of the Religion. And he gives orders as he pleases, even with the signature of the Visitator. But ‘I hope that this practice will soon come to an end’ and that we will return to religious observance.”[3723]

3723 C.4131.

Perhaps even more than the pain and excruciating discomfort of the medication, Mario felt the shame of his prostration and the disgusting disfigurement of his body, which had turned into a foul-smelling scab, according to an eyewitness.[3724] For this reason, he was transferred to Collegio Nazareno, which at the time was located in the so-called Palazzo Mutti, a Capo le Case, and had better facilities and large gardens.[3725] But he remained in seclusion and, according to Caputi, asked that no one be allowed to visit him and that his mortal remains not be publicly displayed after his death. Twice Father General tried to see the sick man, but he refused with excuses. Nevertheless, his protectors and friends, Msgr. Albizzi and Father Pietrasanta, visited him and the sick man strongly recommended that they protect Father Cherubini. Mario asked for this and they promised him that he would be appointed his successor, which they did.[3726]

3724 BERRO II, p.63.

3725 In October 1639 the Palazzo Mutti was rented, where the College remained until 1644, when it moved to Palazzo Rusticucci, next to S. Pietro, in the present street of the same name. There were then 13 scholarship students and eight religious. Precisely between the years 1643 and 1645, attending to the various requests of many people and to remedy the precautionary conditions of the economy of the Tonti legacy, it was decided to admit paying boarders, whose innovation was maintained and expanded over time (cf. P. VANNUCCI, Il Collegio Nazareno, p.86 and 98, n.19; EC, p.845, 848, 850; C.3189; BERRO II, p.65).

3726 Caputi says that Mario asked it to both of them and also to keep Fr. Ridolfi as secretary, and that they promised him (cf. cit. in PosCas, p.1791, n.178-179). Berro writes that Mario asked both of them to protect Cherubini and the Monsignor promised him, adding that they would make him his successor (BERRO II, p.66).

The question of the last spiritual assistance remains rather confusing. Berro leaves it unclear when he writes: “It is said that he went to Father Esteban [Cherubini] for confession, and although he asked Father Peter [Casani]... to assist him, which he did for a few days, he never received a sacrament from him, as Father Peter himself expressly told me, adding that he did not know or see anyone who heard his confession or gave him communion.”[3727] There was also some anxiety he would be reconciled with Fr. General, and although he did not succeed in having him received, he sent him a small note through Fr. George Chervino, on which he wrote: “Fr. General, I am very bad, and if I have offended you in any way, I beg your pardon. Mario of St. Francis.”[3728]

3727 BERRO II, p.66. Caputi also recalls the negative testimony of Fr. Casani (cf. PosCas, p.1214).

3728 CAPUTI, in PosCas, p.1792, n.180. The detail of remembering the name of the messenger guarantees the veracity of the news.

He died on November 10th. Father Cherubini wrote in a letter the same day, “Our Lord wanted to call our Father Mario of St. Francis to paradise today, with those sensations of His Lordship that those who have cared for soul and body have.” The next day, Father Pietrasanta, for his part, wrote: “Our Lord wanted to call Father Mario of St. Francis to Himself last night, with those sentiments of heavenly things that every good religious can desire.”[3729] Perhaps things lay somewhere between the impenitence traditionally assumed and supported by the chroniclers and the feelings that every good religious should have, as Cherubini and Pietrasanta assure us. However, it was never known who was present at the time of his death.

3729 BERRO II, p.67; EC, p.2094.

In all probability, given the short duration of his disease, he died neither of leprosy nor of syphilis, which he had contracted, but was cruelly burned both internally and externally, due to the incredible therapeutic means to which he was subjected: constant baths in mineral waters, oils and burning sulfur fumes, confinement in the living and steaming entrails of slashed animal carcasses, disgusting meals in which the poison of vipers and other horrible concoctions predominated... Even Caputi is moved to give us this description: “Poor Mario’s body was all burnt, like a roasted piglet, and one could no longer recognize his limbs, for his legs and arms were shrunken as if they had been burnt, so that his friends wept for him but were afraid to look at him.”[3730] And Berro adds: “When Father Mario was dead, they opened him up and found his intestines fried as if in a cauldron, and his heart was so small and bruised that it had almost lost the shape of a heart.”[3731]

3730 PosCas, p.1793, n.183.

3731 BERRO II, p.67.

The body was taken to the church of San Pantaleo at night and, as he had ordered, he was buried there without making the coffin accessible to the public so that no one would see it.[3732] Today there is no trace of his grave.

3732 Ib.; BAU, BC, p.987-988.

One spontaneously thinks of Lactantius’ famous book On the Deaths of Persecutors. In our case, Cherubini will follow Mario’s path closely. The Florentine inquisitor Father John Muzzarelli, his protector, confidant and friend of old, preceded him by a few months - August 1643 - and died of malignant cancer. But we summon Muzzarelli not to commemorate his painful death, but to record the judgment he passed on Father Mario in those last months of his life, when he was still alive and in the fullness of his powers, the erstwhile whistleblower of the Faustina scandal. The written information comes from a Piarist who affirms that he knew Father Muzzarelli in the years 1641-1642, when he was in Florence, and was on friendly terms with him. He sent his testimony to Father Berro when he wrote his memoirs around 1662-1663. Twenty years after the events, it cannot be said that Muzzarelli’s words are accurate, but the crudeness of the expressions and the content of the memoir deserve recognition. Here are some of the most important paragraphs:

!... Reverend Father, I believe that all my friends feel my misfortune, which I fear I deserved, because I protected that unfortunate Father Mario, whom I know very well was a villain [tristo], but he was recommended to me by great personages and red birettas [cardinals], and I had to do it. And God forgive you, Father, because I have asked you so many times to ask your Father General to send me a report on the life and miracles of the said Father Mario, and I have not received it so that I can show it to the one who recommended him to me with such fervor, this ungrateful man.” I naturally addressed this request to our Founding Father, but he replied: “May the blessed God work....” The said inquisitor often said to me, “I cannot see myself near this Mariacho, so vicious, blind with passion, far from religious. God help him. He has taken too many liberties, too many liberties. May God forgive anyone who believes this hypocrite with the face of a scoundrel, the face of a traitor, and yet he is listened to and everything he says is believed.”[3733]

3733 BERRO II, p.69. The Italian words are ‘sciaurato, tristo, gran maligno, accecato dalla passione, meschinaccio, hipocritaccio, mostaccio di facchino, fisonomia di un traditore’.

The diplomatic Albizzi will not allow himself to be carried away by such epithets, but he will belatedly realize that he too has been deceived.[3734]

3734 After the completion of our present work, Claudio Vilá’s third article on Mario Sozzi has appeared, with the title: Mario Sozzi: last quadrennium of his life (1639-1643): Archivum 29 (1991) 83-182 and 30 (1991) l-93. After carefully reading both parts, we can see that Vilá’s vindictive, absolving, and exalting attitude towards Mario Sozzi continues in crescendo (to grow), discrediting the Holy Founder, not only against the common opinion of all historians, but also against the evidence of the same texts - he does not provide any new ones - cited or omitted by Vilá. We maintain intact, therefore, our version of the facts and judgment of the characters, particularly of Mario Sozzi.

Chapter 24

Pietrasanta, Cherubini and the Commission of Cardinals

It is hardly possible to lessen the burden of calumny that Calasanctian biographers and memoirists have laid on the names of Mario, Cherubini, Pietrasanta and Albizzi. In the wealth of surviving documents, the four are accused of having caused the humiliation of the Founder, the discrediting and the final destruction of the Order, although not all four are equally responsible.

However, it would be necessary to exclude from all of them - and even from their collaborators - an almost diabolical intention to maliciously persecute the Holy Founder and to destroy and annihilate his Work. Each of them had humanly understandable reasons that led them to act, even though they knew that sometimes neither their words nor their judgments nor their actions corresponded to truth and justice. It is difficult to excuse one or the other for willful slander, malice, lies, abuse of power, grave imprudence, irresponsible omissions, all of which are reprehensible in those who have authority and should be the guarantors of truth and justice in the Church.

Among the excuses or reasons that can be given to make this little “mystery of injustice” a little more understandable, I think two can be cited: 1) Albizzi’s obsessive attitude of defending the honor of the Holy Office, which should not be recognized as false in any way and by anyone, and not only in matters of doctrine; 2) the idea that neither Mario, Cherubini, Albizzi nor Pietrasanta had any intention of destroying the Order by extinguishing it, but merely of “reforming” it.

Apparently, the claim for a reform prevailed, but it exceeded the expectations of its proponents and did not become something permanent, mainly because the new Constitutions that were supposed to summarize and legitimize the reform were never adopted. We will see this in this chapter.

The Deputy Commission

One of the most decisive moments of this whole drama that we are examining here was undoubtedly the meeting of the Congregation of the Holy Office that took place on January 15, 1643 under the presidency of Urban VIII. At this session, the decree In causa P. Marii was promulgated, imposing the Apostolic Visitation on the entire Order, suspending Father General and relieving his four Assistants of their respective offices, with Father Mario being appointed first Assistant. The significance of these decisions was that what had until then been a personal problem for Father Mario in relation to the authorities of the Order became a problem for the Order itself, as it was deposed of its legitimate superiors and subjected to canonical Visitation.

It was understandable that up to that point the whole problem was in the hands of the Holy Office, since it was basically a matter of defending Father Mario, which was favored by the said tribunal. But from the moment that “the cause of Fr. Mario” became a cause or question of the entire Order, it no longer seemed so logical that it should remain in the hands of the Holy Office. More than one cardinal and one prelate of the said dicastery must have thought the same, but only one dared to explain this in one of the immediate sessions, saying that he did not understand why the Holy Office had to interfere in the administration of religious orders when there was a separate congregation for this, namely the Congregation of Bishops and Religious. It was the Dominican Cardinal Vincent Maculano, but His Eminence Francis Barberini did not allow him to continue his explanation.[3735]

3735 BERRO II, p. 36. At the death of Urban VIII there will be another more serious attempt to have recourse to the Congregation of Religious (cf. G. SANTHA, Card. M. Ginetti et Scholae Piae: EphCal 3 [1972] 106).

When Albizzi was appointed assessor of the Holy Office in 1635, Maculano had already been Commissioner for three years, and from then on there were disputes between the two officials over the right to preside at the ordinary sessions of the censors and qualifiers. In 1641, Maculano was appointed cardinal and continued to belong to the Congregation of the Holy Office. He never missed an opportunity to disrupt and obstruct Albizzi’s initiatives, who “had to resort to the establishment of special commissions headed by cardinals of his choice to carry out his plans”.[3736]

3736 L. CEYSSENS, o.c., p.87-88. Particularly on the Jansenist question.

It is not surprising, then, that the above-mentioned intervention of Maculano - who was not unaware of Albizzi’s supremacy “in the matter of Father Mario” - led Msgr. Assessor to fear future interference by the Dominican cardinal in the affairs of the Pious Schools, and so, probably with the support of Cardinal F. Barberini[3737], he succeeded in getting the Pope to appoint a special Commission composed of members of the Holy Office more or less chosen by him. They were the following: Cardinal Julius Roma, president, in whose palace the meetings of the Commission were to be held; Cardinal Bernardino Spada; Cardinal John Baptist Pamfili, the later Innocent X, who is not known to have ever attended the meetings; Cardinal Lelio Falconieri, who - before receiving the cardinal’s hat - was a member of the Pontifical Commission that dealt with the problems of the “claimants”; Cardinal Marzio Ginetti, Prefect of the Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Religious, Vicar of Rome, a great protector and admirer of Father General and his Order. These five cardinals were joined by Msgr. Francis Paolucci, Secretary of the Sacred Congregation of the Council, who had been a member of the Pontifical Commission for the “claimants”[3738], and Msgr. Albizzi himself, who reserved for himself the post of Secretary of this Commission[3739] in order to be able to impose his opinion more easily.

3737 Berro hesitates to attribute the initiative between Albizzi and Cardinal Barberini (cf. BERRO II, p.58).

3738 Cf. G. SÁNTHA, Probatio ac institutio juniorum...: EphCal 6 (1966) 227.

3739 Up to our days the error has been maintained that the secretary of this Commission was Mgr. Paolucci. In 1717 there appeared among the papers of his private archive, inherited by his nephew Fabrizio Paolucci, a dossier of documents relative to this Commission, five of which appeared to be the official Minutes of sessions, written by him, which led to think that he had been the secretary. With this conviction Picanyol published them – incomplete - (cf. EGC IX, p.134, 177, 210-214) and Tosti republished them in their entirety, together with the other documents of the dossier, maintaining the opinion that they ware the official minutes (verbale) and that Paolucci had been the secretary (cf. PAOLUCCI, p.2, 6, 26, 30-38, 67). However, Picanyol, in the aforementioned volume of 1956, had already published some letters in which it was clearly stated that Albizzi was the secretary of the said Commission (cf. EGC IX, p.152-154) and so had Sántha in 1959 (cf. EphCal I [1959] 11) and in 1961. On this occasion he published the very interesting official minutes of the fifth session of February 3, 1646, together with other complementary documents, in which Albizzi signed as secretary and it was shown, therefore, that Paolucci’s minutes were not the official ones, but mere personal notes (cf. EphCal 1 [1961] 28-30). Other testimonies of Albizzi himself cf. in EC, p.68-69, n.3 and p.1088.

To underline the transcendent role that Albizzi played in this whole affair from beginning to end, it is not superfluous to recall that his biographers and contemporaries recognized his outstanding gifts as an “orator and speaker” (loquentissimo dicitore e oratore) and his ability to convince everyone and impose his opinion, so that “his irresistible eloquence seems to have been an important factor in his success, even in the Roman Congregations.”[3740] This is what we will see in this “deputation” or Commission of cardinals.

3740 L CEYSEENS, o.c., p.263. He quotes the testimony of several authors. And not without some irony he adds that “always speaking without listening, giving himself airs of knowing everything, even in theology and patrology, Albizzi overestimated himself terribly”.

This Commission had the task of investigating the situation of the Order of Pious Schools, especially after the reports of the Apostolic Visitator, and deciding on appropriate remedial measures. According to Berro, a Brief was promulgated in August 1643 establishing the Commission and appointing its members.[3741] Around the same time, Pietrasanta finished his visitation to the houses in Rome and believed he had sufficient knowledge of all the problems and the current situation of the Order, as he was later to admit.[3742] He wrote a long report “and presented it to the members of the Commission towards the end of September, preceded or accompanied by another oral report,[3743] which logically coincided with the written report.

3741 BERRO II, p.58. Sántha supposes that it was at the beginning of September, as Bartlik says (BARTLIK, Archivum 1 [1977] 26) (G. SÁNTHA, Card. M. Ginetti..., 1.c., p.105-106). The Brief is not known.

3742 In the circular letter of February 7, 1644 (EC, p.2097), of which we will speak.

3743 On September 26, 1643 Calasanz wrote to Berro: “The Visitator has already made the report to the Deputy Cardinals” (C.4134); and on the 28th of the same month Pietrasanta wrote to Apa: “by order of Our Lord I have given the report to the Sacred Congregation”. (EC, p.2084). And in the circular of February 7, 1644, he will say that he made the report orally, giving it also in writing (EC, p.2098).

The Visitator’s first report

The importance of this first report is not hidden from anyone; it does not reflect the actual state of the Order at the time, but the idea that Pietrasanta developed in view of the means and methods by which he was informed. Nonetheless, “his idea” was accepted by the members of the Commission as an objective diagnosis of reality and they placed it at the center of their discussions and decisions. Here is a summary of the very long document:

1. The institute of the Pious Schools is commendable and useful because

- with regard to religious life, it is of great perfection and very strict poverty and austerity;

- with regard to the service of the neighbor, the scholastic service, credible persons say that such a service was necessary in the Church;

- but it is doubtful whether the severity of their poverty and austerity is adequate with the fatigues of their ministry. (This caveat is very important because it lies at the heart of the institutional reform sought by Mario and his followers).

2. The Corporation - to which 500 religious belong, more than a hundred of whom are in Rome - has a head and many members who are perfectly sound; “ Father General and other religious are of great virtue and of no small goodness. But at the moment there is a palpable unrest in the whole body”, namely

- many want to prove the nullity of their profession in order to go into the world;

- a large number of lay brothers pretend to be clerics and then priests;

- these claim for themselves the primacy of their profession (And the Visitator goes on to explain the reasons, causes and remedies that have already been investigated and resolved in the Pontifical Commissions active since 1641).

3. Outside of these three groups of claimants, “there are many able and very good religious, and as for the good odor of honesty... I find in general that there is nothing detrimental to their religious state, and that they thereby preserve their good name and good character.” But

- among those who govern, we find ambition and that they oppress their subjects by being very indulgent with themselves; we find greed in dealing with money, suspicion of favoring their family, and reluctance to give an account;

- Among the subjects it is generally observed that irascible passion dominates reason and the words and attitudes of violence and revenge gain the upper hand.

4. Remedy: “to open the door and let out the foul and infected blood, that is, to give freedom to the discontented, to leave the good and voluntary, and to repair the Religion”. But

- it seems unacceptable to dismiss so many solemnly professed religious;

- it would be feasible if the opinion of “several and great theologians” is accepted that this Religion is not a true Order and that the solemn vows are therefore null and void;

- the reason is that the Brief of Gregory XV, by which he confirms the Order and approves the Constitutions, is suprepticious and obrepticious: Subrepticious because it is based on the falsehood that the Constitutions were made by the General and his religious, whereas he alone made them; Obrepticious because it admits what cannot be admitted, namely, that the General can dismiss from the Order and dispense the solemn vows;

- if the Brief is therefore null and void, the vows would be simple, as they were in the Pauline Congregation.

5. In a nutshell:

- “I must plead, as I humbly do, for the preservation of this Religion”..., “for it is not the custom of the Church to dissolve or destroy a religious congregation, unless it be totally corrupt, so that neither the head nor many sound members remain, as I verily affirm there are many with its head and Founder in this of the Pious Schools.”

- By eliminating the corrupt members, the first part of the program of the visitation is fulfilled: ut evellas et destruas;

- the second part, ut aedifices et plantes, is fulfilled:

- to announce a General Chapter in which all the points of the Constitutions are revised one by one, retaining those which are “useful for the purpose of their vocation and at the same time practicable and appropriate to the exercises and ministries they exercise.”

- That they then ask the Pope to confirm them;

- that they then ask the Pope for a Brief to correct any deficiencies “in order to restore and confirm them for the glory of God and the benefit of the Church”.[3744]
3744 EC, p.2084-2092.

Presenting the Relation in this way in its essential features, with their confirmations or global judgments on the present situation of the Order and their solutions to the problems, one could accept it as positive, adding also his further affirmations in their own defense that he “has asked with repeated written and oral petitions to the said Sacred Congregation [Commission of Cardinals] for the preservation and order of the Religion and for the reinstatement of Father General to his office, lifting any suspension imposed by the superior tribunals.”[3745] And there is no reason to doubt these words of the Visitator, which honor him. But it is necessary to relativize or emphasize the light and shade spots that confuse his Report, because it was, undoubtedly, he who formed the conscience in the Commission that the state of the Order was so deplorable that one could think about abolishing it altogether or reforming it fundamentally.

3745 EC, p.2097. Circular of Pietrasanta, February 7, 1644.

The first thing to deplore is the method of information that conditions everything mentioned in the Relation. Pietrasanta explains it in his “self-defense,” already mentioned, by saying that in Rome he listened to all who wished to speak to him and collected their written statements, which were signed by the senders; as he could not leave Rome, he wrote a circular letter inviting all to write to him what they thought was right; he appointed delegates to visit some more problematic houses, and drew up a survey of 34 points as a basis of information.[3746] The truth is that the strict control of the visitation exercised by Mario, and above all by the secretary of the Visitation and editor of the testimonies, Father Ridolfi, not only considerably reduced the number of “volunteers” who were willing to speak to the Visitator for fear of reprisals, but that the “volunteers” themselves were trained on the topics of interest with regard to the desired reform. And the same control, as everyone knows, also influenced the news that arrived from outside Rome, reducing its number and influencing its content.[3747]

3746 EC, p.2098. The circular alluded to, with the interrogation, in ibid., p.2078-2080.

3747 Cf. BERRO II, p.5l-53. Of all this he is accused in the two famous letters of Baldi (EC, p.205 -207) and Nikolsburg (EC, p. 1079- 1080). No answer to the questionnaire has been preserved.

As for Rome, it seems that of the more than one hundred religious who were there, only about twenty-five spoke to the Visitator.[3748] And with great certainty some claim that neither Father General nor the old or new Assistants, who were most involved in everything, were interviewed.[3749] Of the houses outside Rome visited by the emissaries, Pietrasanta mentions those of Genoa and its novitiate, Savona, Carcare, Cagliari, Cáller, Pisa and Chieti, the minutes of whose visits he also used in writing the report, as he says in his “self-defense” of early February 1644.[3750] A total of seven houses, out of the thirty that the Order had at the time, as can be seen from some memoranda.[3751] But of these seven houses, when he wrote the report in September 1643, he did not have the minutes of the houses in Cáller and Pisa, which were visited in October-December of the same year.[3752] And he had little access to the records of the other five houses.[3753] From all this it can be concluded that, in short, he had hardly any other rich source of information on the old and new problems of the Order, which the closed circle of Mario, Cherubini and Ridolfi, in addition to the few who let them pass, made him speak and shape according to their ideas.

3748 Cf. EGC IX, p.69.

3749 Cf. EC, p.1079. Pietrasanta states in his Relation that he spoke with the Founder about who wrote the Constitutions (EC, p.2091). The Founder wrote on August 29, 1643 that he had not yet been able to speak with the Visitator (C.4125). Perhaps Pietrasanta only wanted to know from him the origin of the Constitutions. A month later, the Report having been delivered, the Founder asks the Cardinals of the Commission to “deign to listen to the old and new Assistants and to the Provincials informed...” (EGC X, p.330), thus concluding that they had not been questioned.

3750 EC, p.2098.

3751 Cf. PAOLUCCI, p.94, 103.

3752 Cf. EC, p.1508, 1512.

3753 On September 11th he already had those of Savona, but perhaps not yet those of Genoa and Novitiate; those of Carcare had not yet been sent to him by Visitator Gavotti (cf. EC, p.1499). On September 12th the Provincial had not yet finished his visit of Chieti (cf. EC, p.2083). And on the 26th Calasanz already knew that Pietrasanta had delivered the Report (c.4134).

As for the content of the Report, it is to be regretted that its informants presented the three interrelated issues of the claimants as if they were current conflicts, with the virulence they had in previous years, evoking their history, their reasons and their causes, without making it clear that they had already been discussed and resolved in special pontifical Commissions. And if there were still some obstinate and impertinent ones, that was no reason to exaggerate, as if nothing had been accomplished by then: “These three principal disorders - he wrote - are those which now greatly disturb the Religion of Pious Schools.”[3754] And he devoted almost six of the eight pages of the now printed Report to outlining these problems and their solutions.

3754 Report 1st. (EC, p.2088).

These were problems and situations that had already been overcome. This was also recognized by those who raised their voices to protest against the Visitator for these misrepresentations and other abuses.[3755] They even accused him and the members of his administration of allowing people who were considered unworthy and incompetent in the previous administration to be ordained and promoted to the clergy.[3756] They dredged up the unheeded Clementine Decrees, the unheeded ceremonies and requirements of the Constitutions, the unheeded papal Briefs, those who went out per vim et metum, supported by false witnesses, the accusations of lack of selection and training in the novitiates, the excessive number of houses without prepared people; the doubts about the validity of profession, with the result that people believed they were exempt from the vows; it was generalized that obedience was servile, that poverty degenerated into possession, and that chastity was no more perfect than that of celibate Christians or those ordained in sacris, without any religious sense.

3755 Cf. Baldi (EC, p.208 and EGC IX, p.68). Pietrasanta said that those who wanted to prove the nullity of his profession were many “molti”, a great number of people “persone in numero grande” (EC, p.2086). Msgr. Paolucci, who was a member of the special Commission that dealt with this matter in 1639, clarifies: “Sunt satis in minori numero, ut alias ponderavi in voto meo 12 maii 1639” (they are in very small number) (PAOLUCCI, p.36), and that then, how much less now!

3756 EC, p. 1083-1085.

All this, without mitigating circumstances, without explanations, without justifying reasons, without clarifying what was resolved and what was still open, could only leave a very bad impression on the Commission - like a vulgar pamphlet - even if the visitator later, drawing a veil over everything said, added that, apart from the three classes of claimants, the others were “very capable and good religious” ... and in general - he said - “I see that there is nothing that affects their religious state, and they keep their good name and good character.”[3757] But the members of the Commission remained ignorant of the actual situation of the Order.

3757 EC, p.2088.

One of the most interesting aspects of the analysis of this report, considered as a possible cause or root of the unrest that has arisen, consists - he says - “in the quality of the institute itself, which, although holy in itself, does not seem to be discreet in practice, since it combines two things that are difficult to reconcile, namely the utmost austerity in food and the utmost fatigue, since its profession is extremely arduous.”[3758]

3758 EC, p.2086.

This transcendental idea was undoubtedly instilled in Father Pietrasanta by Mario and his followers.[3759] The core of the reform or reorientation[3760] that they intended, and which the Commission fully accepted to the end, will consist precisely in alleviating the hardship of life and extreme poverty in order to compensate for and be able to endure the hardship of the school service itself. And on this point, history has certainly proved Mario and Pietrasanta right, even if to a large part of their contemporary Piarists it appeared not as reform but as destruction. There is no doubt that Mario - by controlling those who were to speak to the Visitator - ensured that the latter understood the austerity of life in all its crudity as something hated by the majority. Here is a very realistic paragraph from the Relation:

3759 See the almost literal coincidence between Mario’s text and that of Pietrasanta: “... con tutto che l’Istituto sia stato et è santo e buono, ma non era ben guidato” (Mario to Berro, in letter of May 23, 1643: EC, p.2539); “nasce dalla qualità istessa dell’Istituto, il quale sebene per se stesso é santo, in pratica non pare sia discreto” (Relation 1ª.: EC, p.2086). (“…with all that the Institute has been and is holy and good, but it was not well guided”) (Mario to Berro, in letter of May 23, 1643: EC, p.2539); (“it arises from the very quality of the Institute, which although for itself is holy, in practice does not seem to be discreet”) (Relation 1ª.: EC, p.2086).

3760 Mario calls it “accomodamento”, “aggiustamento” (EC, p.2539, 2538).

“... in general, almost all feel an aversion to the nakedness of feet and legs; to the abstinence and fasting which they keep every week, one of them on bread and water; to the three weekly disciplines and the cilice on Friday; to the shirts of sackcloth and the straw mattresses, which must not be changed for five or six years; to the very light common food, which consists as a rule of leftovers and unpurchased goods, so that the mere mention of it makes one sick, etc. And all this, even those who wish to persevere in religion ask that it be mitigated and toned down.”[3761]

3761 EC, p.2086.

Father Visitator, in his report, anachronistically decentered the first image of the Order’s disorders or concerns when he spoke of the three types of claimants. Now he was no milder when he presented the second picture, distinguishing between superiors and subordinates. Nevertheless, he could hardly conceal the fact that ambition for power, greed for money and commanding authority characterized precisely the new superiors, from Mario to those about whom Mario himself complained to the General in the famous scene that Brother Lorenzo Ferrari told us.

As for the irascibility and violence of the subjects, it is quite clear that the main informant was Mario himself with his Slanderous Memorandum, because in the events of Florence, as in others, he is presented as an innocent victim, without mentioning his irascibility - which was refuted by Cardinal Barberini - and his other tricks. From other examples cited, we learn of Berro that he was a sick malenconico assai (very melancholic) and an ignorant of insufficient intellect, but was protected by the vicegerent, Mgr. Altieri, and by the ambassador of Savoia.[3762] The long allusion to the protesting attitude of the three new Assistants against Mario and Pietrasanta also needs no comment, except to deplore the Visitator’s lack of objectivity.

3762 BERRO II, p.59.

As for the proposed remedies, two things are to be regretted: firstly, the request to open the doors to let out all the undesirables, “the foul blood”, and even all those who do not feel well. And we will see that this will be one of the final solutions. The complaint refers to the fact that both the Founder and the General Chapters had insisted that the Father General be allowed to make use of the possibility given to him by the Constitutions to expel the undesirables, “at least once”, as they had asked the Pope and the Cardinal Protector as late as 1641, before the Apostolic Visitation was mentioned.[3763] But it was not granted.

3763 “... that at least for once they could have opened the door to those quoted and others like them” (EGC X, p.303); “it would seem to them very effective for once (pro una vice tantum) to be able to get rid of a few singularly restless and, in their opinion, incorrigible subjects” (ibid., p.306). We underline a few to insist on the idea that it was not a general restlessness, but a thing of a few restless ones, in 1641. And both the Visitation and the Commission did not take it too seriously, since they decided nothing about the particular.

The second complaint relates to the malicious doubt that the Pious Schools were a genuine and canonical Order with solemn vows. They tried to prove that the Brief of Gregory XV (January 31, 1622), in which the Constitutions were approved, was invalid, without even quoting the previous Brief (November 18, 1621), in which the Congregation had been elevated to the status of an Order. In this way, they facilitated the process of “reducing the Order to a Congregation”. But this was an injustice.

With this first report from Pietrasanta, the members of the Commission plunged into a confusing atmosphere of praise and denigration of the Order, of past and present problems, of unclear solutions and remedies, from which they could not escape until the end.

About the first meeting

In the thirty months that this Deputy Commission lasted, according to our historical tradition, it held only five sessions, but there were other preparatory or supplementary sessions.[3764] According to this tradition, the first meeting took place on October 1, 1643, but we know that Father Pietrasanta had already submitted his oral and written report to the Commission before that date.[3765] It is also recorded that a meeting was held on 27 September in which three very important questions were discussed, which seem to summarize the conclusions reached after reading and examining the Visitator’s report, either in private or in another meeting beforehand. These questions give us an idea of the immediate reaction that the Visitator’s report provoked in the Commission. They were as follows:

3764 The tradition is probably supported by Paolucci’s documents, which preserved “personal minutes” (believed to be official) of five sessions with a fixed date, although without numbering them.

3765 Cf. n.3743 of this chapter.

1. To clarify whether the confirmation or declaration of Gregory XV to the Order was valid and whether it persists to this day.

2. If it persists, it must be decided whether it is appropriate to revoke or maintain the Order.

3. If it is maintained, it must be decided whether it should be tempered and how it can be endowed with good government.[3766]
3766 Cf. PAOLUCCI, p.34. In the note it is said that in the margin of the document one reads: “Votum die 27 Sept. 1643...”, by the hand of Paolucci, according to the context.

In this meeting of September 27, everyone seems to have expressed or be willing to express their opinion on each of the points, like Paolucci, who kept his “vote” for us. And since this Monsignor shows himself in his notes not only as a defender of the Order and of Father General, but also as someone who convinces others and wins them over to his point of view, it is interesting to know what he thinks from the outset in order to correct somewhat the traditional image that has been formed of him.

He answers the first question by defending the validity of Gregory XV’s letter with legal texts. To the second question, that the Order should not be suppressed, he gives the following reasons: the approval and recognition of Popes Paul V, Gregory XV and Urban VIII; even the Visitator considers it useful for the poor; it is already recognized in Germany and Poland and its suppression could therefore provoke the opposition of the respective princes (as has happened); according to the Visitator, there are many capable and honest religious, especially Fr. General; suppression could cause scandal; provision can be made for bad government as well as other inconveniences, as he explained in the answer to the 3rd question.

The answer to the 3rd question is the most interesting and worthy of consideration. He considers that it is necessary to confine itself to the original task of teaching reading, writing and the first elements of grammar, as well as the fundamentals of the faith, while retaining the essential vows; new Constitutions must be drawn up that are more discreet and more suitable for the proper exercise of the Institute; those who wish may convert to other religions, but a free exit is not compatible either with the vows taken or with the letter of confirmation of Gregory XV. He also gives a solution for the three types of claimants (nullity of profession, aspiration to the clerical or priestly profession and rights of precedence); the inconveniences should be regulated in the newly adapted Constitutions; it is not surprising that there are inconveniences in this Order, as in all Orders, perhaps even greater ones.[3767] And curiously, he agrees with Father General when he asserts, “Father Mario, ‘because of whose person so many disputes have arisen,’ should be placed at the head of the Collegio Nazareno or in some other more honorable place.”[3768] Thus he recognized, perhaps along with other members of the Commission, that Mario was the cause of much current unrest, but that he should continue to be honored for his past service before the Holy Office. His removal, however, would contribute to good governance.

3767 In 1644, Frs. Bafici (former “new Assistant”) and Conti, disgusted by the atmosphere provoked by the Visitattion, went to the Capuchin Novitiate, but after a few months they both returned to the Pious Schools. Cherubini wrote to Berro on July 30, 1644, referring to Bafici’s return: “he has learned from experience that our disturbances are less than those of the others” (EC, p.906).

3768 PAOLUCCI, p.36. The entire document (7) in ibid., p.34-36.

The news that the Cardinal’s Commission had begun to look into the problems of the Pious Schools reached the Founder through authorized and confidential channels. Both he and his deposed Assistants must have been dismayed to learn that the specific issue was to be discussed immediately. And with a trembling hand, Father General wrote a letter to the Commission so excited and nervous that the haste and tension was reflected in his indecisive syntax:

“To Your Eminences and Most Reverend Lords. The General of the Pious Schools has learned from a Minister of the Sacred Congregation that the following two articles are to be discussed: firstly, whether this Order should be abolished, and second, whether it should be regulated [reformed]. To say something about the one and the other article. As to the first, he does not know that by the mercy of God there are such errors for which the Holy See, usually with infinite prudence, makes such resolutions as are read in the Bulls on the extinction of the Humiliated and others.[3769] He humbly beseeches your Eminences that, when you assemble, you would listen to the old and new Assistants and informed Provincials to realize the public reasons of this poor Religion, and find nothing relevant to exempt it from this concept, by which it is said, without guilt, that it deserves this punishment.

3769 The Humiliates (Ordo Fratrum Humiliatorum), recognized as an Order in 1201, were suppressed by Pius V with a Brief of February 7, 157 (cf. Bull. Rom. 7, p.885-888). And that same year in which Calasanz wrote, Urban VIII suppressed the Ordo SS. Barnabae et Ambrosii ad Nemus, with a Brief of December 2, 1643 (cf. Bull. Rom. 15, p.292-295). In both Briefs it is said in the introduction that they had been warned and tried to bring them back to observance by various means, but in vain: “nec monitionibus, nec observationibus aut correctionibus flecti potuisse, ut remedia salutaria reciperent”, we read in the last Brief (cf. Bull. Rom. 15, p. 292). However, the Pious Schools are threatened with extinction without these admonitions and the application of remedies.

Above all, that they are ready to prove the contrary with the testimony of princes and prelates and the places in which this Religion is found; also with that of His Holiness and of Gregory XV, Paul V and Clement VIII and the Sacred Congregation of the Regulars at the time of the establishment and approval of its Constitutions, which infinitely surpass the faith of anyone who attempts to discredit it.

As for the second article of the regulation [reform], he himself submits the twelve annexed propositions, which his Fathers have deemed very appropriate, and he asks for the convocation of a Chapter or a Diet to deliberate properly on every matter, in addition to what your Eminences seem to command them.

Nor is prevented what is said about the professions of all and the provision of the Brothers, for they are only promoted by those who wish to keep the Religion restless and agitated, and can be effectively resolved by the following proposals.”[3770]

3770 PAOLUCCI, doc. 35, p. 107-108.

And there follow the 12 propositions in confused and confusing Latin, perhaps written by one of the old assistants (Casani?), with which they undoubtedly could not agree even with their defenders, starting with Paolucci. In fact, they said nothing about the moderation of austerity and poverty, and although they spoke of changes to the Constitutions, they referred to marginal issues that no one spoke about and which, on the other hand, were the only ones they proposed as the subject of a future General Chapter.[3771]

3771 Of the 12 points, the first four proposed solutions to the question of the nullity of professions, aspirations to the clergy and priesthood and claims to precedence; the next three gave provisions for a better observance of the three common vows; the following three limited the exercise of confession for the benefit of the children and school work, maintained the scope of teaching up to and including grammar, and coordinated the hours of classes with the accompaniment of the children to their homes; and the last two dealt above all with the immediate convocation of the General Chapter and additions to the Constitutions, whose observance and daily reading they recommended, intentionally emphasizing that they had been approved by the Holy See and the Congregation of Regulars (PAOLUCCI, doc. 32, p.98-101 ).

The avalanche of documents was enormous: memoranda, reports, petitions, letters, juridical pleadings, official reports, etc., which reached the Commission in the 30 months of its existence. And we refer to the surviving writings, because we must not forget the quantity of documents that were burned around 1659 and which Berro so often recalls between outcries and lamentations.[3772] All these writings are generally anonymous and undated, so it is not easy to determine to which of the five “traditional” sessions they belong, and even historians do not always agree on the author and date of each one.

3772 He speaks of two boxes with many writings (BERRO II, p.50).

However, it seems that for the session of October 1, 1643 (“first”), a plea was also written, attributed to Father Cherubini, in which he unjustly complains about the old Assistants: “Now you see - he says - what they have reduced the poor Religion to.” Five-sixths of his memorandum are indeed devoted to outlining the problems of the claimants. But it is worth highlighting the last paragraph, for from the outset he hints with some horror at the fate he would not wish on the Order, but fatally it will occur under his own personal government. As the irony of history would have it, everyone, from his contemporaries to the present day, unanimously repeated the accusation he made against the old Assistants, referring to his government and that of Mario and Pietrasanta: “Now you see what they have brought the poor Religion to”. And this is the ominous paragraph:

“If it were thought a remedy to forbid the admission [of new novices] and to admit more houses, and to extinguish it [the Order] because it lacks them, it would be a constant dying and a terrible suffering for those who have a little spirit and ability; things have reached such a point that it is necessary to give it the means that are thought proper for its adaptation, or to extinguish it so that it does not harm the Church.”[3773]

3773 PAOLUCCI, doc. 9, p.47.

And it is not reckless to assume that Cherubini heard such thoughts of extermination from the beginning and trembled at the thought of putting them into practice.

It was the first of October, and the Deputy Commission met in the palace of Cardinal Julius Roma, who presided over the meeting. With the exception of Cardinal Pamfili, everyone was present: Cardinals Roma, Spada, Falconieri and Ginetti, Monsignors Paolucci and Albizzi and the Visitator Pietrasanta. Of the three points proposed at the meeting on September 27th, only the second was discussed: whether the Order should be extinguished or preserved. And opinions were divided: Rome and Spada voted for the absolute extinction of the Order, the others for its preservation. Albizzi, however, changed his vote and spoke out in favor of reducing the Order to “its first state” (a Pauline Congregation?), placing it under the Ordinaries and simply annulling the Briefs.[3774]

3774 Ib., p.36-37. With the “minutes” of Paolucci, we cannot further evaluate Albizzi’s opinion, and we do not know if this primum statum refers to the Pauline Congregation with simple vows, as he will say in the second session, or to the secular Congregation without vows, from the time of Clement VIII, as he will definitely say at the end. According to this, the annulment would refer to the Briefs of Gregory XV or even to those of Paul V.

Msgr. Paolucci wrote very proudly that those who opposed the annulment were motivated by the reasons he had given in his “vow” mentioned above, to which he now added: that the Order had committed no crimes; that there was nothing to complain of as to morals or the treatment of children, and that it could be provided for in other matters; that other Religions had been maintained which had worse subjects; that if it were abolished there would be opposition from princes, even foreigners, who loved these Fathers very much (which indeed happened); that the Humiliated had been suppressed because they had been preceded by precepts, regulations, orders and care, which had not been the case with us; that it would be detrimental to the public good, etc.

The advocates of extinction maintained that this Institute had had bad beginnings, and that if it were not extinct now, it would have to be extinct later with greater difficulty; that there were many inconsistencies, and that there was a want of regular discipline; that the religious were disobedient, low in morals, ambitious, and unwilling to obey every command; that their usefulness could be secured by the parish priests giving them the necessary instruction; that they were incapable of accepting remedies; that neither the General nor the superiors were good; that the erection and confirmation of the Order was void because of the invalidity of the Briefs that were obrepticious and subrepticious; that other Orders had been abolished and others would be abolished if possible; that the public good would not be harmed as they would continue to serve it better, perhaps reduced to a Congregation; that despair would hardly occur as many would desire to leave, etc.[3775] Undoubtedly, Pietrasanta Report had made a very deep impression.

3775 PAOLUCCI, doc. 7, p.36-37.

Everything indicates that the discussion on both sides was long and well thought out, and without agreeing on the essential and only point they had chosen - extinction or preservation - they concluded the meeting with the decision that the validity of the founding Briefs should be better investigated, in addition to the decrees of the Congregation of Regulars on the approval of the Order and its Constitutions.[3776] And that was all. And it was a lot and very serious.

3776 Ibid., p.37. One of the best arguments in favor of the preservation of the Order as it was, was due to the lawyer Francis Firmiani, whose services were apparently requested by Father General (ibid., doc. I, p.l9-23).

Father Cherubini, Superior General

The message that Pietrasanta sent to Naples shortly after the conclusion of the last session seems to have been very optimistic, because it raised well-founded hopes for the reintegration of Father General into the leadership of the Order, even assuming that Father Mario would not oppose it.[3777] The report that the Visitator gave Father General on the issues discussed in the Commission also seems to have been satisfactory, if the people in Naples were happy about it. The General, for his part, when alluding to the subject for the first time in a letter of October 10th to Berro, says very laconically: “You will do well if you continue to pray that the affairs of our Religion may have a good success, for the adversaries are many and great.”[3778]

3777 Cf. EC, p.414.

3778 C.4137.

It is not easy to guess who the Founder was referring to when he spoke of such adversaries. It is unlikely that Father Pietrasanta revealed to him the detail that Cardinals Spada and Roma had voted for the extinction of the Order, although it can be assumed that their attitude was not favorable, for it was common knowledge that both were opposed to religious Orders and to the education of the poor, who should be kept in their lower arts and crafts for the balance of society, with no vain aspirations to improve their position.[3779] However, when the Founder referred to them as “great” opponents, he could not do so when he spoke of “many”. Later he would insist on this idea again and refer explicitly to the Jesuits, so it is likely that he was already alluding to them, for there was no lack of corresponding voices from people outside the Order, from the first moment they learned that the Apostolic Visitator was a Jesuit.[3780]

3779 Cf. BAU, BC, p. 1046-1047. On April 21, 1652, the canon of Compostela, Francis A. Diez de Cabrera, wrote from Rome: “Cardinal Roma becomes the Dean... The friars are unhappy with him, because they fear that if he were pope, he would be too tight and would even take away some Religions” (cf. in M. DE LA PINTA LLORENTE. Aspectos historicos del sentimiento religioso en Espana. Ortodoxia y heterodoxia C.S.I.C. [Madrid 1961] p.37’).

3780 Cf. BERRO II, p.42.

In any case, neither Pietrasanta nor his predecessor Ubaldini took on the thankless office of Visitator voluntarily, as they themselves admitted.[3781] Like Ubaldini, Pietrasanta believed that his Visitation could be completed as soon as he had delivered the Report to the cardinals of the Commission, and so he asked Cardinal Barberini for the Pope’s permission.[3782] The difference between the two was that Ubaldini was dismissed and Pietrasanta was forced to continue. But throughout the Order, it was apparently felt that the presentation of the report and the subsequent meeting of the deputy Commission marked the end of the Visitation.[3783] The strange thing is that neither Pietrasanta nor any of those responsible at the time disputed this widespread opinion.

3781 Ibid., p.37 and EC, p.2102.

3782 Cf. EC, p.2102-2103 and 470.

3783 On July 18, 1643 Calasanz writes: “they say that within a month the Visitation will be finished” (C.4116); a month later (August 22, 1643) the Provincial of Naples writes to Pietrasanta: “as the Visitation has already finished” (EC, p. 1331); on September 1, 1643 Fr. J. Papa writes to Pietrasanta: “which [Visit] at present, having ended happily...” (EC, p. 1999); on September 21, 1643 Fr. Salazar Maldonado tells Pietrasanta: “believing that the Visitation had ended because Fr. John Francis... had written... that it had already ended” (EC, p.2272-2271 ); on December 18, 1643 it is written that Fr. Rapallo did not want to recognize the authority of Pietrasanta “for not having sent the Brief, and for the time of his visit having ended” (EC, p.1559); the same is said in February and March 1644 in two memorials from Naples (EC, p.1065, 1067). Pietrasanta also recognizes it in his Report to the 3rd session of July 18, 1645, saying: “having concluded the personal visit that I made in Rome to the Head and members of this Religion... I made a Report...” (EC, p.2117).

The disillusionment came in a different way. While Father Mario was struggling between life and death, wrapped in his shell of stinking scabs, his close collaborator and General Procurator, Father Cherubini, had taken over the reins for the time being, so much so that even outside Rome he was spoken of as his successor.[3784] Rumors had also spread in the community of San Pantaleo that the dying Mario had received a promise from Albizzi and Pietrasanta that Cherubini would indeed be his successor. To prevent this disgraceful appointment, Father Baldi and Brother Philip Loggi, who some time before had been appointed official representatives of the Order by Pietrasanta to present petitions for the good government of the Order, made use of their powers and wrote a memorandum to Cardinal Roma, pleading on behalf of the Order that the government should not be placed in the hands of Father Cherubini, as he had fallen into general disrepute, which they were prepared to prove legally, even Fr. General.[3785]

3784 Cf. BERRO II, p.71-72. From Savona one tells him that he has written to Fr. Mario “and since he is very ill,” he adds, “I think he will not be able to attend to me; but I have heard that you are his successor in matters...” (EC, p.1438). (EC, p.1438).

3785 This first memorandum has disappeared, but it must have been identical in content to many others that were sent in January and February of 1644, requesting the same thing. See an example, signed only by Baldi and Loggi, in EC, p.197.

The strange haste with which events unfolded does not rule out the possibility that this memorandum reached the President of the Commission, Cardinal Roma, before the death of Father Mario. In fact, he died on November 10th and was secretly buried the same night. On the morning of November 11th, Msgr. Albizzi informed the Commission of the news and proposed Cherubini as his successor, true to the promise he had made to the poor dying man. The Commission, which had read the memorandum of the two official deputies of the Order, paid no attention to the request, nor did it attempt to verify the accusations against the Monsignor’s candidate. It therefore gave Cherubini full power of governance, which he was to share with the Visitator and no one else, and expressly excluded any interference from Father General and the old Assistants. Finally, on the same 11th, Monsignor Assessor wrote and signed a letter to Father Pietrasanta, explaining all this and instructing him to communicate it to the Piarist communities in Rome and to the rest of the Order. This very important letter, which was unknown to historians until 1960, reads as follows:

“The Cardinals have been informed this morning by the Commission for the Religion of the Piarist Schools, appointed by H. H., of the death of Fr. Mario of St. Francis, who, together with Y. P. directed it and administered the Collegio Nazareno, and they have read in the said Commission the memorandum written in the name of the same Order and signed by Fr. Francis [Baldi] of the Annunciation and Philip [Loggi] of St. Francis, Their Eminences have elected for the direction of the said Order and administrator of Collegio Nazareno, together with Y. P. and independently of anyone other than Y. P. and the said Commission, Fr. Stephen [Cherubini] of the Angels, now General Procurator of the said Order, until further determination by Their Eminences. And the said Fr. Stephen, together with Y. P. and not otherwise, without the intervention of the General, whose authority is still suspended according to the will of His Holiness, nor of the old or new Assistants, has full authority to govern the said Order and to administer the said Collegio, with the desire that ... this order be sent to San Pantaleo, to the novitiate and to Collegio Nazareno and to the other houses outside Rome, and be included in the Minutes of the Religion, so that it may be observed by all ...”[3786]

3786 G. SÁNTHA, Tria Brevia Pontificia P. Stephano Cherubíni concessa...: EphCal 9-10 (1960) 311-312.

The letter has the appearance of a full-fledged Decree, without waiting for further official confirmation. However, the reader remains somewhat skeptical as to the veracity of the narrative, namely that an unexpected convocation and meeting of all members of the commission took place a few hours after Mario’s funeral at night and that Cherubini’s appointment was decreed without any further reports on the candidate - who, incidentally, was denounced in an official memorandum from the Order. Given the despotic approach of Assessor Albizzi and the legal tricks and ruses he used to get his way - as in the dismissal of Ubaldini, the appointment of Pietrasanta and the suspension of the three legitimate Assistants - it is likely that he only discussed the matter with the President of the Commission, Cardinal Roma, and persuaded him to approve the appointment of Cherubini with his far-reaching powers, which remained as the Commission’s decision. And it does not stop at suspicion, as Berro confirms that one of the cardinals of the Commission knew nothing about the matter.[3787]

3787 Cf. BERRO II, p.80.

Father Visitator received the letter from Albizzi and went to San Pantaleo the same day to read it out in public. There was no other official document. A simple letter, as at other times, a simple paper (biglieto). But when Father Pietrasanta left the chapel, the inner protest, disgust and indignation of those present emerged, who knew that Baldi and Loggi, as official delegates, had tried to avoid this embarrassment with the memorandum. Father Cherubini saw the impending danger in the faces of many and in the murmurs that arose in the background noise, and - Berro says - he rushed into Father General’s room, which was at the back of the oratory, and prostrated himself at his feet, begging for help and protection, fearing that he was being ill-treated. The old holy man came out of his room and accompanied Cherubini. “With fatherly words, he exhorted everyone to be patient and accept everything from the hands of God and to submit to the obedience of Father Stephen, who promised that he would never do anything against the will of the Father General, but would do everything with his consent.”[3788] He was forty-four years old at the time.

3788 Ib., p.73-74; III, p.112. Caputi also remembers the scene and both must have read it in the procedural statements of Fr. Fedele (cf. BAU, BC, p.1000).

Berro is not exaggerating with his words, for in the circular letter that Father Cherubini wrote to the entire Order on November 14th he said explicitly: “I assure you that I will endeavor to give you the greatest satisfaction, as I promised Father General, whom I will always respect and whose good and holy advice I will gladly listen to, nor will I deviate in the least from His Paternity.”[3789] Vain promises, due more to the circumstances of the moment than to sincerity, because deep in his soul he was determined to follow the line of reform proposed and promoted by Mario, Pietrasanta and Albizzi, as opposed to the extreme poverty and austerity, as we shall see in a few months’ time.

3789 EC, p.896.

On the same day, the 11th, that he had read Albizzi’s letter in San Pantaleon, Fr. Pietrasanta wrote another circular letter to the houses of the Order, announcing the death of Fr. Mario and the appointment of Fr. Cherubini as “Universal Superior of the whole Religion”,” “to whom Y. R. [the Rector] will show due obedience by ensuring that he is recognized as such by all your subjects.”[3790] And in agreement with himself, Fr. General continued to demand that all recognize and render obedience to Fr. Stephen, as in this letter to Berro: “I hereby inform you, as you will already know from others, that Fr. Stephen has been introduced into the government of the Order, as well as Fr. Mario; and as he is favored by Father Visitator, by Mgr. Albizzi, and also, it is said, by the Commission of Deputy Cardinals, it is not right to show the contrary of what the said Father and Visitator direct, as Your Reverence will inform our people in this House.”[3791]

3790 EC, p.2094.

3791 C.4142.

So, it seems beyond doubt that all this ambiguous trickery in the appointment of Cherubini was due to the tricky Msgr. Assessor, as well as the change of Visitators, the rejection of the new Assistants and so many other unjust maneuvers of abuse of power in favor of Mario and against the patient General and his Assistants. And there were more serious ones to come. Therefore, the judgment of Berro, who in this case blames Pietrasanta for Albizzi, does not seem fair and correct to us: “It was Father Visitator - he says - who planned all these things and asked the said Monsignor to keep the promise he had made to the late Father Mario to defend and elevate Father Stephen.”[3792] It is not Pietrasanta who makes use of Albizzi and Cherubini, but Albizzi who moves the characters from the beginning to the end of the drama.

3792 BERRO II, p.75.

Violent reaction against Cherubini

Perhaps Father Cherubini was not sincere when he said to the entire Order on announcing his appointment: “My greatest consolation is that it will only be for a short time.”[3793] Pietrasanta said the same to the community of San Pantaleo, hinting that by Christmas everything would be settled and Father General would resume his duties.[3794] It should not be forgotten that the general opinion, shared by Pietrasanta, was that the Visitation was practically over. But Christmas came and things went on as before. People became impatient, especially when word spread early in the year that Fr. Stephen was to be appointed General Vicar and that he was trying to reform the Order by lightening the burden of austerity and softening the concept of extreme poverty, again appearing as a faithful continuator of Mario and Pietrasanta’s reform ideas. Both rumors were confirmed by Father General in a letter to Berro on February 6, 1644:

3793 EC, p.896.

3794 BERRO II, p.72. According to others, he spoke of 15 days of government only (EC, p.1087-1088).

“As to the affairs of the Order, it is now being discussed among the Cardinals whether Father Stephen should become General Vicar, and the whole Order is against it, as you have learned from letters of others. And as for the relaxation of the Religion, it is said that Father Stephen with his secretary [Father Ridolfi] and the Visitator are of the opinion that it should be relaxed in some things, especially as regards poverty, but everything is being done to maintain it in its strictness.”[3795]

3795 C.4153.

For these reasons, a veritable storm of protests and memoranda to the cardinals of the Deputy Commission broke out throughout the Order in February 1644, a kind of plebiscite, especially as, in addition to the houses signing their own forms, there was also a form that was generalized and simply stated: “We, the undersigned Fathers and Brothers of the Pious Schools of...., endorse with respect to the person of Fr. Stephen of the Angels all that has been signed by our Father General, the Assistants and many other Fathers and Brothers of the Pious Schools in Rome. And believing in the truth, we have signed the present document with our own hand”. The above-mentioned memorandum, signed by thirty Roman religious and introduced by Father General, states:

“Most Reverend and Venerable Lords.

Since the Fathers of the Pious Schools of Rome know that your Eminences, in your goodness, are about to put an end to the affairs of their Religion as soon as possible and to give them a higher superior, they beg, because they love the tranquility and good government of the said Religion, that you will not permit Father Stephen of the Angels, presently General Procurator, who is now living in the city, to be elected or confirmed, or any other who may be proposed by him, unless reports of the life story (de vita et moribus) of him who is proposed be first taken, with the oath of him who proposes him; likewise they offer to swear in regard to the said Father that he is unworthy of such office. It is also requested that they give no credence to the reports which he or any of his addicts have given or are obliged to give concerning the Order, considering them to be contrary to the said Order, and holding a different opinion in regard to the regular observance and institute which they profess. All this will be accepted as a mercy and for the peace and general tranquility of the said Order, for all, if given time, will subscribe to the foregoing, as this sentiment is common to all good men.”[3796]

3796 EC, p.2495. Another memorandum similar in content was addressed to Mgr. Paolucci, recognizing that, because of his previous interventions, “after God, the persistence of the Order and of the Institute is due to you”. But instead of sending it to him directly, they asked the good friend, protector and founder of the School of Carcare, Mgr. Giovanni A. Castellani, to present it to him with particular recommendation. And he did so in a letter dated February 12, 1644 (cf. PAOLUCCI, doc. 30 and 31, pp. 96-97).

And indeed, Berro says that this memorandum, along with the other brief formula, was signed by more than 300 religious from the provinces closest to Rome.[3797] In fact, some twenty letters from the communities of Ancona, Carcare, Genoa, Fanano, Florence, Pisa, Narni, Pieve di cento, Moricone, Rome, Nursia, Frascati, Poli and Naples have been preserved - and edited - with some 325 signatures, some of which were repeated because the community wrote more than one letter.[3798] Some of the common forms refer to the alleged reform against which “ Father General, the Assistants and all the Fathers and Brothers, with the exception of a few, of the Pious Schools of Rome” had signed.[3799] Or it is said that “everything should be done with the advice and report of the most observants Fathers.”[3800] We must not forget this plebiscite, this general outcry of the entire Order, which demanded such just and holy things as the restoration of the Father General and Founder to his office, opposing the confirmation of Father Cherubini as head of the Order, “the dirtiest rag in the whole Institute”[3801], as Bau called him, and remaining faithful to the spirit of the Founder by rejecting the relaxation of poverty and other austerities that some were trying to impose from within and from outside.

3797 BERRO II, p.78. The same says the Memorandum of Nikolsburg against Pietrasanta (cf. EC, p.1088).

3798 Cf. EC, p.983-1107, 2490-2496. All these houses are named in an accompanying Memorandum of the same period, in which the signatures are said to be “circa duecento” (around 200), but we have counted 325 (cf. PAOLUCCI, doc.29, p.93-95).

3799 Cf. EC, p.1052-1054, 1062.

3800 EC, p.1044.

3801 Cf. BAU. RV, p.253.

Despite this whole avalanche of memoranda, there was no sign that they had made any impression on the Deputy Commission. And so new letters were written again and again, becoming ever more brazen, accusatory and ruthless, like the letter from the San Pantaleo community, probably written by Baldi. In it, they regretted not only that Cherubini had been appointed, but also that he had been given more powers than the Constitution allowed, and they again demanded to be heard, “because - they said - even those condemned by the judiciary are heard”. And they pointed the finger at Albizzi and Pietrasanta as suspects “because, without heeding the repeated requests, they proposed the said person.”[3802]

3802 EC, p.2492 and EGC IX, p.159-160. We are left in doubt whether all these memorials with hundreds of signatures reached the commission. Pietrasanta says on February 7, 1644: “From this Memorial, which has been sent to me so that I may report to the Commission and from others formed in other houses and provinces I find that they have been procured in an undue manner...” and then adds that “it should not be admitted” (EC, p.2101-2102 ) Commenting on this, those of Nikolsburg write to him on August 22, 1644, that this memorial was presented to Cardinal Roma, president, who sent it to Albizzi, secretary, to be read in the next session (March 10, 1644) (EC, p. 1088). But was it passed on to Albizzi and Pietrasanta and between the two of them they decided that they were not admissible?

Even more ruthless was another letter from Baldi to Cardinal Roma, in which he accused Msgr. Assessor of having shown Cherubini the memorandum that the community of San Pantaleon had presented against him before it was read out in the Commission, with the unpleasant consequence that he, as superior, “will now mortify and seek such and such a person for having signed against him.” And he ended with this very serious accusation against Albizzi: “From here we can see the partiality and protection of the said prelate, who shows the opposing party what we write about them, but does not show us what is against us. The more so, as we are sure of the donations which the same person (whom we accuse to their discredit of being unfit for government) has made to the said prelate for the maintenance of the office.”[3803] And this was no slander, for there is no shortage of testimonies accusing Cherubini of having squandered some four thousand escudi of funds of the Order during his time as Superior General[3804] and of having exploited the generosity of his relatives in order to secure the protection and support of the “Ministers of the Palace” for his own purposes.[3805] Even Msgr. Assessor is not free of ambition and greed. He is always ready to accept donations and fixed pensions to pay for favors and influence, as has been shown in many cases.[3806]

3803 EC, p.196.

3804 Cf BAU, BC, p.1004; EC, p.2507-2508; BERR0 II, p.179-181.

3805 Cf. EC, p.2I6.

3806 Berro tells that when Mario died, he “left some trunks and boxes with I don’t know what things inside them to Mons. Assessor” (BERRO II, p.66). But this is minutiae compared to what Ceyssens says: Albizzi received from the King of Spain an annual pension of three thousand escudos to defend the interests of his Crown at the Roman court, and then he accepted another one from the King of France, even though the interests of both kings were generally contrary. We have already said that he also received another annual pension from the Jesuits (cf. L. CEYSSENS, o.c., p.209, 215-216, 204).

Of course, Msgr. Assessor, as secretary of the Deputy Commission, must have read this whole flood of memoranda, just as Pietrasanta and Cherubini must have been aware of it. In February 1644, both the Visitator and Cherubini responded with angry letters in which they threatened individuals and the entire Order. To Father Berro, Cherubini wrote on February 6th: “Time will show us surprising things that will cause irreparable damage to the Order, which is so offended by these [former superiors?], who have nothing but ambition to rule in their eyes, that they do not care at all about the being or non-being of the Religion whose accommodation I had guided so well; but all is lost”.[3807] And on the same day, February 6th, he wrote to one of the Rectors of Naples, “[The memorandum] was signed by Your Reverence and the other simpletons, who do not know into what labyrinth they have entered with their signature. When we come to the evidence, we shall see and hear interesting things; for it is necessary for my honor that I should make them all appear either as credulous or as liars or forgers... And they will teach them what it is to subscribe and swear that such a man as I am is not a man worthy of government... I shall be very sorry if the Order pays the worst...”[3808] These bravura pieces define him as Superior more than any comment! On the 7th he wrote to Genoa: “I fear nothing for myself, for my conscience does not trouble me, but I fear a shock to the Order with irreparable damage... Your Reverence, do not stop praying, for I see everything in great danger.”[3809]

3807 EC, p.899.

3808 EC, p.900.

3809 EC, p.902. See also the following letter, 174.

The flood of memoranda asking the Commission to find out what everyone in the Order knew about Cherubini’s past life prompted him to ask Father General for an attestation at the end of February. And the poor old man, who had given so much evidence that he appreciated and favored Father Stephen, forgetting his distant deviations, had no choice but to write a very serious report on February 23, for the good of the Order and in solidarity with all his sons, detailing what had happened in Naples in 1630, namely that Father Cherubini during his time as rector of the school of the Duchesca of Naples was accused of nefarious dealings with some boys; he was removed from office and sent to Rome, where an office was set up for him to conceal his dismissal and avoid scandal; a secret trial was held in Naples, the minutes of which, when they arrived in Rome, accidentally ended up in the hands of the accused, who, through his influence, managed to get that Father General himself, to avoid the disgrace of his illustrious family, got him to annul the trial and ordered that the accused should not be molested in this respect in the future; on another occasion he had to declare that no legal action had been taken against him until then, so as not to dishonor his family; he never wanted to confer on him offices of jurisdiction, such as that of rector or provincial, although “important people” who knew nothing of his past had asked him to do so.[3810]

3810 Cf. EGC X, p.340. Full translation in BAU, BC, p.998-999. The back of the preserved copy reads: “Facta de mandato S. Congreg. particularis super rebus Religionis Sch. P.” The Commission, then, read the report.

History has not left the slightest indication of what effect the reading of this record had on the members of the Commission. What the reader is left with is the attitude of this Commission, confirming a man like Cherubini and keeping him in power despite knowing what he is, and against the majority will of the Order. Perhaps someone remembered Mario’s words and commented at the end of the reading: “This old man is going mad!”

Pietrasanta’s self-defense and threats of destruction

Father Cherubini’s complaints, protests and threats were joined by those of the Visitator, even in higher tones, who threatened excommunications and suspensions a divinis and issued orders by virtue of holy obedience. But the most solemn plea was a long circular letter sent to the entire Order on February 7th in defense of him and the reviled Father Stephen. Here is a summary of its lively contents: First, he deplored the sinister accusations that he had tried to destroy the Order from the beginning, although on the contrary he had repeatedly insisted, both verbally and in writing, that the Order be preserved as such, that its problems be solved and that Fr. General be reinstated in his functions. He then explained the method of Visitation and the sources of information available to him to write his final report to the Deputy Commission. With regard to his role in the government, he distinguished between the first period, in which the four assistants collaborated, and the second, in which three of them resigned. In the first case, all appointments were made nemine discrepante (unanimously), and in the second - he admits that “I was ordered to govern with the support of only one” - there was little to apologize for.

He asks in general terms in what way he has harmed the Religion, and names the three most serious points of which he is accused. The first is that he intends to destroy the Order. In his Relation, however, he pleads for the preservation of the Order, claiming that its head, Father General, “was an outstanding religious with holy intentions and praiseworthy morals, and that there were a large number of exemplary religious. He also exonerated the Society of Jesus from the accusation that it was trying to destroy the Pious Schools “because they teach the youth free of charge and are similar in vocation and institute”. And he recalled that he had refused to issue a visitation decree requested by Father General and an Assistant, which forbade the founding of houses where there were Jesuits or restricted their teachings to the area where those of the Society began.

The second point accused him of not wanting the reinstatement of Father General, to which he replied that this had been one of his first requests, for which he had written a memorandum and had it signed by the four new Assistants, asking Msgr. Albizzi to submit to the Commission. And then he asked the Cardinals again, since this was a common desire of the Order and of important and high-ranking persons.

The third point indicated that he was trying to obtain a Brief of appointment as General Vicar for Cherubini. This, he had never been thought of; rather, he asked the cardinals that in view of the old General’s advanced age, be allowed to elect him by himself. On the other hand, Father Stephen did not claim such a title either, for he had written a letter to the Visitator asking him to ask the cardinals to reinstate Father General and to appoint a commission of eight or ten chosen religious to decide on the solution of the Order’s current problems. This proposal was submitted to the Visitator before the memorandum against him was presented.

Finally, as for this Memorandum, it does not seem acceptable, since some say that they signed it without knowing its contents; others, out of respect for Father General who led the signatures; some that they added their names without consulting them; all damaging the good name of Father General, since he alone was enough to give value to the memorandum without requiring the signatures of the cooks and other officials of the last rank in the Religion. And this, among other reasons which render it inadmissible.

And he concluded by saying that he had foreseen all this from the beginning and had therefore reluctantly accepted the Visitator’s task, from which he wished to be relieved as soon as the Commission’s report had been submitted.[3811]

3811 EC, p.2O97-2103. Full translation in BAU, BC, p.1009-1029.

Too innocent to be credible! No doubt there is a lot of truth, but not all of it. And half-truths hide lies. Of course, he had insisted not only on highlighting the sanctity of Father General, but also on calling for his reinstatement to his post and the preservation of the Order as such. And he would continue to do so. But the rough picture he painted in his first Report was least likely to win the approval of Cardinals Roma and Spada, for Albizzi had already formed his own irrefutable personal opinion.

In his personal letters he was not so lenient, for all his pent-up indignation at the campaign of Memoranda against Cherubini, who had been accused and condemned in self-defence, vented itself in threats and insults. He informed the Provincial of Naples that “the damage they have done to the Order is very serious and seems to me irreparable” and ordered him “in holy obedience and under threat of immediate suspension” to send him the letters of those who had induced him to sign such memoranda.[3812] The letter to Germania, addressed to Fr. Alexander Novari, is harsher, as no signs of obedience to the new “Superior General” have yet been received from there. It reads as follows:

3812 EC, p.2104.

“I wanted to take my time in order to rule out any excuse that might be put to me by your obstination. But I have finally come to the conclusion that the wickedness of a perverted heart cannot be changed with time. I inform you that Father Stephen of the Angels was appointed Superior General of the Religion by His Holiness and did not receive due recognition or obedience from there, perhaps because someone from Rome told you lies. I hereby order Your Reverence and your entire community by virtue of holy obedience, under penalty of excommunication and suspension a divinis, to transmit by the first mail the recognition of Father Stephen of the Angels as your superior... Otherwise the means prescribed by law will be used against the recalcitrant... Rome, February 14, 1644.”[3813]

3813 EC, p.2105.

On March 23rd the letter reached its destination, and on the following day Father Novari replied to the indignant Visitator with a coldness bordering on irony, informing him, among other things, “As your paternal Reverend Father commands and orders us, and in the name of His Holiness, that we recognize Father Stephen of the Angels as our Superior and General of the whole Religion, for as such he will be recognized, respected, and humbly obeyed by us now and in futurum... And if in the past we did not recognize and respect said Father as our Superior General, it was not our fault, for no one warned us or drew our attention to it...”[3814] One can assume that there is more sophistry than sincerity in this reply, because it is hardly credible that in three months the news of Mario’s death and Cherubini’s appointment as his successor did not reach one of the houses of Germania. The letter from Pietrasanta took five weeks to arrive. Perhaps Novari is trying to say that until then no one had made it clear to them that Father Stephen was the rightful Superior General. And this attitude is indeed reflected in another letter from Pietrasanta, written to Nikolsburg on April 2, in which they complain that they had written to him and Father Stephen that they would obey him “if it turns out that he was legitimately elected.” For this reason, the Visitator is again outraged - and rightly so - and notes that “all the other provinces and their communities have recognized Father Stephen of the Angels as Superior” and only the province of Germania refuses to obey him. And he insists: “Not even the respected cardinals can approve of the fact that the supreme Courts of the Church enjoy so little prestige, in which the Vicar of Christ and his authority are despised”. That is why he insisted on demanding obedience.[3815] And he was absolutely right. But no one had given these distant “slow” subjects sufficient guarantees of the legitimacy of their new Superior General.

3814 EC, p.1912-1913.

3815 EC, p.2113-2114.

No doubt the tension was at its peak. We know the indignation of Cherubini and that of Pietrasanta in the face of the no less indignant general reaction of the Order against Cherubini’s continued existence as Superior General. Monsignor Albizzi had no less cause for indignation, not only because he was responsible for this appointment, but also because of the direct accusations of bribery and partiality. The president of the commission, Cardinal Roma, must also have been on tenterhooks as to whose hands the memoranda had ended up in.

In a later memorandum, which we will come to later, Father Baldi speaks three times of a “Brief of destruction” of the Order and accuses Father Pietrasanta and Msgr. Albizzi together. He says: “It has already been discovered that they received a Brief of annihilation, but through the intervention of a cardinal (whom we would like to know) before His Eminence Card. Barberini, who had been previously informed in a sinister manner by enemies of our Order, if it was not prevented, at least it was not made public.” And then he regrets “having whispered (Pietrasanta) together with the said prelate (Albizzi) so many things to the late Pope (Urban VIII), which could have angered him and incited him to destroy the Religion.”[3816] This happened - according to Baldi - after eight or nine months in office as Visitator, i.e. precisely in January or February 1644, when the storm of memoranda and accusations against Cherubini, Pietrasanta and Albizzi raged simultaneously.

3816 EC, p.202-203,211.

The ease with which Albizzi obtained Briefs, even if they were not promulgated, as well as the recourse to “personal biglietti” (personal notes) containing dispositions that he later confirmed or had to confirm with Briefs, even manipulating the date of promulgation, makes Baldi’s accusation entirely plausible, even if no one confirms it. And the atmosphere of general irritation we have observed makes the news even more likely.

About the second session

On March 10, 1644, the “second” session took place in Cardinal Roma’s palace, attended by the above-mentioned President and Cardinals Spada, Falconieri and Ginetti, as well as Msgrs. Paolucci and Albizzi and Father Pietrasanta, i.e. the same persons as at the “first” meeting, since Cardinal Pamfili was also absent, whose absence has not yet been justified by anyone.

According to Paolucci’s personal notes, the first question to be discussed was the one that had been raised in the previous session, namely the validity of Gregory XV’s Briefs on the foundation of the Order and the approval of the Constitutions. Paolucci solved the problem by concluding that there was neither an obreption nor a subreption and that the Briefs were therefore valid. Cardinals Ginetti and Falconieri agreed, but Spada, Roma and Albizzi remained in doubt.[3817]

3817 Cf. PAOLUCCI, doc. 4, p.30. Although anonymous, probably Paolucci’s “vote” is doc. 3 (p27-29), to which must be added the minutes of the Congr. de Religiosis in which the Constitutions were approved, also requested in the previous session (cf. doc.28, p.89-92).

It is likely that they were discussing the three problems that Pietrasanta called “the three main disorders” in his report to the first session, namely the claim that the professions were void, the aspirants for the clerical and priestly orders and the precedence. In fact, Paolucci’s incomplete notes speak of the first matter, which was dealt with by him and already considered resolved in the meeting of the Pontifical Commission of May 12, 1639, of which he was a member. There is no indication that the other two were mentioned. And although of the thirty-five documents that make up the Paolucci dossier, a dozen refer to these three issues[3818], all indications are that when they were dealt with, they took up little time and were of even less concern, being marginalized in relation to other, more serious problems, namely the suppression or reduction of the Order, its reform and the rehabilitation of Father General.

3818 Cf. PAOLUCCI, doc.9, 11-18, 25-27.

In the first session of October 1, 1643, Roma and Spada had voted for absolute extinction, all others for non-extinction, but Albizzi had already proposed to “reduce the Order to its first state”,” i.e. to the Pauline Congregation, by simply annulling the Briefs of Gregory XV that had elevated it to the Order. He added that it should be submitted to the Ordinaries. In this meeting of March 10, 1644, Spada, Roma and Albizzi voted for the reduction to a simple Congregation, as at the beginning, submitted to the Ordinaries; the already professed should keep their vows and the newly professed should take simple vows. And they added that the Constitutions should be reformed and that no new houses should be founded without the pope’s permission. It should be noted that Albizzi’s opinion is the prevailing one and will prevail to the end.

Falconieri, Ginetti and Paolucci are in favor of the continuance of the Order, but - since they are already yielding - “many things must be mitigated which seem to correspond to good government and the way of life.”[3819] Father Pietrasanta is in favor of the latter, saying that it would be more convenient to maintain the Order and “that there would be suitable people to lead it.”[3820] But as the Visitator was not entitled to vote, there was a tie in the Commission: three in favor of “downsizing and three in favor of keeping it as an Order”. To break the tie, another member had to be appointed. And that was the state of affairs.

3819 Ibid., p. 30.

3820 Ibid.

Given the mood at the time, not only among the Piarists, but also among Albizzi, Pietrasanta and even the other members of the Commission, it seems impossible that the Cherubini matter was not dealt with in all its serious aspects, i.e.: the general opposition to his superiorate; the demand to investigate his life; the testimony of Fr. General about his past in Naples; the appointment without a Brief; the accusations against the manner of the visitator and Msgr. Assesor. So if they were not dealt with, someone must have entrusted their resolution to the all-powerful Secretary Albizzi, or he himself - perhaps in collusion with the President Roma - undertook the task of silencing the uproar by making Cherubini Superior forcibly with an apostolic Brief. It would have been regrettable if the entire Commission or its president had felt such contempt for justice and had once again given free rein to the tricky monsignor, who had no qualms about issuing a premature Brief with an overdue date. It seems, however, that Albizzi arrogated to himself powers that he did not have, because - writes Baldi - “Their Eminences, the Cardinals, and among them the head of the Commission, His Eminence Roma, neither knew nor were aware of the said Brief.”[3821]

3821 EC, p.216.

In fact, the letter written and signed by Albizzi on November 11, 1643, the day after Mario’s death, in which he announced that the commission had appointed Cherubini as Mario’s successor, was personally addressed to Father Pietrasanta so that he could read it out in San Pantaleo, which he did. After reading it, he returned it to Albizzi or kept it until March 1644, when it again came into the hands of the author, who sent it to Monsignor Maraldi, the secretary of the letters, instructing him to issue a Brief reproducing the text of the letter but bearing the date of November 11 and not April.[3822] And indeed, Maraldi obeyed Albizzi and dated the letter November 11, 1643, disregarding professional honesty.[3823]

3822 The back of the letter reads: “Facta relatione Smus. annuit et mandavit expediri Breve sub data Aprili. Fr. Albitius” (G. SÁNTHA, Tria Brevia Pontificia P. Stephano Cherubini concessa...: EphCal 9-10 [1960] 272, n.26). The minutes of this Brief are not found in November 1643, but in the volume entitled Urbanus VIII, 1644, Aprilis (ibid., n.23).

3823 Cf. EGC IX, p.136-137.

But no one could be deceived, for the fraud was all too obvious. If Cherubini’s appointment and the powers that had been conferred on him on November 11th by a simple letter from Albizzi - without a decree from the Deputy Commission - were lawful, there was no reason to publish a Brief in April that feigned a November date, for it granted him exactly the same, without the slightest indication that it was a confirmation of what had already been granted. The publication of the Brief thus tacitly acknowledged that the previous appointment was clearly not valid. And therefore, the religious who did not want to recognize Father Cherubini as the legitimate Superior General were right to demand the presentation of the Brief or the Decree of appointment. For fear of possible reprisals, however, they waited for the right moment to denounce this outrage.[3824]

3824 The accusation will be done by Fr. Baldi and the Community of Nikolsburg (it seems), in very long circular letters with which they will respond to the long self-defense of Pietrasanta, as we will see later.

One of the accusations that Pietrasanta made against the Order in general was that the religious - many or some of them - were guilty of a “remarkable obstinacy in calling the said Father Stephen only General Procurator and not recognizing and appointing him as the current Superior of the said Religion, although there is a decree of the Sacred Congregation published by me – the visitator said - by word of mouth in San Pantaleo and then by a letter to the entire Order.”[3825] There was no Decree. Pietrasanta could only read Albizzi’s letter (biglieto), which explicitly stated that “Their Eminences have chosen Fr. Stephen to lead the said Religion...” “by choosing Fr. Stephen together with Y. P. and in no other way conferring full authority...”[3826] but they give him no other title than expressly that of “General Procurator”. What was he then? They had invented the title “First Assistant” for Mario, who never had any special power in the Order. Now they could no longer call him that because there were no Assistants and the figure of this superior did not appear at all in the Constitutions. After the Visitator’s unpleasant polemic, it could have been defined more precisely in the Brief. But the only idea that occurred to Albizzi and Maraldi was to call him “Governor” (sic)[3827], in addition to the paraphrases translated directly from Albizzi’s Italian letter. On the other hand, there are signs of haste and nervousness in the drafting of the letter.[3828] And yet it took several months before it was published, although it was already available in April. And why?[3829]

3825 EC, p.2102.

3826 Cf. G. SÁNTHA, o.c., p.263.

3827 “... praedictum Stephanum. una cum dicto Silvestro gubernatorem praedictae Congregationis...” (EGC IX, p. 137).

3828 The first time that the Visitator is named, he is simply called “dilecto filio Petra Sancta”, without prefixing his proper name, and then, forgetting this, he is called “praedicto Silvestro”.

3829 Baldi, in his letter of August 18, 1644, says that the Brief was presented by Pietrasanta “alcune settimane fa” (some weeks ago) to three or four confidants of his and notified to Father General (EC, p.216), who, dated August 20, 1644, writes that the Brief has not yet been notified nor published in Rome (c.4214).

Very little of what was discussed in the “second session” leaked out, because on March 19th, the Founder wrote to Berro that the cardinals “have decided nothing other than the obedience to Father Stephen will continue until they decide otherwise.”[3830] There was nothing about this in Paolucci’s “minutes”. But the Old Saint continued to give advice and constantly demanded full obedience to Father Cherubini from everyone, with formulas as perfect as these when he wrote to the recalcitrant communities of Pisa and Genoa:

3830 C.4162. Baldi says the same (cf. EC, p.212-213).

“I have never written to any one in that house of Pisa that they should not obey the orders of the late Father Mario, nor Father Stephen, the present Superior of the Religion; but rather I exhort them, as much as I know and can, to obey not only the orders of the said Father Stephen, but even his mere insinuations”. “Y. R., for my part, will especially admonish Fathers. ... and some others with the same opinion, not to contradict what is commanded them, especially if Father Stephen Superior should command or insinuate anything, as he, as Superior of the whole Religion, must be obeyed by all.” “It seems to me that in this case, where the order of our Religion is concerned, it could be very harmful to contradict the orders of the Apostolic Visitator and of Fr. Stephen of the Angels, the Superior of the Religion...”[3831]

3831 C.4165, 4167, 4170, and further cf. C.4169, 4171, 4173, 4174, 4180, 4188, 4190, 4198, 4212, etc.

It is easy to understand that the obedience of the saints - like all other virtues - must be heroic. But it is difficult to demand that an entire body, in which the vast majority cannot be heroes, be forced to submit to a superior whose personal unworthiness is publicly known and whose electors - Albizzi and Pietrasanta - show so many signs of partiality, malice and even bribery. And there was no possibility of appealing to any court other than the Pope.

A controversial document

Father Bau called it a “sinister document” and Father Talenti a “slanderous writing” consisting of “ten bloody paragraphs”.[3832] It is impossible to do without it, as it represents one of the worst and most merciless accusations written against the Order in those crucial years. To make matters worse, it is an anonymous and undated writing, unknown to ancient historians, as it appears for the first time in Paolucci’s dossier, in 1717.

3832 BAU, BC, p.1046-1058; TALENTI, o.c., p.398; EC, p.2106-2109; EGC IX, p.178-181.

The compiler of this dossier attributed it to Father Cherubini, relying on a paragraph that reads: “The religious affirm that all orders and decrees issued by me in the government are null and void without the consent of the new and old Assistants.”[3833] Father Talenti apostrophized this attribution in a marginal note and disputes it because the paragraph before the one quoted speaks of Father Cherubini in the third person, which then changes to the first (“given by me”), and he proposes Father Pietrasanta as the author, to whom the quoted paragraph also applies, since he governed with and without new Assistants.[3834] Even in his great Vita, he continued to attribute the “slanderous” claim to the Jesuit Visitator[3835], and all subsequent bibliographies have maintained this opinion to this day.[3836]

3833 PAOLUCCI, p.14.

3834 Ib.

3835 TALENTI, o.c., p.398.

3836 Picanyol added to Talenti’s marginal apostille his own: “Certainly by Fr. Pietrasanta; presented to the Particular Congregation in 1644, but not in the second session.” (EGC IX, p.76). And he adds a series of reasons that are not convincing. Also Vilá -following Bau- says that “it is clearly the work of Fr. Silvestre Pietrasanta (PosCas, p.1249), although later he remains doubtful (ibid., p. 1268). The last to accept the attribution is Tosti (cf. PAOLUCCI, p.39).

It seems indisputable that Cherubini could not have been the author, both for what Talenti says and for other reasons of inconsistency[3837], above all because it is unthinkable that he would say such things against the Order and against the Venerable Founder, however perfidious and malicious one may judge him to be. What seems highly questionable to us is Talenti’s opinion, which was later adopted by tradition. A sober reading of the despicable document, compared with other true writings of the Jesuit, leads us to the conclusion that Pietrasanta could not have been the author. Perhaps these few clues are enough to prove this:

3837 Speaking, for example, of the goods that the Nazareno had in Cesena, the author says that he “does not know” exactly what they were (EC, p.2107), which Cherubini, who was in Cesena for two and a half years administering these goods, could not say (EHI, p.631).

First, in his two official reports to the Commission for the first and third sessions - one before and the other after the “sinister document” - he not only proposes, but even pleads for maintaining the Pious Schools as religious Order and not reducing it to a Congregation.[3838] And he also defends this in the second session, in which, as is generally assumed, he presents the said document as an official report.[3839] However, the “sinister document” proposes the transformation into a Congregation without vows, like the Oratory of St. Philip Neri, subjected to the Ordinaries.

3838 “...I must ask you, as I humbly do, for the preservation of this Religion” (Relazione 1ª: EC, p.2092); “...it does not seem that there is any example in the Church that a Religion already approved and confirmed by the Apostolic See is reduced to a simple Congregation” (Relazione 3ª.: EC, p.2119).

3839 “P. Pietrasanta Jesuita retulit magis expedire continuationem in Religionis statu, in quo est (Minutes of the session: PAOLUCCI, p.30). He says the same in his self-defense (EC, p.2097).

Secondly, the author of the said document maliciously wonders: “As regards teaching, they have been limited by the Apostolic See to reading, writing, the abacus and the principles of grammar, nor can these Fathers show with what authority they also teach human letters, rhetoric and mathematics and philosophy.”[3840] However, in his Relation for the third session, Pietrasanta says unequivocally: “Gregory XV also gives it that they can teach rhetoric and matters of conscience... and whoever has claimed that these Fathers cannot do this and that they have no ability is mistaken.”[3841]

3840 EC, p.2107.

3841 EC, p.2116.

Finally, if in the “sinister document” ideas or sentences are taken almost word for word from earlier or later writings of Pietrasanta, this does not mean that he is the author, but only that in one case the document copies Pietrasanta and in another case Pietrasanta copies the document.[3842] Similarities do not force one to admit the identity of the author, but dependence; while the opposite concepts require different authors.

3842 For example: in the Sinister Doc. it is said that the Religions in their principles are more observant; the austerities of the Piarists are described; the danger of falling into heresies through ignorance is feared, etc. And the same is found in the 1st Relation of Pietrasanta, prior to the aforementioned document. On the other hand, disobedience to the Holy See is mentioned in the Doc. Sin. and in the subsequent circular of February 9, 1646, of Pietrasanta (cf. EGC IX, p.84-85).

By excluding Cherubini and Pietrasanta, all the clues, rather than suspicion, fall on Msgr. Albizzi. In fact, the second meeting on March 10, 1644, decided that, given the balance of opinion, the Pope should be approached to find a solution. And of course, the secretary of the commission, Albizzi, was to be responsible for the appeal and the corresponding report. Neither Urban VIII nor his nephew, Cardinal F. Barberini, were on the sidelines in this long conflict of the Pious Schools, in which the Monsignor Aassessor had intervened so passionately from the outset. It is therefore not surprising that Albizzi did not content himself with reporting on the outcome of the last meeting and the drawing of lots, but expressed his personal opinion on the matter, the content of which corresponds faithfully to the “sinister document”.

In his vehement “Manifesto to the whole Order” of August 18, 1644, Father Baldi accuses Albizzi of “the information done by himself and sent to His Holiness [...] by calling us all recalcitrant, disobedient and refractory to the Cardinal’s Commission.”[3843] And Pietrasanta, in his letter of February 9, 1646 to the community of San Pantaleo, recalls that “by order of the Palace, at the time of Urban [VIII] of happy memory, it was published in the Holy Commission ‘that your religion has grown in disobedience to the Apostolic See’, and the cases that had occurred were cited, which were quite numerous.”[3844] Both quotes agree word for word with the “sinister document”, as we will see below. And it is clear from both texts that Albizzi qualified the Piarists with these shameful titles before His Holiness Urban VIII and that a letter was sent to the Commission from the Palace, i.e. on behalf of the Pope or by Cardinal Barberini, containing the sentence quoted by Pietrasanta and ... the accompanying examples. So it is indeed the “sinister document”.

3843 EC, p.205.

3844 EGC lX, p.215. Note the omission of a line of this text in the same letter from EC, p.2121.

It should be added that in his personal minutes Paolucci sometimes explicitly alludes to Pietrasanta’s “reports” but never to Albizzi’s, while in the only official minutes we know - the last one - it is recorded that a “report” by Albizzi was read out and probably presented others inside or outside the meetings, since he was the secretary.[3845]

3845 In the session of July 17, 1645: “audita Relatione P. Pietrasanctae...” (PAOLUCCI, p.31); in the last one, of February 3, 1646: “et audito P. Pietrasancta” and nothing is said of Albizzi (ibid., p.68-69), while in the official Minutes: “Et in primis facta fuit relatio ab eodem Albitio...” (EphCal I [1961] 28). A letter from the Secretary of State, dated June 9, 1546, speaks in the plural of “relationi di Mons. Albizzi... nel negotio delle Scuole Pie” (reports of Monsignor Albizzi... in the issue of the Pious Schools) (EC, p.2097, n.2).

The document, as written, is addressed to the Cardinals of the Commission and could therefore be the result of a meeting between Albizzi and the Pope and his nephew, with all the slander that his personal report contained. Nor can it be ruled out that Cardinal Barberini and the Pope decided to “destroy” the Order on the basis of this terrible report, with the Brief we have already mentioned in the previous pages. In any case, it can be deduced from internal and external criteria that the document in question was written in the last months of Urban VIII’s life.[3846]

3846 Baldi’s references to the contents of the document necessarily place it before August 18, 1644, date of his letter. Pope Urban VIII died on July 29, 1644 (cf. EGC IX, p.82-84).

The entire document is a fierce indictment of the Order’s disobedience to the Holy See from the beginning of its existence to the present day, from which not even the Founder is spared. Particular emphasis is placed on the fact that this disobedience was and is directed against the Supreme Tribunals, thus giving the Assessor of the Supreme Tribunal of the Holy Office his personal seal of approval, which we have seen obsessed with the respect and esteem due to this Tribunal since the beginning of Mario’s unfortunate adventure in the Faustina affair.

Of the three-and-a-half printed pages, two serve to sketch in broad outline the first image of the disobediences of the Order, and in a page and a half he sketches - as improvised founder - the image of the new Congregation of Pious Schools, reduced to the image of the Oratory of St. Philip Neri. In both drafts, the collaboration of informants such as Cherubini and Ridolfi is noted, who contribute to blurred and defamatory historical data, as well as the more or less complete synthesis of the reform ideas propagated by Mario and his followers. The introductory paragraph corresponds to the thesis put forward in the document:

“By reducing the Fathers of Pious Schools to a Congregation similar to that of the Fathers of the Oratory founded by St. Philip Neri, it is possible to preserve the institute which consists in teaching free reading, writing [omits the abacus. or arithmetic], the principles of grammar together with the main principles of Christian doctrine and piety... and at the same time to remove the confusions and disorders from which this Religion has hitherto suffered.”[3847]

3847 EC, p.2106.

And it begins with the disorders. The reader would expect some agreement with the points made by the Visitator in his first Relation, namely the three famous points of the nullity of vows, the claim to the clergy, and the precedences. None of this. It all amounts to disobedience, beginning with these words:

“The first transgression - there is no mention of a second - is that he especially lacked due subordination and submission to the Apostolic See and its Supreme Tribunals, making use of the exemption of the Ordinaries. And on this point, I see that what His Eminence Card. Barberini has said, that this Religion has grown and spread, always in disobedience...”[3848]

3848 Ibid.

And he begins by invoking the prohibition in the founding Brief of Paul V not to go further than 20 miles from Rome, while they had reached not only other provinces of Italy, but even Germania and Poland.[3849] A second disobedience was the failure to stay within the boundaries of the elementary school and also to teach rhetoric, humanities, mathematics, etc. We have already heard how Pietrasanta defended this right of the Piarists, although there were Jesuits who disputed it, both in Italy and abroad. And the accuser continues to exacerbate and generalize the tone: there were Deputations, Apostolic Visitations, Chapters presided over by an Apostolic Authority; Briefs were issued and orders to this effect were given, but the Order took no notice of any of this and branded all these decrees as null and void. And he ends the attack with this side blow: “It is doubtful whether the resources that the Apostolic See will provide for their needs in the future will not always be useless.”[3850]

3849 The General and Frs. Casani and Castelli attested in separate writings that all these foundations had been made with the proper licenses from the Holy See (cf. n.2088 of chapter 16 and EC, p.615-616; EGC X, p.347).

3850 EC, p.2106-2107.

And he changes the subject by accusing everyone of being “recalcitrant to the Supreme Tribunals of the Holy See” for the past conflicts that occurred in Tuscany at the time of Mario, and for those that are occurring now, by not recognizing Cherubini as Superior; by denying him even the title and simply calling him General Procurator[3851], accusing him of being unworthy, even though Their Eminences have found him worthy. They also claim that the cardinals could not depose the new Assistants, who were elected by Brief, without another Brief deposing them, and conclude that the acts done without their consent are null and void.[3852]

3851 He only alludes to the appointment made by the cardinals and not to the Brief, obtained in April, as Albizzi well knew. Then the document is prior to this Brief.

3852 And here is the aforementioned clause “ordini e disposizioni da me fatte nel governo” (orders and provisions made by me in the government) (EC, p.2107), which forced some to admit that the speaker is Cherubini and others that it is Pietrasanta. It would be the most logical thing. But the reasons adduced against both are so strong that both hypotheses seem to us inadmissible. It could equally well refer to Albizzi, since in the Brief of appointment of Cherubini it is expressly said that he is chosen to govern “una cum praedicto Silvestro ac independenter ab omnibus et quibuscumque, praeterquam ab eodem Silvestro, ac dicta Congregatione a Nobis ut praefertur deputata” (EGC IX, p.136). And Albizzi was member of the said Congregation or Commission and the one who transmitted the orders to Pietrasanta and his government.

A final change of subject: “I must also say, -he writes-, that the same Father General, although he is an excellent religious and of good intention, does not know how to abstain during the suspension of his office, of exercising it, even in things forbidden by the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office...” and he gives an example to end the paragraph with the words, “This is the license and the habit of violating the orders of the Supreme Tribunals and of the Holy See!”[3853] The attack that was launched so ruthlessly against the Holy Founder was very serious and had its distant echo in the process of beatification, in which, along with many other calumnies that arose in those years, had its necessary and appropriate response.[3854]

3853 EC, p.2107.

3854 Cf. S. GINER, El Proceso de Beatificacion..., p.300. Dated August 6, 1644, the Saint wrote to Florence: “I am very sorry that Br. Angel... says that he does not depend on anyone else but me, and he does not say it well, since everyone at present depends on Fr. Visitator and Fr. Stephen... I would like Y. R. tell him this on my behalf, since up to now, after the suspension, I have not interfered in ordering anyone” (C.4212).

The consequence of this general disobedience was that, since who does not know to obey neither knows to command, the Order often got into serious trouble because it could not be governed. And the author dealt another heavy blow to the poor Founder of the Order: “Both the new Assistants and the old Assistants and the followers of Father General confirm that the Religion cannot be maintained with his government.”[3855] It is regrettable that the Assessor of the Holy Office - the true executioner and the one ultimately responsible for all these persecutions against the Holy Founder and his work - had his eyes so closed and his ears so deaf to the evidence, because in those very months there had been a veritable plebiscite within the Order, with memoranda demanding the reinstatement of Father General in his governmental functions.[3856]

3855 EC, p.2108.

3856 Probably, as a result of the criticisms of this document against the government of Fr. General, on March 16, 1644, the old Assistants Casani and Castelli, the only ones remaining of the four appointed by Gregory XV (April 28, 1622), signed a joint declaration, making themselves co-responsible for all the acts of government of the reviled Founder (cf. PosCas, p.1973). And a month later, on April 15, 1644, the same attestation was repeated, with the appropriate changes, by the said Assistants and Fr. General, confirming that they had always acted in common agreement (cf. EGC X, p.341-342). Castelli wrote two memorandums to the cardinals of the Deputy Commission with these eloquent titles: Giustificatione del Governo del Fondatore e Compagni (EC, p.655-658, 2825-2828); Difesa del Governo del Fondatore e Compagni delle Scuole Pie (EC, 659-662, 2821-2824).

Having completed the defamatory picture, he proposed a solution so drastic and far-fetched that it simultaneously proved to be another fierce attack on the Order and, in a sense, on religious life itself. The proposed reduction of the Order to a Congregation similar to the Oratory would be concretized with these measures: subjugation to the Ordinaries; abolition of the offices of General, Visitators, Provincials and Assistants, because - he says - “in these offices ambition, idleness and one’s own comfort are encouraged”; this would avoid many expenses due to extreme poverty, such as those for the post, visits and journeys to Chapters and the change of subjects; everyone would remain in his convent and thus avoid the abominable differences, as some would travel on horseback, in a carriage or in a sedan chair, while others would travel barefoot, on poor donkeys, on foot and begging; furthermore, violations of hospitality would be avoided by ill-receiving the members of other houses; there would be no need for so many lay brothers, since alms collections would be eliminated by charging fixed amounts for the proportionate maintenance of individuals in each house; all would work equally, wit no exeption for Superiors; there would be complete uniformity in dress, with no distinction between Superiors and inferiors; the rigors, austerities and penances, which are abhorred by the majority because they are incompatible with the burden of school and accompanying children home, could be reduced.

Finally, he wonders that perhaps someone might say that with these measures “one wants to destroy the Religion...” And the answer is that, despite the isolation of the houses, they would all be united in the form of the Institute, “which, as far as its essential and most important purpose is concerned, would remain in its full perfection, namely to teach Christian morality and the principles of the letters.”[3857]

3857 EC, p.2108-2109. Pietrasanta could not subscribe, as a religious that he was, to some of the above statements, but above all it is evident that he could not have been the author of the last paragraph, since in his later Report, dated July 18, 1645 he wrote: “To want to reduce this Religion that has solemn vows to a Congregation that has only simple vows and that is subject to the Ordinary, would be to want to destroy it (EC, p.2119).

In short, this was the opinion - and the will - of Msgr. Albizzi: the reduction of the Order to a congregation like the Oratory - and therefore without vows - subordinate to the Ordinaries, without general or provincial superiors, with independence between houses, with stable means for the maintenance of persons and work, with mitigation of austerities and the rigors of extreme poverty, and with teaching limited to the elementary school. This was already clear to the Monsignor in April 1644. Two years full of fears, promises, false hopes and long silences would pass. All in vain, because in the end Albizzi’s will would be enforced. And that would be, as he suspected, “the destruction of the Religion”

Time to remain silent and time to speak out

The more serious the problems are, the more they absorb the attention of history and disregard the simplicity of ordinary life. While this noisy storm rages and rages over the house of San Pantaleo, the schools go on in their rhythm and the children - poor and rich, noble and bourgeois - continue to spell in the kindergarten class, draw elegant strokes in Master Sarafellini’s calligraphy class or recite verses by Horace and Virgil in the high school as if nothing were happening around them. At noon and in the evening, the five rows of boys - about a thousand in number - leave the Pious Schools, accompanied by religious who distribute them to all parts of Rome.

The children and the schools were very close to the Saintly Pedagogue’s heart, despite the other very serious problems that preoccupied him. In a letter to the Provincial of Rome dated June 28, 1644, he expressed himself as follows:

“I come with this letter to exhort you to an act of perfection and good example for all at home and also for the laity outside. Every day you should go to the schools at least once and teach four or five pupils, whether in the writing or reading class or with the little ones, because in this way you will give the schools a good name and by your example encourage the other Fathers and Brothers to do the same. And I assure you that by doing this out of pure charity you will earn more merit before God than by praying, for there is a saying, which I no longer know which saint it is, but I believe it is from St. Augustine, which says: “qui orat bene facit, sed qui iuvat melius facit” [he who prays does well, but he who helps does better]. As old as I am, I often go to schools to help. May the Lord bless us all and let us recognize and fulfill this truth.”[3858]

3858 C.4204.

One month later, on July 29th, Pope Urban VIII died. When Father General broke the news, he expressed his conviction that the Order would not be destroyed and hoped that “the new pope, who will not be as uninformed as the previous one, would solve the whole problem.”[3859] But he was wrong. In an even more bitter and vindictive tone, Father Baldi wrote from Rome on August 7 to all the provincials:

3859 C4211, 4212, 4214, 4217, 4218.

“After the death of the Pope, under whose reign our Order... was close to destruction, and with the desire to publish how things have gone so far... we want to free ourselves from the yoke of this Visitation arranged by those who want nothing but the destruction and death of the Order. Therefore... we must pray unceasingly that the Most High will give us a pope who commiserates our worries and at the same time listens to our reasons.”[3860]

3860 EC, p.201.

The Vacant See gave him a good opportunity to expose things without fear of reprisal, but perhaps he was overconfident that those who had enjoyed and abused power to the detriment of the Order would lose it. And just as he had promised, he fulfilled it, writing a very long circular letter which he signed in Rome on August 18th and which began with these significant words: “There is a time to be silent and a time to speak”. Until then, people had not been afraid to speak against Cherubini, but they had been afraid to speak against the Apostolic Visitator and especially against Bishop Albizzi. In fact, the circular letter from Pietrasanta in his own defense had remained unanswered, and Baldi therefore believed that the right time had come to give it. What at first glance looks like a direct attack against the Visitator is, however, easy to see that it is also directed against Monsignor Assessor. No doubt Baldi was right to invoke what he called “the natural right of everyone to state his reasons and defend himself”.[3861] But he forgot that the truth of the poor is usually no more than a mere impertinence when it is directed against the arrogant. And Albizzi was arrogant.

3861 EC, p.214.

There was, by the way, another parallel reply to the same self-defensive circular of the Visitator, signed at Nikolsburg on August 22nd, but in an anonymous form, which the authors suppose, though addressed to Father Pietrasanta, reached “the hands of the Sacred College, Bishops, Princes, and the communities of Christendom”.[3862] It is much more moderate than Baldi’s, and, above all, contains no reference to the actions of Mgr. Assessor. For this reason, we prefer to give a summary of the first reply, which contains both, an answer to Pietrasanta and a sharp criticism of the Monsignor’s behavior.

3862 EC, p.1080.

First, he accuses the Visitator, following the scheme of his self-defense and making it clear that his guilt is due both to things he did badly and to things he should have prevented. Although he explicitly acknowledges that there are still good members and a holy head in the Order, he has allowed the Order to be dominated by “rotten” elements. He criticizes the alleged objectivity of the Visitation Reports, which are based on the statements of those who were influenced by Mario and Ridolfi, both those who spoke to the Visitator and those who wrote to him. He also reveals the favoritism in the choice of the Delegate of the Visitation, Father Gavotti, and his condemnable behavior. He regrets that the new Assistants were forced to tolerate Mario’s decisions because the Visitator threatened them with the claim that they were orders from Albizzi or from the Palace. And he rejects the naïve version that they resigned, when, indeed, they were sent out without a Brief. He complains that old issues that have already been resolved or old slanders are being raised as current problems. It is also regrettable that he did not see to it that the restrictions on the admission of novices and the founding of new houses were lifted and that the General was reinstated in his functions. It should be noted that he had initially promised that Cherubini’s government would only be provisional, only for about fifteen days, then it was extended until Christmas and February, and the fact is that it is still continuing. He complains about Cherubini’s “subreptitious” Brief of appointment and the fact that he has been given more powers than if he were actually General Vicar; he confirms his desire for power and defends the legality of the memoranda signed against him, complaining that little or no value was attached to them by Pietrasanta.[3863]

3863 This very important letter was included in its entirety -18 p.- by Berro in his Memoirs (cf. BERRO II, p.93-110), as well as the parallel of the community of Nikolsburg (ibid., p.111-123), lately edited again (cf. EC, p.202-219 and 1078-1089).

He accuses Monsignor Assessor of having “eerily informed” Cardinal Barberini; of having elected and retained “rotten members” in the leadership of the Order; of having assured that the General would not be reinstated as long as Urban VIII was alive; of denigrating transfer to the Holy Office and of having been an eyewitness - Father Baldi - to the search of Count Corona and the alleged “document of the Holy Office” that Mario was carrying. He criticizes his defense of Mario to the extreme (a spada tratta), the replacement of Ubaldini with a Brief and even his willingness to dismiss Pietrasanta with another Brief if he did not please Mario. He deplores his accusations before the Pope as rebellious, unruly, disobedient and recalcitrant, generally directed against all members of the Order. He proposes to question them all again, but to exclude Pietrasanta and Monsignor, “who are considered biased judges”. He recalls that it was he who proposed Father Cherubini as superior to the Commission because he had promised Mario it on his deathbed. He accuses him of having accepted the resignation of the three Assistants without informing the Pope and without replacing the first Brief of appointment with another one, interpreting the first Brief “in his own way”. Pietrasanta wrote that he received the order to govern with only one Assistant, and that the order came from Albizzi, who will say that he was instructed to do so by Cardinal Barberini (since the Commission did not yet exist), who will say that he was misinformed.

If Monsignor affirms that everything he did before the Commission was set up was done on the Pope’s instructions (vivae vocis oraculo), then the cardinals themselves know how many things were done under this pretext, “which then aggravated tempers against this soul with the most holy intentions [Urban VIII], and God knows if a word was said to him”. Pietrasanta, “together with the said prelate”, incited the pope to give the Brief of annihilation, which was not published. He was right who advised Pietrasanta against accepting the office of Visitator, for “either he should bring about the destruction of the Order for following ‘the will of a prelate’, or make an enemy if he acted in justice”. Father General was deposed from his government “because of a mere whim and a lousy report written by a prelate without prior trial or examination, or without allowing the defense granted even to one condemned to death.”

There were other allusions to Msgr. Assessor, but we end with this appeal, which applies to both, i.e. to the Visitator and the Assessor, not because of the attempt at a prophetic threat, but because of the recklessness of this unbridled and fiery steed that is Baldi: “God is judge, and although he had clearly shown his justice with an evil that seemed unforeseeable [in Mario].... it should suffice for religious people, who often read similar examples of memorable punishments against those who persecute the Founders of Religious Orders.”[3864] And this other vision of the future about the Order’s Founder and his domestic detractors: “One day the innocence of this Holy Father, whom God now allows to purify the gold of his patience in the crucible of mortification with the fire of contradictions, will speak and it will be so remarkable that it will be well seen what caste of bastards was in the Order.”[3865]

3864 EC, p.218-219.

3865 EC, p.214.

Struggles and attempts at reconciliation

On September 15th, Cardinal John Baptist Pamfili was elected pope and took the name Innocent X. He was one of the cardinals on the Deputy Commission, but did not attend any of its meetings. His election gave Father General new hope, as he wrote in his first letters:

“We hope as soon as possible for the elevation of our Institute, which has been in great danger in the past because of the laxity of some of us, since the late Pope and his nephew had many bad reports against our Order, which will not happen with the present one. Encourage all our religious who hope to acquire as soon as possible the right observance and the capability to give the habit and found new houses.”[3866]

3866 C.4224, cf. also C.4222 and 4223.

Cherubini was also concerned about how things were developing in the Order. At the end of July, he wrote to Father Alexander Novari, whom he had recently appointed Provincial Vicar of Germania, that “our things have already reached the desired end”,” but that the Pope’s death was paralyzing everything. “We hope to find in the successor an optimal correspondence for our common benefit.”[3867] In mid-October, he said: “Our things are progressing slowly because His Holiness is reluctant to do new things and our Order is considered incurable without some important innovations.”[3868] A month later he announced that he had sent out the licenses for ordination and profession and that he hoped soon to receive permission to clothe novices, and he asked the Emperor and the King of Poland for letters of recommendation in favor of the Order.[3869] This shows that Cherubini did not intend the ruin of the Order, but merely sought an appropriate reform that would alleviate the privations and poverty, as we have seen in the previous pages.

3867 EC, p.906 and 907.

3868 EC, p.907.

3869 EC, p.907-908.

Cherubini’s growing optimism was seriously disturbed by the new initiatives of Father General, who was determined to seize the opportunity of the change of pontificate with excessive confidence in winning the will of the new pope. However, the situation seemed to be worsening, as Cherubini told Novari in a letter dated November 26, 1644:

“Our things are again in danger. The reason for this is a memorial presented by those who, with the support of the ancients, make themselves procurators of the Order, in which they have maligned Msgr. Assessor, Father Visitator, the living and the dead; moreover, they have turned against the commission of Their Eminences, the Cardinals, with the reckless demand that our affairs be left to the judgment of a single prelate. I omit the false assumptions which they have put forward and which have enraged the whole Court.”[3870]

3870 EC, p.909.

Certainly, Baldi’s vehement circular could not have pleased “the Court”,” and even less Msgr. Albizzi and Pietrasanta. But the unwise attitude of a new intercessor made matters worse. The Deputy Commission had been decimated by the election of Cardinal Pamfili as pope and by the departure of Cardinal Lelio Falconieri to Bologna, from where he had been appointed papal legate.[3871] Father General took advantage of these circumstances and turned to Abbé John Dominic Orsi, the Resident or Orator of the King of Poland in Rome, who was a great friend and protector of Pious Schools, as was the king himself, Ladislaus IV. And here is what the abbot wrote to the king on November 9, 1644, what the Founder asked for and what the abbot presented to the pope in an audience:

3871 EC, p.907.

“In the name of Your Majesty, I have warmly commended to you the Order of Pious Schools, which is such a good example and such a great asset to Poland,[3872] and have humbly requested Your Holiness to protect and promote it, and I have especially asked you to recommend the matter of this Religion to Cardinal. Ginetti, His Holiness’s Vicar, and Mons. Cecchini, the Auditor of Rota and Datario of His Holiness, as Father General had requested. He informed me that a special commission had already been appointed for this purpose. I replied, as Father General had suggested to me, that the said commission was meeting from evening to evening, so that the solution of the matter would take too long, and if it did not seem good to His Holiness to refer the matter to the said Card. Ginetti and Mons. Datario, he would at least deign to entrust it to the ordinary Congregation of Religious, which often meets. His Holiness said it was more difficult to inform the cardinals of the Congregation for Religious because there were so many of them than those of the Special Commission. So, I left the memorandum that Father General had given me and later learned that it had been forwarded to Monsignor Assessor of the Holy Office, who, according to what the Fathers say, is very much against them.”[3873]

3872 In June 1642, after the defeat of the imperials of Schweidnitz -in the Thirty Years’ War- the Swedes entered Moravia in blood and fire and some Piarists fled to Vienna with the intention of returning to Italy. But the nuncio Gaspar Mattei welcomed them, convincing Fr. Provincial, Onofrio Conti, that they should go to Warsaw, because for years the king of Poland had been asking for a foundation of Pious Schools. Conti, with five other religious, arrived in Warsaw, where they were received with great satisfaction by the Polish court. Before the end of the year 1642 the first house was founded in the capital of the kingdom and the following year the second for novitiate, in Podoliniec. In spite of the fact that the foundations were so recent, the king and the Polish court providentially became the greatest defenders of the Order and of the Founder in these fateful years of contradictions that were just beginning (cf. DENES I, Poland, Warsaw, Podoliniec).

3873 EC, p.2949-2950.

Albizzi immediately informed Cherubini and Pietrasanta of these maneuvers by Father General. They asked the Pope to maintain the same Commission so that they would not be forced to start all over again now that they were happily nearing the end.[3874] For his part, Father General received the intercession not only of the Polish court, but also of the Spanish ambassador and the Florentine court. In one of Gondi’s letters from Rome to Prince Leopold of Medici, we read these interesting paragraphs: “This other Father Francis [Baldi] is a very restless man and is so much at odds with Father Cherubini and the Assessor that they will never understand each other and the Religion will bear the consequences... When he came to talk to me today, I was a little angry with him and told him that it would be better if they could come to an agreement, because in the end they will bring the Order to its death.”[3875]

3874 EC, p.2096.

3875 EGC IX, p.139 (Imperfect version in EC, p.2951).

Not without bitterness, the Founder realized that the diplomatic recommendations of Spain, Florence and Poland were worthless, since all the memoranda submitted in this and other ways ended up in the hands of Mgr Albizzi, so that in the end things remained as they were, entrusted to the same commission, which was completed by filling the vacant posts of Pamfili and Falconieri with the new cardinals Alfonso de la Cueva and Hieronymus Colonna, although the latter never intervened in the meetings.[3876]

3876 Cf. C.4236, 4237, 4247, 4248, 4249.

In January 1645, there was another diplomatic attempt that was even more dangerous and reckless than the previous ones. It was undertaken by Abbé Orsi, who had asked the King of Poland to write personally to the Pope in favor of Father General and the Order. The king complied with the request and demanded nothing less than that the pope exclude Msgr. Albizzi from the commission, “of whose slight inclination towards them [the Piarists] and towards my affairs - said the king - I undoubtedly have signs.”[3877] The abbé had a papal audience and handed over the King’s letter, to whom he communicated on January 21, 1645 the oppressive dialog with Innocent X, who had been closely informed and influenced by the scheming Monsignor Assessor. Here is what Orsi wrote to the King:

3877 EC, p.3034. The proposed date must be erroneous (cf. EGC IX, p.152).

“After presenting His Holiness with the letter in Your Majesty’s handwriting, I informed him that Your Majesty warmly recommends the Fathers of the Pious Schools to His Holiness, as they are a very good example and are useful in Poland, and I asked him to remove Msgr. Assessor of the Holy Office from the Commission dealing with the cause of the said Fathers, because he dislikes and distrusts them, and to reinstate Father General in his office and give him a companion of the Fathers to help him to guide the Religion well when he can no longer carry so much weight alone on account of his advanced age. His Holiness said that he was very glad that the Piarists in Poland were a good and useful example, and that he would consider your Majesty’s recommendations in favor of the said Fathers, but that he knew the Italians very well and was very well informed of their actions and knew how they behaved; that Monsignor has no aversion but to their evil deeds and that they had no reason to complain about Monsignor Asesor; that he will not do them any harm, but that it is a bad and not very good Order. To this I replied that what was wrong could be corrected and turned into something good, but I did not go further, fearing that His Holiness would make some declaration against the said Fathers, who I thought made a very bad impression on him; but I thought that I would find help in this matter from the Cardinals of the Commission, who are the judges, since the said Msgr. is only the Secretary of the Commission”.[3878]

3878 EC, p.2951.

In this last assessment, the abbé was greatly mistaken, as he discovered when he discussed the whole matter a few days later with Albizzi, who informed him - as someone who had already decided personally - “that the Religion would not be suppressed, and he told me - Orsi wrote to the King on January 18, 1645 - that I could write it to Your Majesty in his name. It is true that he has hinted to me that he might be reduced to a simple Congregation, as was formerly the case, but as for reinstating Father General in his office, even with an assistant, that is not possible, as he is a frail old man and too stubborn; now his Order is very well governed by one of his Fathers, to whom they have entrusted the care of it.”[3879]

3879 EC, p.2953. In letter of March 4, 1645, he confirms the same ideas (cf. EC, p.1956).

Parallel to these diplomatic struggles, attempts were made to reach an agreement between the Founder and Cherubini, or more generally, between the conservative current, which remained faithful to the Founder’s mentality of extreme poverty, austerity and primitive rigor, and the innovative, reformist and moderating current proposed by Mario, Cherubini and Albizzi, and even by the members of the Deputy Commission. As early as November 5, 1644, Father General said to Berro: “Our affairs would already be settled if I wanted to accept the conditions proposed by Mr. D. Lucio on behalf of Father Stephen, such as the drafting of new Constitutions and Rules, which is not up to him or others, but to the Pope or his delegate.”[3880] A month later, he explained further aspects of the planned reform to Berro: “I have never agreed and will do everything I can to ensure that the Institute is not reduced to reading, writing and the abacus, nor to a congregation with simple vows.”[3881]

3880 C.4233.

3881 C.4243. Dated December 10, 1644.

Perhaps the holy Founder harbored some confidence that something positive could be achieved if he were to speak to the Pope in person. He had been thinking about it since his election on September 15, but it was not easy to get an audience. He finally got it on December 28, and it must not have been very satisfactory, considering the economy with which he talks about it in his letters to Berro: the first time, on December 31, he only informs him that he spoke to the Pope in person “who has entrusted the settlement of the order to five cardinals”; the second time, on January 14, he briefly repeats the same thought, introduced with this phrase: “I had a very pleasant audience with Our Lord”; the third time, on February 18, he is much more explicit, saying:

“I have spoken to H. H. with all comfort, like everyone else, and I hope for good success for our things, although there is no lack of very powerful persons before H. H. who would like to spoil the Order with one of these three points: 1. that only reading, writing and abacus may be taught in the Order; 2. that we dress like regular clerics and draw income; 3. that from now on no solemn vows will be taken, but that it will be a Congregation with simple vows.”[3882]

3882 C.4247, 4250, 4253 and 4261.

Although he apparently does not say so, one gets the impression that the Pope spoke to him about these and perhaps other conditions, which had been the subject of conciliation attempts between him and Cherubini for months. He must also have sensed that diplomatic influences were having little success, for in this interval he professed his distrust of human resources and his full confidence that God would not allow his work to be destroyed. See this bouquet of sentences:

“I hope that the Lord will not allow a work so exemplary and accepted throughout Europe to be hindered by evil tongues, and I hope that portae inferi non praevalebunt adversus religionem nostram”; “we must hope more for divine help than for human favor... si Deus erit nobiscum, quis contra nos? “; the Lord “will not allow the Institute to be destroyed as the infernal enemy intends”; “our cause is first in the hands of God and then in the hands of these excellent cardinals”; “although it would be better to leave our cause to His divine majesty, since it is God’s cause, we will not fail to seek human help so that we lack nothing from our part.”[3883]

3883 C.4248, 4249, 4251, 4252, 4252*.

In addition to the fears and hopes, the misgivings and mistrust, the proposals and counter-proposals, there was also the desperate anticipation of the next meeting of the Commission, which was scheduled for January, then during Lent, on Saturday in Albis, in a few days’ time... but the months passed without a meeting.[3884]

3884 Cf. C.4248-4254, 4201, 4265.

On the way to the third meeting

On Holy Saturday, April 15, 1645, Father General wrote to Father Berro about the next meeting of the Commission of Cardinals: “Some say that it will take place the week after the Octave of Easter, and they claim that it will be decided that from now on no more solemn vows will be taken, but simple vows, and that poverty [summa] must be abandoned and income [fixed] admitted. I have had the lawyers give an answer to all this, and we will also have recourse to the necessary recommendations.”[3885] In fact, in addition to the aforementioned interventions by the Courts of Poland and Florence and the Spanish embassy, appointed lawyers were also involved, such as the Roman Francis Firmiani and the Flemish Theodor Ameyden, whose valuable pleadings have been preserved, as well as two other anonymous, very well-structured and persuasive writings.[3886]

3885 C.4261.

3886 Cf. PAOLUCCI, doc. 1,29 and 33; BARTLIK, Archivum 3 (1978) 16-18.

No less interesting are the memoranda addressed to the cardinals who intervened at the meetings of the Commission: Roma, Spada, Ginetti and Cueva. There is a single text for the latter three, a similar but more detailed one for Roma and two versions or variants of another protocol for Ginetti.[3887] From Cardinal Colonna we have his reply to the recommendations addressed to him by the Prince of Nikolsburg, Maximilian Dietrichstein.[3888] We also have copies of memoranda sent to Cardinal Horatius Giustiniani Ludovisi, the nephew of Gregory XV, and to two other anonymous cardinals.[3889] It is very likely that Father Casani, due to his elegant calligraphy, was involved not only in the reproduction of these memoranda, but also in their drafting, as well as in other similar memoranda addressed to the entire commission or to a specific dignitary.[3890] Similarly, Father Castelli must have written his long Apologia of the Pious Schools for the Commission in the months before the third session.[3891]

3887 Cf. EC, p.614-615, 603-607; EGC X, p.343-345.

3888 EC, p.980. Dated January 14, 1645, letters of recommendation from the secretary of the King of Poland are promised to Cardinal Cueva and nepote Camillo Pamfili (EEC, p.1062).

3889 EC, p.619-623.

3890 EC, p.607-610, 615-618.

3891 EC, p.2829-2836.

Recourse was also made to the Congregation of Propaganda Fide, to which Cardinals Roma and Ginetti belonged and whose secretary, Bishop Francis Ingoli, was a close friend of Father General. The interest of this Congregation in the pastoral work of the Piarists in the conversion of heretics in Germany was the reason why they were approached to intercede with the Deputy Commission. From 1640, the Congregation of Propaganda Fide demanded an annual report on the conversions achieved by the Piarists. When Father Alexander Novari, Provincial Vicar, presented this report on 198 conversions in May 1644, Prince Maximilian Dietrichstein also wrote to Cardinal Roma and recommended the affairs of the Pious Schools. Again, in January 1645, Father Novari sent a lively apologia to the same Congregation, asking for protection and above all for the Pope’s permission to admit novices. All this was discussed at the meeting of July 3, 1645, and copies of all the letters received up to that point were given to Cardinal Ginetti, who provided them with recommendations in favor of the Order for the next meeting of the Deputy Commission on July 17. And something must have influenced the favorable outcome of this meeting.[3892]

3892 Cf. G. SÁNTHA, Sacra Congr. de Propaganda Fide et Scholae Piae in quinquenio 1644-1648: Eph.Cal 4 (1960 112-114; EC, p.1375-1376, 1913-1915.

Under these circumstances, it was a very serious matter that the Order was deprived of a Cardinal Protector when it needed him most. It was unfortunate that Cardinal Cesarini was completely deprived of his functions as Protector of the Order by the decree of August 14, 1642 - as a result of the search of Father Mario’s room - until his death on January 15, 1644. A year later, in a conversation with Cardinal John Baptist Pallotta, Abbé Orsi suggested the possibility of taking over the protection of the Pious Schools. The cardinal was willing to do so, as he considered the Founder to be a “great servant of God” and the Order to be “extremely useful for Christianity and the Church of God”. The abbé wrote to the King of Poland to propose Pallotta for this office, which he did on March 11, 1645.[3893] But the Pope paid him no heed.

3893 Cf. EC. p.2953 and EEC, p.1070. n.2.

In October of the same year, Father General made another request to the Pope for a protector in the person of Cardinal Horatius Giustiniani, to which Innocent X replied with a polite “it will be considered”.[3894] And that was that. in 1646 there was another attempt to obtain the appointment of Cardinal Giustiniani as Protector, but nothing was achieved.[3895] And the Holy Founder died without getting a Cardinal Protector.

3894 C. 4303 y 4315.

3895 Cf. EC, p.1229-1230; EHI, P.322 and 772.

Finally, there was another person whose intervention was willed by Providence: Bernardino Panicola, friend and collaborator of Calasanz since 1616, jurist at the Roman Curia until 1642, when he was appointed Bishop of Ravello in the Kingdom of Naples.[3896] There is talk of him coming to Rome on personal business in early 1645,[3897] but he did not travel until May. He took on the task of mediating between Father General and Father Cherubini and trying to reconcile the two opposing tendencies with regard to the reform of the Order and the reinstatement of Father General in his functions. And indeed, on May 12, he wrote to Berro, who resided in Naples, that he had already obtained the reinstatement of Father General with his Assistants, adding two more, which later would then be four, making a total of eight, all with a decisive vote that did not entirely convince the Founder. This would take until September, when the General Chapter would be held and other issues resolved.[3898] But after a month, the matter was still not decided because, as Panicola said to Berro, “Fr. Stephen is slipping away from us like an eel and we have to be patient.”[3899] Finally, it was mid-July and Msgr. Panicola announced the next meeting of the Commission without relying too much on success. On July 15, he wrote: “The Congregation of Cardinals will meet soon, certainly next week. I have done what I could to reach an agreement. Nothing of what is said is been fulfilled.”[3900] And indeed, the meeting will not be easy, and the battle will continue on both sides.

3896 Cf. EHI, p.1575, n.1.

3897 C.4250.

3898 Cf. EC, p.1991 and c.4270. The requirement of eight or ten Assistants with a decisive vote was already proposed by Pietrasanta in his self-defense of February 7, 1644, as proper to Cherubini and linked to the reintegration of Father General (cf. EC, p.2101). However, Cherubini and Pietrasanta ruled without Assistants, and Mario with Pietrasanta succeeded in eliminating the three, appointed by pontifical Brief.

3899 EC, p.1992.

3900 EC, p.1993.

In the numerous memoranda received by the members of the Commission, the most frequently repeated demands were the following: that the current government be deposed for violating or failing to comply with the Constitutions, and that the Father General be reinstated in office. That the Order not be suppressed, not reduced to a Congregation with simple vows and not subjected to the Ordinaries; that instruction not be limited to reading, writing and abacus, but that Latin continue to be taught; and this, to defend the right of the poor to culture and to advocate that the Pious Schools not be superfluous because there are already Jesuits, but that there be room for all in the Church of God; that the extreme poverty and other austerities of the Order not be lessened.

It is interesting to note that at this point the three issues concerning the nullity of profession, candidacy for the priesthood and the legal dispute over precedence hardly matter, for what was really at stake was the survival of the Order and its supposedly moderating reform. Not without a certain irony, the jurist Ameyden suggested that popes over the centuries had been interested in promoting strict observance to loosen religions, but not in introducing a relaxation of the old norms.[3901]

3901 Cf. BARTLIK, O.C., p.17.

We will have occasion later to hear the bitter lamentations of the Holy Founder, who could not understand how a work that benefited the poor so much could be destroyed. But we should not overlook the fact that perhaps never since the foundation of the Pious Schools have such lively and beautiful pages been written to defend the right of poor children to education and culture, and thus to justify the historical existence of the Order. Let us quote from these pages just a few paragraphs from the souls of Casani and Castelli, the two longtime General Assistants and companions of the Founder from the earliest times of the Pauline Congregation:

Casani wrote to a cardinal:

“The Institute of Pious Schools, … cannot be denied that it is not only not superfluous but necessary in Christian society ... especially since Christian society consists for the most part of towns, villages and poor people, who, because they have to make their daily living by their own labour, cannot take care of their children, who, because they are poor, must not be abandoned, since, as I have said, they constitute the greatest part of Christian society and they too are redeemed with the precious blood of Jesus Christ, and to H. D. M. so dear, who said that he was sent into the world by his eternal Father to teach them: evangelizare pauperibus misit me. From this we can deduce how far removed from Christian piety and the spirit of Christ is that policy which teaches that it is harmful to society to teach the poor by, as it is said, discouraging them from practicing the mechanical arts; an argument, moreover, which proves to be very false, for here in Rome, after nearly 50 years of the Pious Schools teaching the poor, there is no sign that there is a lack of artisans.”[3902]

3902 EC, p.620-621.

In the paragraphs of Castelli’s Apology, one even notices a modern nuance in the assessment of the poor:

The Pious Schools - it is said - are harmful to society “because they run counter to good policy... because the ease of study gives every poor person the opportunity to aspire to a higher state, to abandon the arts and crafts and to abhor menial services...”. But, - replies Castelli - “if a good education is a good thing, why should so many poor, deserving people, be excluded from it? Is not it precisely the poor who, as you say, maintain the world with their work? And who are the inventors and perfectionists of the arts? Is it not true what Botero says, that the greatest and most difficult businesses are the thoughts of the poor, who, in order to accomplish something, must be vigilant while the rich sleep, and when everything is already done, they usually appear in the morning to approve and guarantee the business of the poor themselves? Does not the greatness of the rich and the wealth of the great have their origin in the skill of the last poor among their ancestors? And what would you be, who read this, if the rich had had your ideas at the time of the last poor of your ancestors?”[3903]

3903 EC, p.2832-2833.

This Apology is addressed to the Cardinal’s Commission, whose president, Cardinal Roma, is known to have been firmly opposed to the education of the poor. And when things are said in this way, with this coarseness and this Ciceronian oratory, they are likely to have the opposite effect. Often the naked truth offends, especially to the great ones.

The third session

On July 18, 1645, the long-awaited third session finally took place in Cardinal Roma’s palace, as was the custom, in the presence of Cardinals Roma, Spada, Ginetti and Cueva, Monsignors Paolucci and Albizzi and the Visitator Pietrasanta, who began the session by reading out his report.[3904] It was not for nothing that a year and almost ten months had passed since the hasty report he had presented at the first session on October 1, 1643, relying too much on the reports of Mario, Cherubini, Ridolfi and their followers. There was no lack of tense situations and fierce attacks against him, such as the two famous accusatory letters from Baldi and the community of Nikolsburg. Nevertheless, it is clear that he knew how to react religiously and to distinguish between the truth and the passion of one and the other, for this new account does not seem to have been written by the same hand as the first.

3904 Cf. PAOLUCCI, doc. 5, p.31. The minutes of the five sessions published by Picanyol (EGC IX, p.134-135, 177, 210-212, 214-215) are incomplete because they are taken from the printed beatification processes and not from the original documents of Paolucci, as Tosti has done. The date of this third session, according to PicanyoI, is July 17, but it is an error, attributable to the one who copied them from their original in 1717, since a notable number of letters written in the immediate days coincide in that it was July 18. See those of Calasanz (C. 4279, 4280, 4283, 4284), Cherubini (EHI, p.304, EC, p.913, 914), Panicola (EC, p.1994), Peter Paul Berro (EC, p.310) and BERRO II, p. 143-147, etc.

In his first historical-descriptive part, he speaks of the foundation and authorization of the Order by the popes, without going into his old doubts concerning the obreption and subreption of the Briefs. He recognizes the right to teach not only reading, writing and arithmetic -primary education-, but also rhetoric -secondary education-. He gives some interesting statistics: The order is divided into provinces spread across Italy, Germania and Poland, and has about 500 religious, including 220 priests, 110 clerics and 160 brothers. He describes the austerity of poverty in which they live, as well as the other austerities of the Rule, pointing out that “they are perhaps excessive and do not correspond to the daily toil of school and accompanying children to their homes”. He recalls that there have been difficulties, “as always - he says - in the beginnings of new Religions,” and that they therefore had some Apostolic Visitations, such as the present one. Without going into details and justifications, he briefly mentions that by apostolic decrees and Briefs the General was suspended, the Assistants deposed, and Cherubini appointed Superior, whose direction he shares with the Visitator. There is not a single sentence of criticism, complaint or reproach.

In a second part, we can record the synthetic description of the Visitation and his personal impressions. He recalls once again what he had described in his first report as “three main disturbances... that greatly troubled the Order” and what he now calls “three main needs (bisogni) because of which the Order was kept in a certain confusion”, namely the questions about the nullity of profession, the aspirations of the brothers for the clergy and the precedences. He admits, perhaps with exaggerated benevolence, that “by the singular mercy of God our Lord, no serious case of irreverence or public disorder has occurred in the Order which has caused scandal to the laity or disgrace to the Religion, nor has there been, to my knowledge, any notable excess which has seriously harmed charity or the three essential vows of the Order, especially chastity.”

Regarding the obedience demanded by the Holy Office to the Tuscan Province with respect to Fr. Mario, there has never been any trouble in Florence, but only in the House of Pisa, which is already well settled in view of the new relationships at the Grand Duke’s Court. And as for Father Cherubini, there seemed to be some reluctance to recognize him as a superior, but it was a matter of a few in Rome who were removed from here by order of this Commission of Cardinals.

And there are no further complaints or criticisms from the Visitator. Unbelievable!

The last part of his report is the most important, because in it he sets out his claims or conclusions from the visit. And these are: that they be allowed to receive new houses and admit novices; that Father General be reinstated in his post and a Vicar be placed at his side; that six Fathers be elected, one for each Province - he does not say that they are General Assistants - to revise the Constitutions and austerities of the Institute in regard to the poverty of houses and sacristies, clothing, and other privations, so that all may be practicable and suitable for the exercise of the schools; that there be a house of study in each Province to form suitable subjects.

It is only fair to emphasize the last three points of this report, as they - together with the other points mentioned - give us the final mentality of Pietrasanta at the conclusion of his Apostolic Visitation. With them he was not only diametrically opposed to the views of Spada, Rome and Albizzi, but also to that current of the Jesuits which advocated a restriction of teaching in the Pious Schools and which he could in no way ignore - either verbally or in writing - since it was so well known among the Piarists. With dignity and with magnanimous disregard for the sharpness with which he had been attacked in public circulars, he proclaimed at the end of his report:

1. Against the Jesuits: “To want to limit their [the Piarists’] abilities to teaching reading, writing and arithmetic would be to deprive them of the privilege granted by Popes Paul V and Gregory XV, namely to teach the humanities, rhetoric and matters of conscience...”

2. Against Cardinal Roma and many others: “To those who object that they hinder the arts [or crafts] by allowing the poor to study letters, we reply that it is a great service to the civil and political condition of a community that the arts themselves should be done by persons who can read, write and calculate...”

3. Against Spada, Rome and Albizzi: “To attempt to reduce this Religion, which has solemn vows, to a Congregation which has only simple vows and is subject to the Ordinary, would be to seek to destroy it... moreover, there seems to be no other example in the Church where a Religion, already approved and confirmed by the Apostolic See, has been reduced to a simple Congregation.”[3905]
3905 EC, p.2116-2119.

It is no less important that the last subject dealt with in this report refers to the “three disturbances” so often mentioned in so many memorials and accounts, and so exaggerated by historians, as the decisive motive for this dramatic Apostolic Visitation, namely: the nullity of professions, claims to the clergy, and precedence. And it is very significant that the Visitator’s last word on the subject is as follows: as far as nullity is concerned, the problem has already been dealt with and the solutions given by the theologians must be followed; as far as the two types of claims are concerned, this has been settled in part by the decrees of Urban VIII and the Prelates’ Commission, and in part it will be settled by the future governance of the Order.[3906] This means that these “very serious problems”, as some say, have already been studied and resolved before this Apostolic Visit, and if there is anything left to be resolved, it will be resolved by the future Father General and his government. No comment!

3906 The last two paragraphs of the Relation, referring to this topic, have been omitted by oversight in EC, p.2116-2119. See complete text in EGC IX, p.205-210.

After the Visitator’s report - Paolucci says in his notes - there was a long discussion on the matter, in which the cardinals first expressed their opinions, i.e. Cueva and Ginetti were in favor of non-extinction of the Order, while Spada and Roma, for their part, proposed absolute extinction.[3907] This means that neither Pietrasanta’s report, nor the reasons given in so many memoranda, nor the dignity and number of supporters of the Pious Schools made any impression on the Purpurates Roma and Spada.[3908] On the contrary, perhaps Pietrasanta’s circular letter in his own defense, the vehement replies of Baldi and Nikolsburg, and above all the “sinister document” of Albizzi, in addition to their own convictions, had such force that both returned to their first position of October 1643, leaving aside what they had already decided in March 1644, namely the reduction of the Order to a simple Congregation.

3907 Cf. PAOLUCCI, doc. 5, p.31.

3908 Although this “vote” refers expressly to the extinction of the Order, it logically includes the rejection of the reinstatement of Father General. However, with a certain diplomatic subtlety, Cardinal Spada responded on January 24, 1645 to the Duke of Altemps Gallese: “The exemplary goodness and zeal of Father Joseph, General of the Pious Schools deserve the affection of Your Excellency, and the signs that you manifest in your effective letter of the 20th of the present deserve that I desire a propitious occasion to be able to correspond to such an affectionate recommendation. You may therefore trust that I will do all I can within the limits of justice and expediency, assuring you that...” (EC, p.2541).

After the four cardinals had spoken, Msgr. Paolucci took the floor and questioned the vote on extinction, which he considered to be a violent and extraordinary measure. It was necessary, he said, to first use “all ordinary means, especially in the case of a Religion that has existed for so many years, in whose favor a special divine providence intervenes and for which, according to Father Pietrasanta’s report, it is not impossible to provide”. He expressly excluded comparing it with the Congregation of the Oratory, to whose likeness it should be reduced[3909], and proposed the following remedies: to reform the present government, “by reinstating the Father General, but placing at his side such assistants and deputies as the Father Visitator shall think proper and neutral, and for this purpose the Most Reverend Cardinal Roma shall summon them under pain of supression and exhort them to do everything with mercy.” Furthermore, a Cardinal Protector with extraordinary powers should be appointed to act together with the Visitator; some houses should be closed if they cannot live comfortably on alms; the Constitutions should be corrected and the severity of the Rules should be softened.

3909 This idea had already been proposed earlier in the Slanderous Document and it would prevail in the end.

When Paolucci finished speaking, the secretary, Bishop Albizzi, took the floor and, apparently disregarding everything that had been said in the Sinister Document, accepted Paolucci’s proposals, with which Cardinals Roma and Spada also changed their minds, and all providentially agreed that the Pope should be asked to do so.[3910] The meeting was over.

3910 Cf. PAOLUCCI, p.31-32.

Rejoicing, imprudence and disillusionment

After all that had been discussed in the long and debated third session, the almost succinct news that Father General had been reinstated to his post was immediately broken to the outside world - perhaps even on the afternoon of the 18th. Of course, it was the same members of the commission who broke the news. Berro writes: “The most reverend cardinals and prelates of the Commission spread the news in Rome, and it was received by all with great consolation and joy, and it was also communicated outside by the most reverend Fathers General Procurators of almost all Religions, and even by other personalities.”[3911] In fact, there are letters from Cardinal Spada, Msgr. Panicola and Father Cherubini, written on the 19th, communicating the events of “yesterday”[3912], which were followed by many others in the following days.[3913]

3911 BERRO II, p.144.

3912 Cardinal Spada writes again to the Duke of Altemps Gallese and with identical diplomacy, without alluding to his first negative vote, he tells him: “Yesterday afternoon a Congregation was held for the matter of the Pious Schools and in attention to the goodness of Father General with the recommendation of Your Excellency, the government of his Religion has been restored to him”.

3913 From Calasanz (C. 4279, 4280, 4283, 4284); from Cherubini (EHI, p.304; EC, p.914).

The most interesting of these is that of Fr. Peter Paul Berro, who wrote to his brother Vincent, the chronicler, from Rome on July 20th, giving him many details of the meeting and saying, among other things, that “after many difficulties and differences of opinion ... finally, through the persuasiveness of the Assessor and the Visitator ... it was decided that the General should be reinstated with six assistants.”[3914] It is curious that he credits Albizzi and Pietrasanta with having convinced the dissenters, while Paolucci, himself, tells to have convinced Albizzi first and then the others.

3914 EC, p. 310-311. In a paragraph, omitted by his brother in the Memoirs when copying this letter (BERRO II, p.146), he says of himself: “I underhandedly did what I could, nor could anyone do more than I did to move the cardinals to reunite and reinstate the General...”

Cardinals Cueva and Ginetti were also in favor, especially the latter, who was responsible for presenting the positive recommendations of the Congregation for Propaganda Fide. However, Sántha wonders, not without reason, why Albizzi abandoned his opinion on the reintegration of Calasanz and the reduction of the Order; whether he did so out of conviction or just for diplomatic convenience, so as not to be the only one who remained intransigent in the face of all. Indeed, we will soon see him again to defend his ideas.”[3915]

3915 Cf. G. SÁNTHA, Card. F. Albitius..., p.19.

The news of Father General’s reinstatement was received with great joy by the Piarists and also by many other sympathizers and friends when the first letters arrived from Rome. In some places they contented themselves with expressing their gratitude to the Lord by singing the Te Deum, albeit in private, as Berro notes with regard to the two houses in Naples.[3916] In other places they exaggerated a little and gave the whole thing the character of a great feast, as Caputi reports with regard to Frascati, where, on the orders and with the benevolence of Prince Borghese, bells were thrown into the air, rockets were fired and even artillery salvos were fired in the palace of Mondragone, while a solemn Te Deum was sung in the sanctuary of the Pious Schools.[3917]

3916 BERRO II, p.144.

3917 Cf. BAU, BC, p.1092.

According to the chroniclers, the joy in Rome was short-lived. It seems that someone from the parish of San Pantaleo soon published the news in the so-called Public Notices or Gazettes of the time, which summarized: “Having established the innocence of the Father General of the Pious Schools, who had been suspended from his office for some time, the Cardinals have decided that he be reinstated to the same with the celebration of all his religious.”[3918] The decision was read out publicly and there were logical comments, given the moment, some sharp, like a natural relief after so many tribulations, such as that of Br. Philip Loggi, one of the oldest in the Order: “God be praised. -he said, “Now it will be revealed who persecuted Father General and he will be held accountable for all the outrages done to him and the Assistants. I do not know if Msgr. Assessor can do much more!” And Berro goes on to say that Father John Antony Ridolfi, upon hearing these or similar words, immediately went with a companion to Monsignor Albizzi to tell him what had been said publicly against him in the community, adding and exaggerating things that were ultimately - as always - against the honor of the Holy Office of the Inquisition.

3918 G. BIANCHI, Principio de la ruina de la Religión, cit. in BAU, BC, p.1101.

The Monsignor flew into a rage and told Cardinal Roma to delay the publication of the decree on the General’s reinstatement on the Pope’s instructions; or he told him not to publish it because he wanted to speak to the Pope first.[3919] Berro did not clarify the details. What seems certain is that the insulting remarks Ridolfi made to him aroused the ire of Albizzi, who must have passed them on to the Pope personally due to his position as secretary of the Commission. Cardinal Roma must also have been informed by Albizzi, either before or after his conversation with the Pope. And since the Commission had already reached its conclusion, Cardinal Roma, as President of the Commission, must also have discussed the matter with the Pope.

3919 BERRO II, p.152.

In accordance with the commission’s decision, Cardinal Roma had instructed Father General and Father Pietrasanta to come to his palace the following Friday, May 21st, to finalize the Commission’s Decree. However, in view of the papal decision of stay of proceedings, he had to turn Father General away until further notice.[3920] And so began another agonizing period of hope and anxiety, the impenetrable silence of the Commission and the threats and rumors of final destruction. The Old Holy Man’s letters reflect this embarrassing situation. Here are a few paragraphs:

3920 Cf. BIANCHI (BAU, BC, p.1102) and BERRO II, p.151-152.

“... on the 18th of last month - he writes to Berro on August 6th - a decree was issued that I be reinstated in my office, but as we have within the Religion some opponents of my reinstatement and outside the religion many and powerful ones, not only against me but also against the Institute, the decree has not yet come out and God knows when and how it will come out.” “As they do not know how to prevent the restoration in my office - he wrote to him on the 19th - everything is being done to prevent the effect of the said decree, so that to remain in possession of the office (Cherubini?); various kinds of compromise are proposed, without deciding in favor of any of them, for it must be decided in the same Commission of cardinals.” Word has gotten around - says on 26th - that since our religion cannot be destroyed ex-directo, they are trying to have it destroyed ex-indirecto at the next session, to make sure that in the future we cannot read grammar, but only [read], write, and abacus; or that we can read everything, but that in the future it will be subject to the Ordinary, and there are some who suspect that this matter is secretly promoted by some of the Principal Fathers, since some of the Cardinals deputies are of the same opinion: That the poor should be taught only the first elements mentioned above. There is no doubt about the reintegration, but only about the way in which the Assistants are chosen.”[3921]

3921 C.4283, 4286, 4287.

Probably these were not mere rumors, but ideas already discussed in previous documents and also dealt with in past meetings of the Commission, which in turn were considered by some members of this Commission and reached the ears of Father General. It is likely that these “ Principal Fathers “ who advocated a restriction of Piarist doctrine were Jesuits who secretly influenced Albizzi, since the monsignor was familiar with and often had dealings with the Curia or Casa del Gesù. What seems unacceptable is the fact that Pietrasanta defended such an idea, considering how categorical he had been in his last report.

Finally, on September 9th, Father General wrote to Berro that the commission would meet “tomorrow, Sunday, September 10th”[3922]. But he was mistaken, for the meeting had already taken place on Friday, September 8th, in the same palace as always and with the same participants as at the last meeting, except perhaps Pietrasanta, who is not named. Paolucci’s minutes state that Cardinal Roma conveyed the Pope’s order that the Religion of the Pious Schools should be transformed into a Congregation and that nothing else should be considered but the form of this transformation. After discussing the matter, the Commission decided to hold a final meeting to decide on the manner and form of the reduction. To this end, it was decided to seek the opinion of three religious, namely Father Menochi, a Jesuit, Father Medici, a Theatine, and the General of the Conventuals, who was still Father John B. Berardicelli of Larino, the great friend of Calasanz.”[3923] His last intervention in the affairs of the Pious Schools had been the revision of the Constitutions on behalf of Cardinal Protector Cesarini, which was considered at the General Chapter of 1641.[3924]

3922 C.4292. On the 16th he said again that the Commission had met last Sunday, on 10th (C.4293).

3923 Cf. PAOLUCCI, p.33.

3924 Cf. Minutes of the said General Chapter in Archivum 13 (1954)70. Neither of these two interventions in Piarist affairs is mentioned by Fr. Vilá in his article Two friends of Calasanz: Frs. Bagnacavallo and Larino: Archivum 27 (1990) 81-147. Fr. Larino was Vicar General of his Order from 1632-1635 and then Fr. General from 1635 to 1647.

In addition to these appointments, the commission reached certain conclusions in the course of the debate, although these were amended at the last meeting. These conclusions were: “that they cannot exercise the three substantive vows”, but then it is specified that those who have taken these vows will remain bound by them, while those who enter from now on will take simple vows, dispensable only by the Holy See; they will be subject to the bishops, as those of Christian Doctrine (the Oratory is not mentioned); each house would have its superior; they can teach what the bishops see fit.[3925] Both the exact date of this fourth session and its precise content were not yet known at this time.

3925 Cf. PAOLUCCI, l.c.

Nervous pause until the last session

According to his letters, Father General - and everyone else with him - was of the opinion that the cardinals of the Commission had already done their job and that the final solution depended on the Pope alone.[3926] He therefore turned his attention to the recommendations of the ambassadors and friends who were to meet with the pontiff. And the first to intervene in that September of 1645 was the ambassador of Tuscany, Riccardi, to whom the saint presented a memorandum to the pope. The result was null and void and the poor General was left with the thought that Innocent X had only addressed “general words” to the ambassador.[3927] However, the ambassador refers to the dialog in which the Pope uses very harsh and derogatory words against the Piarists and also grousing about them lamenting over Cardinal Roma and Bishop Albizzi as if they were declared enemies.[3928] There are other statements by Riccardi which show that Innocent X had gotten a very poor opinion of the Pious Schools, as well as of the hostile attitude of Roma and Albizzi. But the ambassador, obeying the wishes of the Grand Duke and his Court, continued to support the Order.[3929]

3926 “...resta in petto di S. Stà.” (C.4295 and 4293-4296).

3927 C. 4301 and 4294, 4295.

3928 Cf. EC, p.2984.

3929 Ibid., p.2979-2987.

He also approached the Admiral of Castile, the Viceroy of Naples, as he was due to travel through Rome to visit the Pope before leaving for Spain. And to ingratiate himself with him, he brought all the details about the Spaniardship of the Order and about himself, saying that he approved of “our Institute” “because it is so recognized and sought after throughout Europe and especially in the kingdoms of His Catholic Majesty and was founded by a Spanish Father who was known to the honorable Constable Colonna.”[3930] Later, however, he learned that he would not be traveling through Rome, although the constable Colonna had already prepared accommodations in his palace.[3931]

3930 C.4300 (dated October 14, 1645).

3931 C.4303, 4304.

At that time, as we have already said, he was concerned that the Pope should appoint Cardinal Horacio Giustiniani as Protector of the Order, and it was precisely the Florentine Ambassador who presented the memorandum of petition in one of his audiences, but the Pope replied “that it will be taken into consideration, as he has replied to other memoranda”, according to the Saint.[3932]

3932 C.4315 (dated December 16, 1645) and letter from Riccardi (EC, p.2984).

At least in October, a new personality also made his appearance, namely Msgr. Bernardino Biscia, prelate of the Curia, a former student of Calasanz in the schools of San Pantaleo, whose services in favor of the Pious Schools were especially requested by the Grand Duke of Tuscany.[3933]

3933 Cf. EC, p.2986, c.4317. His parents, the Marquises of Biscia, and his maternal grandmother, Laura Caetani, Marchioness of Ariccia, settled around 1616 near San Pantaleo, and maintained from then on, a great friendship with Fr. General (cf. CS, I, p.188, n.7; S. GINER, El Proceso de Beatificacion..., p.82-83).

At the General Assembly of the Congregation for the Propaganda Fide on December 18th, several letters were read about the apostolic activity of the Piarists in Germania in converting heretics, so it was decided to send copies to the Deputy Commission dealing with the cause of the Pious Schools and to ask for permission to clothe novices in these countries. The Secretary, Msgr. Francis Ingoli, wrote two very fine memoranda for the Commission in defense of the Pious Schools, urging that they should not be extinguished, because they do immeasurable good for society and the Church everywhere, especially for the poor. Perhaps one of the most beautiful paragraphs is the vivid colophon of one of the two memoranda in which we can see how Gamaliel points his finger at the Sanhedrin. It reads:

“Consider, finally, that the Religions of St. Dominic and St. Francis also met with serious opposition in their beginnings, so that they were sought to be destroyed as useless and full of idlers, while St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Bonaventure defended them with their pens. And since they were works of great piety, erected by order of God, evil tongues could not prevail. Thus it may happen in the future with the Pious Schools that, if they are the work of His Divine Majesty, even if orders are given against them, there will be people who will prevent this, and the Apostolic See will be compromised by the danger of not being able to extinguish them.”[3934]

3934 EC, p.2915. Both apologies or memoranda in ibid., p.2912-2915.

The little news they received about what was happening, the fear of a possible extinction or a significant deformation of the Order, the few hopes raised by the interventions of personalities, memoranda and petitions, created an atmosphere of pessimism. The Holy Founder endeavored to lift the spirits and inspire hope for the future, as in these almost ironic words to Berro: “It seems that the matter will take a long time and it will also be necessary for us to prolong our patience and our hope in the blessed God.” And these others with an emphasis on prophecy:

“... as for us, I can tell you that the Institute will not be destroyed, but we await the decision of the Holy See... As long as I still have breath, I will never lose the desire to help the Institute in the hope of seeing it secured again, basing myself on the words of a prophet who says: “constantes estote et videbitis auxilium Dei super vos” [Be constant and you will see the help of God above you].[3935]

3935 C.4298 (dated October 7, 1645),4309 (dated November 18, 1645).

But sometimes this sublime steadfastness suffers, as can be read in another letter, written barely a week after the previous one, in which he writes: “We have reached such extremes that, unless God miraculously remedies, our things can hardly be put in order, although some say, trusting in themselves, that the blessed God no longer works miracles.”[3936]

3936 C.4311 (dated November 25, 1645).

In the meantime, since the decree rehabilitating Father General did not come out, Father Cherubini continued to exercise his functions as Superior General, as Calasanz notes with a certain critical tone.[3937] And according to Berro’s account, “all our poor religious were so offended, especially those who were in Rome and did not stoop to the disrespect and insults that Father Stephen, with the knowledge of Father Pietrasanta, Jesuit and Apostolic Visitator, had inflicted on our Ven. Father Founder and his true sons, and on the contrary, the freedom and looseness of the few followers of Father Stephen was such that it was unbearable to live with them.”[3938] And Berro goes on to spin the meshes of this looseness, to which the ideas of reform and moderation of austerities, poverty and rigor of observance were reduced in practice, to openly scandalous extremes, before which it is difficult to believe that the Visitator did not intervene: There were no Rules or Constitutions for them, says Berro; nor did they participate in the common acts of prayer; nor did they observe the weekly fasts and disciplines... And he continues: “The carriage rides, which were even organized in public, as cronies, the masquerades in the Corso [one of the most central streets] and in the city of Rome, at whose unworthy spectacle [the carnival] they were arrested by the gendarmerie; and everything was organized at the expense of the house of San Pantaleon, I mean the purse. The comedies they performed with so much expenditure and little shame in Collegio Nazareno...”[3939] And those were the ones protected by Albizzi, like Mario before them!

3937 C.4296 (dated September 30, 1645), 4298 (dated October 7, 1645).

3938 BERRO II, p.176.

3939 BERRO II, p.178-179. Caputi narrates in detail the adventure of the carnival of 1645, which ended in scandal, because when the axle of the coach in which the group was riding broke, the people forced them to take off their masks and they were recognized. The group was composed of Frs. Cherubini, Nicholas Mª. Gavotti, John A. Ridolfi, Balthasar Cavallari, John Charles Gavotti and Antony Lolli, nicknamed de la Farina (cf. BAU, BC, p.1002-1004).

In connection with the profligacy of Cherubini and his cronies with the poor fund of the community of San Pantaleo, it should be added that one of them, Father Ferdinand Gemmellario, had of course been appointed rector. He cheerfully spent money in view of Father Stephen’s extravagance, while the religious did not even have the bare necessities of food and clothing, to which - as Berro says - “there were many complaints, to which he replied: “The house is poor and can do no more; let those who have nothing take care of themselves”, and similar things.”[3940] It is not surprising, then, that some or many of the religious of this penalized community tried to raise money by almsgiving and other means to meet their meager needs, and to keep it for themselves without giving it to the rector. Faced with these revolts against poverty, Cherubini and Pietrasanta reacted by publishing a decree on the first day of 1646 that forbade anyone to raise money by begging or to have it in their possession or in the possession of others, under penalty of excommunication latae sententiae. Nothing was said about the superfluous and abusive spending of Cherubini and his cronies, nor about the attitude and advice of the rector, against which the entire Congregation - with the exception of six of Cherubini’s followers - protested so vehemently that the frightened Cherubini withdrew the decree, but immediately turned to Bishop Albizzi, giving him a personal version of the tumult and asking him to have the said decree confirmed by the cardinals of the Commission. And so it happened, but with the aggravating factor that the threat of prison and galley was added to the penalties of immediate excommunication. New protests were unsuccessful.

3940 BERRO II, p.167-168.

Finding no other court of appeal possible, as the Superior General Cherubini, the Apostolic Visitator, Msgr. Albizzi and the Commission of Cardinals were involved in the alleged injustice, they decided to write two memoranda to the Pope: In the first, they referred to the specific cases that had occurred at San Pantaleon; in the other, more extensive memorandum, they implored him to confirm the institute so that it could continue to exist in its present form, and “not to allow, as the Head is alive, to be it subjected to the jurisdiction of the ordinaries as an acephalous institute.”[3941] One memorandum bore 25 signatures and the other 32.

3941 The first memorandum has not been preserved, but the second has (cf. BARTLIK, Archivum 3 [1978] 14-15).

Without Father General knowing anything about all this, a group of 20 or 25 people went to the second vespers of the Feast of the Epiphany in St. Peter’s Basilica, which the pontiff presided over. At the end of the liturgy, some of them managed to enter the Palace and position themselves in one of the halls where the papal procession was to pass. When the Pope arrived, they knelt down and Fr. Gabriel Bianchi and Br. Luke Anfosso handed him the two memoranda with the words: “Holy Father, we, the Fathers of the Pious Schools, present and absent, we all wish Your Holiness a Merry Christmas and tell you that for three years we have been so oppressed by the superiors who have ruled the Religion until now that we can no longer bear it. Therefore, we ask for justice and a quick solution.” The Pope replied: “Go away, you will be taken care of as soon as possible.” Many princes and other persons were present, and all waited with astonishment for the end of this news. Then the rescript of the memoranda was given, i.e. that Msgr. Albizzi was to attend with all haste to what had been laid down about this Religion and to speak to the Pope about it.”[3942]

3942 See Gabriel Bianchi’s letter of January 10, 1646, addressed to the whole Order, in which he narrates as a witness all that has happened since the first day of the year (EC, p.352-353). Berro says that those who spoke to the Pope were two: Br. Luke and Fr. Bianchi, and that the event occurred on the vigil, day 5th (cf. BERRO II, p.176). In a collective letter of the community of St. Pantaleon of February 16, 1646, it is also said that it was the vigil of the Epiphany (EC, p.2508).

The scene must have been very unpleasant for the papal Court and for Innocent X himself, and was frowned upon by Father General as soon as he heard of it, although he later justified the fact with paternal compassion and even realism, writing to Berro, whom news of the events had already reached, accusing the Old Holy Man of being the instigator: “As for the assertion that the Fathers of Rome were instigated by me, Your Reverence, do not believe it, for they were all full to the gills, as they told him [the pope] themselves, for the government of three years without fruit and with much harm.”[3943] This unusual scene in the palace probably influenced neither for better nor worse what had already been decided since the last meeting of the commission in September, but perhaps it greatly accelerated events.

3943 C. 4333 and 4332; EHI, p.310-312; BERRO II, p.177.

The fifth and final session

While the Piarists were torn between doubts, fears and hopes, the Commission began to examine, in absolute secrecy, the complicated problems arising from the papal decision, proposed in the fourth session of September 8th, to transform the Order into a Congregation without further ado. Let us recall that in this last session only these ideas had been put forward on the subject: the professed would retain their solemn vows, while the newly professed would henceforth will make simple vows, dispensed only by the Pope; they would all be subject to the bishops, like those of Christian Doctrine, even in what they have to teach; they would have local superiors.

The Secretary of the Commission, Msgr. Albizzi, instructed the Secretary of Briefs, Msgr. Maraldi, to write a draft with the above ideas, and he did: after a long historical introduction about the foundation and the subsequent Briefs, he justified the very serious decisions of this letter with these simple lines: “And since we have learned that serious disturbances have arisen in this Religion, which still continue, we want to calm them...”. And these were the changes: The Order was reduced to a Congregation with simple vows as instituted by Paul V; it remained subject to the local Ordinaries; those who had already taken vows retained their solemn vows without being absolved or reduced to simple vows. There were no further decisions.[3944]

3944 The full text in G. SÁNTHA, Quomodo perventum sit a quarta Congregatione Cardinalium negotiis Sch. P. Praepositorum (8 Sept. 1645) ad Breve reductionis innocentianae (19 mart. 1646)? EphCal 1. (1961) 26-28. It is Paolucci’s doc. 24, but in O. Tosti’s edition, which we have been citing, by oversight, the definitive Brief, already dated, has been edited and not this first draft (cf. PAOLUCCI, p.78-81 and Bull. Sch. P., p.45-49).

It is very likely that the Secretary, Msgr. Albizzi, in order to facilitate the study of the complicated problems raised by this reduction - for which there was no precedent in the history of the Church, as was said in the Commission - drafted a sort of questionnaire in nine points, which was attached to the draft or first draft of the letter, perhaps with the help of others. To summarise, he asked:

1. The name of the new Congregation.

2. Who will lead it and how it will be led, taking into account its subordination to the Ordinary.

3. Will the Father General and the assistants be reinstated?

4. Will they be ordained under the title of poverty?

5. Will poverty and austerities be alleviated and adapted to school ministry?

6. Will the privileges be maintained?

7. Will they submit to the Ordinary even in minor cases or only in matters of governance and teaching?

8. New Constitutions or simple adaptation to a Congregation?

9. Conditions for the General’s ability to exclude religious.
He concluded by saying that further questions could be proposed “before the Brief was published”.[3945]

3945 Cf. PAOLUCCI, doc.22, p.74-75.

In the appendix there is another document which, because of its style and its similarity to the notes on the so-called “Protocols of Paolucci” - and of which the minutes of the fifth session form a final part - seems undoubtedly to have been written by him, although they are certainly not his ideas but those proposed by others in the fifth session or in the experts’ documents, which we do not have. The interest lies in the fact that he summarises the responses to the questionnaire mentioned above. Below is a summary of the ideas, organised according to the previous numbering of the questionnaire:

1. A new name is proposed: Congregatio Clericorum B. Mariae Scholarum Piarum (The Old Holy Man would have been very upset at the removal of the title “Mother of God”;

2. The government depends on the new form, depending on whether it resembles Christian Doctrine, the Lucchesi or the Philippine Oratory; if it is like the latter, the houses would be independent, each with its novitiate;

3. Nothing is said about the reintegration of Fr. General and other pertinent details;

4. They should not be ordained under the title of poverty, but with the assurance of the future, as is the case in the Oratory and the Christian Doctrine;

5. The poverty they profess does not seem to be incompatible with the school ministry;

6. They would have the privileges due to the Congregation and not to the Order, as is the case at present;

7. They would be subject to the Ordinary, though not in minor matters;

8. Reformed Constitutions, adapted to the new reality of the Congregation;

9. The General cannot exclude anyone without the consent of the Bishop and the Pope.

To these responses are added other new points, some of which will be included in the final Brief and others which deserve a new commentary. These are:

1. Instruction is reduced to reading, writing and abacus;

2. they wear a modest and decent clerical habit;

3. the professed keep their solemn vows, but may convert to another Religion etiam laxiorem (more moderate);

4. they cannot found other houses without papal permission and that of the corresponding Ordinary.

Finally, there is a revealing idea of the malicious intent they had - though not all of them - to achieve the total suppression of the Order, which will deserve more concrete formulations in other documents. Here Paolucci merely points out that the objection is that they will not have enough alms to live on, given the discredit that the reduction to a Congregation entails, and that the Order will therefore gradually be extinguished by itself iuxta intentionem; in other words, that this is intentional.[3946] Did the poor Father General ever know of all these projects and intentions? Surely it was much better that he ignored them and that all this remained a secret.

3946 lb., doc. 19, p.67-68. Sántha thinks that Paolucci is the author and not a simple “annotator” as we believe (cf. G. SÁNTHA, o.c., p.21).

Finally, there are two similar or complementary documents that implicitly and explicitly propose the total extinction of the Order, although the explicit will of Pope Innocent was the simple reduction. However, it is doubtful that deep down the pontiff also wanted total suppression, given the terrible idea he had of it. The fact that only two documents openly speak of extinction, and that one of them most likely comes from a cardinal[3947] and the other praises it and pretends to be its supplement, leads us to suspect that the latter also comes from another cardinal, since from the beginning only two members of the commission repeatedly argued for absolute extermination. And these two members are precisely two cardinals: Spada and Roma. The importance of both documents, moreover, lies in the fact that they did not succeed in achieving the total extinction of the Order, but that in practice they pushed through two measures - one each - that brought the Order to the brink of disintegration.

3947 It is n.23, in which the anonymous author says: “I refer to the judgment and opinion of each one of the other Ems. My lords” (ibid., p.76). The same believes Sántha (l.c., p.26).

One cannot read these documents, especially the first (no. 21 of the Paolucci dossier), without feeling a certain revulsion at the cynicism they exude, at the derogatory undertones and the supposed objections that refer not specifically to the Order of the Pious Schools, but to the system of religious life in general, of which at least His Eminence Roma had a declared phobia. His central idea is the following: The excesses (?) that these religious are said to have committed make them unsuitable for the instruction of possible future novices, as well as for the education of children in general. “It would perhaps be better,” he says, “to trial them and, once these excesses are discovered, to suppress them completely. That would be the true way out of this quagmire, if it were not for two great difficulties...”, which are: firstly, because it seems impossible to provide the priests and solemn professed with the necessary subsistence, since this Order does not have its own goods, like the recently abolished “Order of the Humiliated” and the “Order of St. Barnabas and St. Ambrose ad Nemus”, which ensured them a lifelong livelihood from their own income; and secondly, because they are spread not only throughout Italy but also outside, where suppression would not be easy for several reasons.

On the other hand, they could not continue to live on alms, for the towns in which they reside, seeing the Order degraded in rank, will think that they deserve this on account of their faults, and will refuse them their material aid and their recognition... But the sarcastic subtlety of this cardinal goes even further. When asked if it is beneficial for them to maintain their austerities and austere lives, he replies that they can be toned down, but as far as food is concerned, they should remain as they are, “even out of necessity, for it is not plausible that they will find enough to live on even miserably.”[3948]

3948 Cf. PAOLUCCI, doc. 21, p.7l-73. Sántha suggests that the author was the Jesuit P. Menocchi (cf. G. SÁNTHA, o.c., p.24). It does not seem likely, since the “votes” of the theatine and the conventual should also have been preserved among these papers of Paolucci, and not only that of the Jesuit. Besides, a religious would not say “questi Preti” (these priests) referring to other religious, nor would it involve so many difficulties in coordinating the authority of the bishops and the General, as a special thing of the Pious Schools, being common to the congregations subject to the ordinary, etc. It seems to us more likely that the author was Cardinal Roma or Spada, as we have already said, adding the detail that doc. 23, which is by one of these two cardinals (cf. previous n.) begins by expressly praising this other doc. 21, citing its very title.

It is an irony of History that the Order of Pious Schools was perhaps not entirely dissolved because it professed extreme poverty, while this whole camouflaged attempt at reform, promoted by Mario and Cherubini - and even by the Deputy Commission itself - was aimed at putting an end to extreme poverty and its consequences. The cardinals who advocated radical abolition did not know what to do with the more than 500 solemnly vowed religious who were thrown out onto the streets without a secure livelihood. And for this reason, the method of exterminating the two aforementioned Orders could not be applied. The words with which the Holy Founder begins the chapter of his Constitutions dedicated to poverty spontaneously come to mind and take on a new and glorious meaning: “Venerable poverty ... must be loved by our religious, for it is the strongest defense of our Order.”[3949]

3949 CC, n.137.

The plan of the other cardinal, who sought a slow but certain extinction, was not lacking in ingenuity and devious malice either. He proposed a single novitiate in Rome, to be controlled by the Cardinal Vicar. Although the houses would be independent of each other and would not have a common superior like the Oratory, the single novitiate in Rome would have to provide them with staff. But if they were not doing well or alms became scarce, the reinforcements would be refused because they could not provide for all of them, which “would “drive them to extinction without violence”. Moreover, if a single novitiate in Rome was too great a burden for the city, they would have to resort to reducing the number of houses within a 20-mile radius of Rome, as was the case at the beginning, so that fewer novices were needed. But this last strategy should not be made public now, so as not to provoke reactions from princes and cities. To close the houses for lack of reinforcements would be “a matter of less noise and trouble”.

To this Machiavellian solution, the cardinal added another, quicker one: all religious who requested it were to be given the opportunity to convert to another, even more lax Religion; and if a mass exodus seemed excessive, it could be granted on a case-by-case basis to those religious who seemed more convenient.[3950] The complicated plan of “extermination” that he proposed was rejected, but this last proposal - which was not original, as we shall see later - was accepted.

3950 Cf. PAOLUCCI, doc. 23, p.76-77.

Finally, on February 3, 1646, the fifth and last meeting of the Pontifical Commission took place as usual in Cardinal Roma’s palace. Present were Roma, Spada, Cueva, Ginetti, Paolucci, Albizzi and Pietrasanta. The secretary Albizzi explained that it was the Pope’s express will that the Order should be reduced to a Congregation modeled on the Oratory of St. Philip Neri, without the need to take vows from now on and with full subordination to the Ordinaries. The official minutes explicitly state that the opinion of Pietrasanta was heard and that they “unanimously” reached these conclusions after a thorough discussion of the matter on the basis of the documents that had already been presented to them, i.e. those that we have analyzed and others, such as those of the three experts”:

1. All religious are given the option of converting to other, even more lax Order if they are accepted into this one.

2. It is no longer permitted to accept further novices and to admit existing ones to profession “without the permission of the Apostolic See”.

3. All the religious, the houses and the schools submit to the absolute jurisdiction and authority of the Ordinaries, and Father Joseph Colasantio (sic), the former Minister General, the Visitators, including the Apostolic Visitators, and the local superiors or the lower ranks are relieved of all their functions, so that from now on no one can have any authority other than that granted by the Ordinary.

4. The Order is reduced to a Congregation on the model of the Oratory of St. Philip Neri and in accordance with the new Constitutions, the drafting of which may be entrusted to Msgr. Fagnani, Paolucci and Albizzi, Father Pietrasanta and a priest of the Oratory.

5. As in the past, the direction of the Collegio Nazareno is left in the hands of Fathers Pietrasanta and Cherubini and other priests appointed by them.

The minutes, signed by the secretary Albizzi, was submitted to the Pope, who made two further changes: a very serious one to the 2nd point, deleting the clause “without the permission of the Apostolic See”, so that the prohibition of admission to the habit and profession was absolute; the other was the change to the 5th point, which left the direction of the Nazareno in the hands of the Roman Rota without further ado. The first amendment was perhaps proposed by Cardinal Roma, the president of the commission, as it corresponded to his radical idea of the extinction of the Order; the second, it seems, was due to Cardinal Ginetti, and was deplored by the party concerned, Father Cherubini. And with these changes, the Pope ordered that a Brief be issued.[3951]

3951 Cf. G. SÁNTHA, o.c., p.16-18, 28-29; BERRO III, p.5. In the Minutes or notes of Paolucci the names of those who have to make the new Constitutions are not given, nor is there any mention of the government of Collegio Nazareno (cf. EGC IX, p.214-215). N. B.: many of the documents partially cited or summarized in this chapter 24 can be seen translated into Spanish in the study of M. A. ASIAIN, Defensa de Calasanz y de las Escuelas Pias: AnCal 61 (1989) 99-171. The most notable are: some memorandums of Castelli and Casani; the two Reports of Pietrasanta and the Sinister Document, considered as another Report of the Visitator, according to custom; the self-defense of the latter and the two responses to it, of Baldi and of the community of Nikolsburg; the minutes of Paolucci of the five sessions of the Commission.

This completed the work of the Commission of Cardinals, even though its decisions would not come into force until the Brief was published. After such a long journey through the Deputy Commission and under two different pontificates, Msgr. Assessor’s will, expressed since the first meeting, was finally fulfilled: Some called for its total extinction, others for its preservation, while only Albizzi proposed the reduction of the Order to a Congregation, even though he knew that there was no precedent for such a change in the history of the Church. And so it was.

Chapter 25

The end of the drama

The works of God do not end with death, but they are hardly spared from passing through it. Those were still good times when Pope Paul V said in the first papal letter in 1607, in which he named the Pious Schools, that they had God as their author: Auctore Deo institutae.[3952] But now, Pope Innocent X had just said “that it is a badly made and not very good Order”[3953]

3952 Brief Cum pridem (March 24, 1607); Archivum VIII (I943) 23.

3953 EC, p.2951.

It might seem presumptuous to regard God as the author of Pious Schools, even if they were the words of a pope, if one did not think that the great works, like the small works, are the works of God. And it would also be presumptuous to evoke the suffering, death and resurrection of Christ in this case, when we witness the slow “via crucis” of a man and his work, going to his death in the hope of a certain resurrection. In the moments of fear that preceded the publication of the fateful Brief, before its contents became known, the saint expressed the following attitude in a letter to Fr. Berro: “I tell you that nothing has yet become known about the resolution of our affairs... And if some are spreading bad omens, I hope in the good Lord that the Order will remain and grow even more for the good of our neighbors.”[3954]

3954 C.4335.

In this man’s heart there was always much more hope than despair, much more trust in the protective hand of God, which he did not see, than resignation in the face of the adverse reality that he touched with his own hands. And in the end, God took his side.

Farewell to Father Visitator

The reverberations of the turbulent meeting between the Piarist group and the Pope on the evening of Epiphany had not yet died down when another uproar broke out in San Pantaleo at the beginning of February. In the halls of the Vatican, Brother Luke Anfosso had raised his voice almost in despair and said to the Pope: “For three years we have been harassed by the Superiors who have ruled the Religion until now, and it is no longer possible.”[3955] And among the intolerable superiors, the Rector of San Pantaleo, Father Ferdinand Gemmellaro, was the cause of the previous unrest, because he did not take care of the already precarious needs of his community, which was waiting for an opportunity to free itself from his yoke. And the opportunity came.

3955 Cf. letter of Fr. Bianchi (EC, p.352).

When renewing the “Clementine Decrees” by promulgating the Brief on the Apostate and Expelled Religious (September 21, 1624), Urban VIII stipulated that these decrees and the Brief should be read “at least twice a year in the public dining room” in all religious houses, and threatened the superiors who did not comply with any of the provisions of said decrees with immediate dismissal from office.[3956] Thus, having ascertained that the Rector had not ensured that the decrees were read as ordered throughout the year, they refused to obey him, considered him ipso facto deposed, and recognized as the legitimate local superior Father Francis Baldi, the elder in profession, in accordance with the general norm, until the competent superiors would see to it. To better ensure legitimacy, they communicated the facts to the Cardinal Vicar Marzio Ginetti.[3957]

3956 “Clementis VIII, quam praesentes ordinationes in singulis eiusmodi locis (... domibus quorumque monachorum ac regularium ubique locorum existentibus) bis saltem in anno legantur in publica mensa. Si quis vero ipsorum adversus ea, quae superius praescripta sunt, vel eorum aliquid, quomodo facere vel moliri praesumpserit, ipso facto poenam incurrat prívationis omnium officiorum, quae tunc obtinebit, vocisque activae et passivae ac perpetuae inhabilitatis ad illa imposterum obtinenda...” (Bull. Rom., XIII, p.204).

3957 Cf. BERRO II, p.167-168; EC, p.2505.

This apparent arbitrariness raised the ire of Father Pietrasanta, already agitated by the previous month’s conflict, which prompted a public protest to the Pope, and on February 9th he wrote an open letter to the community of San Pantaleo that was a bitter farewell of the Apostolic Visitator. It is understandable that recent events have frayed his nerves and that he has become indignant beyond measure. But it is unfortunate that in this, his last public letter to the Pious Schools, he almost completely forgot the great things he had said in his second report to the Commission of Cardinals for the meeting of July 18, 1645, and returned to his own and others’ accusations from his first report, his self-defense, and the apology of the Sinister Document. Below is a summary of the Visitator’s complaints:

1. Because the Rector had not read the Bull, they chose someone else without appealing to higher authorities such as the Visitator, the Cardinal’s Commission or Fr. Cherubini;

2. They continue to question the validity of the latter’s Brief of appointment;

3. He again reproaches them with the accusation of disobedience as formulated in the Sinister Document and applied to the entire Order, repeating the slanderous judgment of Card. Barberini: “that their religion grew in disobedience to the Holy Apostolic See”, adding: “The cases that have occurred have been cited, and they are not few and some with very evident foundation. Whether it was so or not, I reserve the right to say...”[3958]
3958 As we have already said (cf. ch. 24, n.3742), this paragraph seems to show that the so-called Sinister Document’, to which it refers, was not from Pietrasanta, since it states “that by order of the Palace at the time of Urban VIII of fel. mem. was published in the Congreg. (Deputy)”, while his Relations did not have to be read by Order of the Holy See. Likewise, the conclusive sentence: if it be so, I defer, and only say..., indicates that the alluded text was not his and therefore he suspends the judgement.

4. He cites as personal experience the rebellious or disobedient attitude of the houses of Pisa, Cáller, Genoa and Chieti;

5. He confesses that God and his conscience testify that he did all he could for the good of the Order, and if he did not do more, it was because he did not enjoy full freedom, having a Commission of cardinals over him whose duty it was to advise and decide.

6. And he concluded thus: “I conclude by reminding you that in Religion obedientia sola virtus est (obedience is the only virtue), and if this is lacking, especially with regard to the Apostolic See, it is necessary that Religions themselves fail and be dissolved. May God preserve yours and grant you the good that I wish for you.”[3959]
3959 EC, p.2121-2122 (defective text; perfect in EGC IX, p.215-216).

Although this letter was addressed to the community of San Pantaleo, it was also sent to other houses, causing the appropriate outrage, which Berro calls “infamous” when he writes to Father General lamenting “this tyranny in which we find ourselves” and hoping that “they will answer it to the glory of God.”[3960] And indeed, on February 16, the Fathers of the community responded to Pietrasanta’s letter, dividing it into ten points, which we can adapt to the six in the previous summary:

3960 EHI, p.313. To Berro’s harsh words the saint responds without being moved: “I have seen the letter of Fr. Pietrasanta to which the Fathers have given an answer, and I believe that it will be sent there also” (c. 4335).

1. As for the fact, they make it clear that they did not elect a new rector, but simply followed the custom - which the visitator should know after three years in office - of obeying the oldest priest in the profession if there is no Rector until the major superiors provide one. They did not remind him that this was not the first case, but that there had been identical problems on other occasions because the Clementine Decrees had not been read, as in Nicolsburg in 1634 and in San Pantaleo in 1639; and during the visitation of Pietrasanta, in Bisignano in 1644 and in Campi in 1645.[3961] On the other hand, they reported this fact to the Cardinal Vicar.
3961 Cf. EEC, p.1198; EH, p. 1234; EC, p.2130 and 2354.

2. They again insist that the alleged decree of the Cardinal’s Commission of November 11, 1643, appointing Father Cherubini Superior General be made public, since it is only known that there was an invoice or letter from Msgr. Albizzi to Pietrasanta. And that was the truth. Even the Brief of appointment, which was given the wrong date of November 11, 1643, has not yet been published. They also regret that the Visitator did not take the trouble to uncover the life and miracles of Cherubini, even though the Order had made so many requests. Moreover, they twice accused the Visitator of “exuberant affection for Father Stephen”, as well as Msgr. Albizzi of favoring him so much, moved “for a purpose unknown to us” (although already expressly denounced by Father Baldi to Cardinal Rome: a kind of bribe in exchange for money).[3962]
3962 Cf. EC, p.196.

3. As for the opinion prevailing in the Palace that the Order had developed in disobedience to the Holy See, given the seriousness of the accusation, it was the Visitator’s duty to set the record straight and not allow this opinion to be maintained without listening to the explanations of the Order itself in its defense. But he did not do so.

4. As for the specific cases of Pisa, Cáller, Genoa and Chieti, each of them will have to respond appropriately.[3963]
3963 With regard to Pisa, it is suggested that the solution had depended on the Ministers of the Grand Duke and not on the house itself; the case of Caller was sufficiently explained in a letter of Fr. Salazar to Cherubini (July 12, 1645), which ended up in the Paolucci dossier, that is, in the Commission, and therefore was known by the Visitator (cf. EC, p.2293-2294; Paolucci, p.2293-2294; EC, p.2293-2294). The Fathers of Genoa responded directly to Fr. Pietrasanta in tone, once again lamenting with profuse examples the actions of the Visitator, Fr. Gavotti, whose adventures in Caller could not be unknown to Fr. Pietrasanta either, but they limit themselves to his time in Liguria (cf. BERRO II, p.194-198). In EC, p.2510, n.11, the Latin synthesis that Bartlik made of this letter is given, believing the Italian text to have disappeared. It is supposed that also those of Chieti explained themselves.

5. They are grateful for his good will, but they regret that he did not trust so many deserving religious and that he favored Father Cherubini, with fatal consequences for the Order. On the other hand, on his apology for his lack of freedom before the Consultative Commission, they only accused him of not having accelerated it by allowing so many months to pass between meetings.

6. To the charge of insubordination in general, they reply that the appeal of the inferior authority to the superior authority is not insubordination. And so it has happened many times with memoranda to the Pope. The last time was on Epiphany. The cardinals of the Commission may have to call us annoying and intrusive because we have turned to them so often. They again deplore the Visitator’s partiality in favor of Cherubini, as well as his drastic approach, resorting lately to excommunications and all kinds of spiritual and temporal punishments, not excluding prison and the galleys. “We do not believe that this approach is common in your Order,” they say.

Since the subject of the Jesuits and their relationship to this drama of Pious Schools will soon resurface, it is interesting to read what is said in this letter. Although they do not doubt that there are some among them who have little affection for them,

“Nevertheless - they say - we believe that we are generally held in high esteem. Nor do we listen to those who say that your Religion is trying to destroy ours by its policy, but we believe that they rejoice that the number of laborers working in the Lord’s vineyard is increasing. And because we have this notion of the integrity and sincerity of the Society, we never meant to believe those who said to ours that we could not expect any arrangement from you, Father, but that we should rather fear any appreciable harm or the ruin.”[3964]

3964 EC, p.2509.

And finally, this kind of colophon to the long reply to the Visitator sounds as frank as it is ironic: “Finally, we should not be accused of independence, nor of being completely insubordinate to the Vicar of Christ, but rather admired and praised for the patience we have shown during the three years in which the Apostolic Visittation has done no good.”[3965]

3965 Ibid.

It was the last time that words were publicly exchanged between Father Pietrasanta and the Piarists, with all the harshness of self-defense and attack. The high hopes that so many Piarists had at first placed in the Visitator were gradually dashed, and we have not yet heard the moderate complaints of the Holy Founder. We are of the opinion, however, that history judges him excessively harshly and ascribes to him more guilt and malice than he had. Without denying his faults, his rash or ill-considered actions and reactions, his main fault was perhaps what the Fathers of San Pantaleo denounced in their last letter: not having made an effort to change the bad image that had been formed in the Roman Curia of the Pious Schools, from Msgr. Albizzi to the two Popes Urban VIII and Innocent X, by investigating and exposing the truth and the lie. In a way, Pietrasanta was also a more or less unconscious victim of Mario and Cherubini, whom he believed and favored with “super abundance”, and his desire to save the Order clashed with the decisions of the Commission, whose strings were pulled with finesse and diplomacy by the all-powerful Mgr Albizzi.

The publication of the Brief

On March 9, 1646, Mgr. Assessor wrote to Mgr. Mark Antony Maraldi, the Secretary for Briefs: “I am sending Your Most Eminent Illustr. Lorship the Brief on the Religion of the Pious Schools with some remarks so that you can publish it in agreement with them.”[3966] A long month had passed since February 3rd, when the 5th and last meeting of the Deputy Commission had taken place to decide on the changes to the draft of the Brief. That month, Albizzi, as secretary of the Commission, presented its conclusions to the Pope, who, as we have already seen, made some changes and ordered the publication of the Brief. And with all this in mind, the same Monsignor wrote the final text or left the final draft to Maraldi, as both possibilities fitted into the above-mentioned letter.[3967] The Brief began with the words Ea quae pro felici and was dated March 16, 1646.[3968]

3966 G. SÁNTHA, Card. F. Albitius et Scholae Piae: Archivum 11 (1982) 81, n.127.

3967 Albizzi later confessed that he himself had written the Brief: “for having been the secretary of that Congregation and having drafted the Bull”. (ibid.).

3968 Cf. Bull. Sch. P., p.45-49; Bull. Rom., 15, p.459-462.

Before Albizzi passed it on to Maraldi, Father General was aware of its contents and believed that it had already been prepared on March 2nd and was about to be published. In the two letters he wrote the following day, he only knows that the solemnly professed will keep their solemn vows but will no longer be able to take them from now on; that they will be subject to the Ordinary “and other things that the person who informed him did not want to make clear.”[3969] In two further letters of the 17th he says that the Pope signed the minutes of the letter on the 14th but he gives no indication of its contents.[3970] Nevertheless, he must have known something more, because the reflections he makes in these four letters indicate that he had an inkling of the catastrophe. Such reflections have a double sign: the firm hope that the enemies will not be able to destroy the Religion, which after these catastrophes “will undoubtedly return, perhaps to be more glorious than before”. We must therefore trust in the Lord, for “whatever men fail to do, God will certainly make amends.”[3971] And the second reflection is a bitter lament for the little fruit produced by Fr. Pietrasanta’s Visitation and his conviction that the enemies of the Institute he speaks of are the Jesuit Fathers. Read these paragraphs:

3969 C.4336, 4337.

3970 C.4340, 4341.

3971 C.4336, 4337, 4340.

“This is the beautiful fruit that Father Pietrasanta’s Visitation has produced after three years; and thus, the wish of so many Jesuit Fathers who have published here, in Germany, and in Poland, that our Religion may soon be destroyed, will have been fulfilled... In the meantime, Your Reverence communicate it to these Fathers, that they may all together pray to God for the Jesuit Fathers who have given us this evil and bad name.” And in another letter: “I consider a great thing that the three-year Visitation of our Visitator has borne such fruit, for the Emm. Deputies will have paid more credit to the Visitator than to anyone else.”[3972]

3972 C.4137, 4341. On the opposition, desires and gossips of the Jesuits in Germany and Poland to which the Founder alludes, see Appendix II: Incomprensione e rivalità dei Gesuiti, in G. L. MONCALLERO, La fondazione delle Scuole degli Scolopi nell’Europa centrale al tempo della Controriforma (Alba 1972) p.145-156.

At dusk on March 17th, Msgr. Joseph Palamolla, the secretary of Cardinal Vicar Ginetti, arrived in San Pantaleo and read the long-awaited and dreaded apostolic Brief to the community gathered in the domestic oratory. And when he had finished reading it, he kept the paper and left the oratory. They were all speechless and dismayed and did not want to testify to what they had just heard. And in the embarrassing and dramatic silence of the moment - as Caputi recounts - the voice of Father General was heard reciting the verses of Job: Dominus dedit, Dominus abstulit. Sicut Domino placuit, ita factum est. Sit nomen Domini benedictum (Job 1:21) (The Lord has given, the Lord has taken away. As it pleased the Lord, so it was done. Blessed be his name).[3973]

3973 BAU, BC, p.1111.

That very afternoon he wrote the first letters, almost telegrams, conveying the sad news to various homes, and said simply:

“After our Lord’s Brief has been published this afternoon, the contents of which you will see in the enclosed invoice, it is communicated to your Reverences, so that you may know how Religion stands. But do not cease to continue the Institute with joy and to be united and at peace, in the hope that God will put everything in order...”[3974]

3974 Two identical letters have been preserved, addressed to Chieti and Narni (c.4342, 4343). This suggests that there were others like them for other houses.

In addition to this formula for the communities, he also wrote other personal letters in which he gives the synthesis of the letter he had read, such as the letter addressed to Fr. Novari, the Provincial Vicar of Germania. It is a very curious letter, because he had already finished and dated it when Msgr. Palamolla arrived and read the letter. When he returned to his room, he added a postscript in which he communicated the synthesis of the same. The contrast between the two parts is impressive. In the letter he said:

“I warn you, Your Reverence, that even if it is written to you that our Religion will be destroyed, you should not believe such news, for we hope that the blessed Christ and his most holy Mother are on our side and will soon frustrate the machinations of the adversaries. As soon as possible the letter will appear, the contents of which are not yet known with certainty, and it will be communicated to Your Reverence....” And in the postscript, he added: “At this moment, at 24 hours[3975], the secretary of His Eminence the Papal Vicar has published the Brief, which states that each house of our Religion is to govern itself, subject to the Ordinary of the place, according to the Congregation of the Oratory of St. Philip Neri, and the professed of our Religion who wish to change to another Religion etiam laxiorem may do so, and henceforth they shall not be admitted to the habit except as such of the Chiesa Nuova [Oratory] without any vote, and that there shall be neither a General nor a Provincial government, and each house shall be governed according to the constitutions which some prelates shall issue, and that Collegio Nazareno shall be subject to the Roman Rota; but of all this a fuller copy shall be sent. Do not lose heart, for we hope in the Lord that everything will be settled if we are united.”[3976]

3975 In another letter written the next day he says that “yesterday evening at 23 hrs. the Brief was brought” (C.4346).

3976 C.4344. The same repeats in C.4347 and partly in 4345, 4346.

Comparing this synthesis with the text of the Brief, three differences stand out, namely: a) the Saint says that “henceforth they cannot be admitted to the habit except as such of the Chiesa Nuova, without vows”, that is, they can be admitted but without vows. Whereas the Instruction strictly states that henceforth no one shall be admitted to the said religion[3977]. b) The Saint continues: “and that there shall be neither General nor Provincial...” This is the obvious meaning, but curiously the text of the Brief - by an oversight - omits to mention the Provincials, passing from the General and the Visitator to the superiors of the houses.[3978] c) The saint says that the Constitutions are to be made by some Prelates, while the Brief simply says that they will be made by order of the pope (iussu nostro edendas). These details force us to ask: What was read out publicly, the text of the Brief that we know or another text before the final drafting? Was it already signed by the pope? And the questions are not idle, considering that in this long history Albizzi’s Briefs were dubious: No one ever saw the appointment of Mario as General Vicar, although it existed, …but was it signed by the pope? The appointment of Cherubini as Mario’s successor was an unfortunate fraud, with a forged date… signed by the pope? However, the importance of this last document, which we are commenting on here, demanded a greater guarantee of authenticity and more seriousness in its promulgation. What could be more obvious than to give the condemned an official copy of the Brief so that they could read it at their leisure and find out exactly what it said! But no. A paper was read out in Latin - the brothers understood nothing - and they took it with them to work on it.[3979]

3977 “…ne de coetero ulli amplius in dicta Religione recipiantur... interdicimus et prohibemus” (Bull. Sch. P., p.47).

3978 “Sublata tam... olim Ministro Generali... quam aliis etiam auctoritate Apostolica Visitatoribus ac Superioribus deputatis Domorum Ministris, ceterisque inferioribus Superioribus, omni et quacumque facultate et superioritate...” (ib.). The descending enumeration requires that the Provincials be named.

3979 In the letter with which Albizzi sent the minute of the Brief to Maraldi (March 9, 1646) he spoke of two copies: one for the Auditors of Rota and the other - it is supposed - for the Order. But it was not delivered then, but later, once it was printed (Cf. G. SÁNTHA, Card. F. Albitius et Scholae Piae: Archivum 11 [1982] 81, n.127). Berro exposes his doubts and of those present to the reading of the Brief “or a piece of paper and not the Brief” (BERRO III, p.4).

On April 13th or 14th, it left the printing press and was distributed directly from the Vatican to the bishops who were superiors of the Piarist houses in their dioceses, as well as to the houses themselves, but slowly and not to all bishops and not to all houses.[3980] Undoubtedly, between March 16th, when it was dated, and the present date of edition, there were still some retouchings, even serious ones[3981], which led Berro to exclaim: “This Brief was changed so many times before it was given to the press that it is a very great atrocity.”[3982] And these retouches - of which we know nothing concrete - were of course new bungling works by Albizzi, because it is unlikely that he turned to the Pope every time once he had signed the letter. So let us judge the impudence and audacity of this man who changed, to suit his taste, a text already signed by Innocent X, the one with the twisted look in Velazquez’s painting. But that’s how it remained in history.

3980 C. 4359 y 4361.

3981 On April 21st Calasanz writes: “in the printed Brief, lately, they have added some more aggravating words than in the first one” (C.4361 and 4355).

3982 BERRO II, p.214. Berro says (ibid., p.215) that Fr. Virgilio Spada, brother of Cardinal Bernardino, of the Deputy Commission, being at that time the Preposit of the Oratory, had something added in his favor. This agrees with what Calasanz said (C.4355), that in order to amend something relative to the Oratory, the Brief, already in the printing press, was taken to the Palace. And indeed, after naming the relationship of similarity with the Oratory, it reads “so that such Religious can never be called Priests or Clerics of the Congregation of the Oratory or of St. Philip Neri nor be considered as such”. Probably Virgilio Spada feared some sort of usurpation, but in this case, it would have meant to renounce the very name of the Pious Schools, which was absurd.

In reality, the letter was neither the result of the long deliberations of the Pontifical Commission nor the result of the Apostolic Visitation. Both had arrived at what had been decided in the third session with the reinstatement of Fr. General. What followed was the personal mandate and imposition of the Pope, who summarily marginalized the free outcome of the Commission, without forgetting the responsibility and arrogance of the one who led the Pope to this decision.

The Brief did not propose a simple “reduction”: neither to a Pauline Congregation with simple vows, nor to its original status as a Pauline Congregation subordinate to the Ordinary, as proposed in the 4th section and in the first draft of the letter, nor to a Congregation without vows like the Oratory, since on the one hand all retained their solemn vows and on the other hand the admission of new members was forbidden, an absurd condition for the survival of any constituted society. It was a covert “reduction” to extinction, slowly, inexorably, under the guise of a non-existent “Congregation without vows”.

Neither the Apostolic Visitator himself nor the Deputy Commission as such issued any decree of reform. Everything was reduced to the Brief, the alleged reform of which was entrusted to the new Constitutions that never saw the light of day. In the meantime, the Congregation, without legitimate Constitutions and without an internal hierarchical structure, was miserably doomed to die because of the ease with which it could be abandoned and the impossibility of breathing new life into it.

The abomination of desolation

In the letter in which he informed the Rector of Frascati of the reading of the fatal Brief in the Oratory of San Pantaleo - a letter written by his then secretary, Father Bandoni - the Old Saint put his usual signature and left history the most sincere expression of his deeply depressed and troubled state of mind. The letters of his name, no longer shaken by the many years, but angular, confused, crowded and smeared, go from left to right like something collapsing and resting on the end of his Spanish signature, that, however, maintains its perfect horizontality as an unshakable base.[3983] And he said to him, as a preliminary to this signature, “I do not know where to hold on; I say this, I do not want any other Religion either, but to remain so until God wills it.” On The same day, he had written to Genoa: “The letter has come out which clearly shows the ruin of the Religion, but I hope the more they kill it, the more God will exalt it.”[3984]

3983 See photogravure in CS, II, p.160-161 and compare with six others in ibid, p.64-65.

3984 C.4346 and 4345, dated March 18, 1646.

Alongside such feelings of ruin, despair and hope, there is a particular sense of bewilderment, of incomprehensible puzzlement, which he often repeats: “I cannot quite understand that an Institute so useful and in demand throughout Europe, and praised even by heretics, can be so easily destroyed by human malice; and while I am still breathing, I hope that it will be restored to its original state.”[3985] Nor does he fail to reaffirm his own conviction and that of others that it was the Jesuits, and not Pietrasanta in particular, who caused the ruin. He wrote to Messina: “Here [in Rome] it is publicly said that it was all the work of the Jesuit Fathers, because for some time some of them in various provinces have been telling our people that the Religion of the Pious Schools would soon be destroyed”. And to the Bishop of Malta he said: “You will have learned from the announcement in the gazettes of the ruin of our Religion, brought about by those whom God knows”. And from the gazettes of Venice, his friend Michael Jimenez Barber wrote to him in tasteful Castilian:

3985 C.4341 and 4348, 4366.

“The bad news travels fast, for all of Benetia is full of the bad decisions that have been made concerning the affairs of Your Reverence’s Institute. For all the newspapers report that the Pope has ordered that they should no longer dress and remain subject to the Ordinary; and the public papers also report that it was all done at the request of the brave Fathers of the Society of Jesus, not a few of whom here grumble about their ambition... Forgive me and bear with patience these slights which some of your wicked children have inflicted on you to such an extent that God will give them the reward they deserve; and Mons. de Albis [Albizzi] will pay it with God’s punishment...”[3986]

3986 C.4347, 4353 and EHI, p.165. The constant reference, at least since the 1930s, to the hostility of the Jesuits is undeniable; the insistence with which they spoke of the coming destruction of the Pious Schools since the beginning of the fateful period provoked by Mario; the widespread conviction that they were the cause of the disaster, as these last cited texts say. However, it is not easy to prove with reliable documents who were the concrete persons of the Society -if there were any- responsible for this work of destruction; or what were the means, deeds and writings with which they intervened, particularly with regard to the Deputy Commission. The most plausible hypothesis revolves around the pressures exerted on Albizzi, given his familiarity with them, as we have already seen, or on Cardinals Spada and Roma, so bent on the absolute destruction of the Order. But this is only hypothesis and there is a lack of documented facts. On the other hand, what most interested the Jesuits was to take away the secondary education, Latin and humanities, from the Piarists (as they will do later in the course of history), but they did not succeed, and even Pietrasanta, in this case, sides with the rights of the Piarists. It is a subject, therefore, on which perhaps too much has been assumed, but too little has been proved.

Berro recalls the judgments that some friends of the Order made about the Brief. Thus Msgr. Ingoli, secretary of Propaganda Fide, when he saw the Brief in print, said: “In another pontificate it could be used as a bottle cork”. Abbé Orsi, Internuncio of Poland, said: “It is a letter made with an ax... Do not doubt that it will be annulled in another pontificate. And Cardinal Fabio Chigi, the future Alexander VII: “It is a letter made with little consideration; they have made a great career by destroying a Religion without reason... But I promise you, when the ball comes to me, I will play it in your favor.”[3987] And he played it well when he succeeded Innocent X.

3987 BERRO II, p.215 and III, p.5-6.

These condemning judgments on the Brief were accompanied by expressions of sympathy: “Here in Rome - wrote the Saint - everyone feels sorry for us, but no one wants to be the first to talk to the Pope about it.”[3988] And from outside Rome, people wrote to the beleaguered General and expressed the sympathy of the population, especially in the small towns; they wrote from Pieve di Cento: “Your Paternity cannot imagine how great is the displeasure that these people feel in general, because they feel our displeasure to the highest degree, and they would feel it even more if we had to leave. But we have assured them that we will not abandon them as long as they give us the usual help to live.” From Carcare, they tell him: “In these cities, everyone feels sorry for us and feels these setbacks, maintaining the affection and charity towards us from before, because we try to make them happy in the city and outside the city.” From Ancona: “Here you can not imagine how much we are pitied and everyone is waiting for our reintegration.” And from Cesena: “Our Lord, Cardinal Fachinetti, sends you and Father Peter [Casani] double greetings... and he is very sorry about the matter of the Religion; he almost cried and is astonished, but I can not write everything he told me.” They reported to him from Warsaw: “The Carmelite Fathers feel very sorry for us and their prior, who is a learned man, told me on Sunday that in conscience you can say that our Religion should not obey because what was done, was in male narratis, and I believe there will be others who will say the same.” And there were.[3989]

3988 C.4366 and BERRO III, p.5.

3989 EHI, p.1438, 275, 1788, 2101; EEC, p.1086.

But given the general compassion of the friends, there was also an abundance of ridicule, insults and humiliation from others, especially on the street, as Berro writes from Rome:

“Those who went through the city to collect alms heard a thousand kinds of nonsense; the Fathers who accompanied the pupils home, as was the custom, were insulted and humiliated, especially when they met other boys who came from other schools and said in a loud voice: “Look at the Fathers of the Descongregation; look at the alluvial schools (Scuole delle Piene, instead of Scuole Pie); they are excommunicated, disobedient to the Pope, they give school against the Pope’s will”, and other things I do not remember. Therefore, people avoided going out of the house as often as possible so as not to be so ashamed. And this happened not only in Rome, but also in other cities where there were Pious Schools. Truly, one could say of the poor of the Mother of God what St. Paul said of himself: “We have become like the dregs of the world and the refuse of everything (1 Cor 4:13).”[3990]

3990 BERRO III, p.7.

In fact, the echoes of the insults and mockery of his children and the lamentations and tears of those who, like him, felt wounded, confused and hopeless, and who asked for letters and words from him as their only consolation, reached the Saint’s hands from all sides. Here are a few examples. From Naples: “We are already the fable of the world”. From Cáller: “God would forgive the wicked cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, if there were five righteous, in the time of the God of vengeance, and now, is it possible that there are not five righteous in the Pious Schools...? I can hardly hold my pen in my hand, I cannot see well for tears; after four years of martyrdom, we have brought out this... such a holy and necessary institute in the Church of God, the religion of Our Lady, is it possible...; I will not believe it until I see the Brief published.” From Nursia: “Who would have told us that after so many years we would end up in this state to which human wickedness, or rather devilish, has brought us... I do not believe that God forgives those who have done so much evil... the world will say: they must have done something very evil if they have fallen into this extreme.” From Florence: “I do not know what to say except to console myself with Your Paternity and lament the general misery, that I find so difficult to come to terms with... But I feel the special grace of our Lord, that though I am afflicted with the disgrace which I believe we have suffered, yet I have a lively hope that God will set us on our feet again.” Another from Cáller: “We are incredibly discredited here and do not know which side to be on... for God’s sake, do not fail to comfort us with some advice, for under so many difficulties we find no other consolation than in your letters.” And another: “Who can explain the gravity of our misfortune, my dear Father, the blushing, the shame in which we find ourselves? I am sure that we will be sick with grief if the Lord does not comfort us. After three years and months of sorrow, consider, Father, the labyrinth in which we find ourselves with these blessed Jesuits. May the Lord forgive the author of such a resolution. He will have to deal with God and not with men... We all lie down at your feet weeping like children and ask you not to lose heart, for I hope that the Lord will comfort us.” One from Genoa: “The poor alms-gatherers are already tired of hearing so many reproaches from the laity and, what is worse, of hardly finding any alms because they are rejected by everyone with the words: Your Religion is dissolved, and alms will not be given to those who want to return to the world, and the like. We are the laughing stock of everyone and everyone points the finger at us. But there is no lack of those who take pity on us. I assure you, Father, that many people’s arms are falling down.” And another from Genoa: “I am writing and I do not know what I am writing because I am deeply shocked by the misfortune that has befallen our most afflicted Religion. If I knew that our Religion was useless in the Church, or that it had committed a grievous evil, it would assuage my pain. But knowing that all this has happened through the actions of a few, both from within and from outside, I can neither find peace nor recover.”[3991]

3991 EHI, p.1616, 1892, 2211, 1519, 194, 820, 147, 1341.

To all these external insults and internal torments were added the voices of doomsayers and false counselors, who told them that they were no longer bound by the vows; that they could go home without asking for Briefs and dispensations, which only served to raise money and feed the curial officials. Furthermore, the Pope wanted everyone to go home or look for means of subsistence. He would declare an excommunication, so that within a few days everyone would leave the barefoot and dress like the secular; that the pope no longer wanted grammar and humanities schools for the poor and that the Pious Schools were therefore harmful to society; that they would only teach the catechism; that the pope had ordered that those who walked through the city in the old habit of the Pious Schools should be despoil, even by force and with the help of henchmen.[3992]

3992 BERRO III, p.7 and II, p.220. On March 24, 1646, the Saint already wrote to Berro: “it is doubtful if they will take away poverty and the Apostolic dress [to go barefoot], which is like extinguishing it: it is also doubtful if they will take away Latin from the schools, which would be to extinguish it immediately” (C.4348).

For the second time, not only the Holy Founder and his venerable Assistants, but all poor Piarists without distinction, in Rome and outside Rome, went through times of trouble. And it is not easy to say which was more painful: the external voices that filled them with shame, or the internal voices that urged them to abandon everything because there was no longer any hope of survival.

The great disbandment

Neither the final decisions of the last meeting of the Deputy Commission nor the Apostolic Brief that sanctioned them left any other door open for leaving the Pious Schools than to pass to another Order etiam laxiorem. And some would make use of it. But a few days after the date of the Brief of reduction, Father Stephen Cherubini asked the Pope to allow him to return home in the habit of the secular clergy, to live decently with his own family patrimony for the rest of his days. And he justified his request as follows:

“... now that Your Holiness has transformed this Religion into a Congregation with other restrictions, he [Fr. Cherubini] has incurred the hatred of almost all religious, as if he had brought about all that Your Holiness has religiously done. They call him a destroyer[3993] and enemy of the Religion and have even tried to take his own life, for which reason he has been forced to retire; and since he does not see that he can live safely and peacefully with these religious, because of the hatred they harbor toward him and the obvious danger to his own life, since he is 47 years old, he wishes to live the rest of his life in peace and not to condemn his soul.”[3994]

3993 Cf. BERRO III, ch. 6.

3994 G. SÁNTHA, Tria Brevia Pontificia P. Stephano Cherubíni concessa...: EphCal 9-10 (1960) 267; EC, p.918-919.

On the back of this letter of petition we read: “Recommended by Msgr. Albizzi”.[3995] And Maraldi, who was always so obliging when it came to writing Briefs at the request of the Assessor of the Holy Office, wrote another one and dated it April 13, 1646. The letter is addressed to the Cardinal Vicar of Rome, Ginetti, who is told that, having ascertained that the said Stephen has sufficient means to live outside the religion, he should “grant him permission to wear the habit of a secular priest and, with your permission and that of the Ordinary of the place where he resides, to remain outside that Religion and its houses as long as he lives.”[3996] There is no mention of a release from the vows - and they were solemn - nor of an incardination to a diocese in the service of the bishop.

3995 G. SÁNIHA, o.c., p.274, n.39.

3996 Ib., p.265-266.

This letter went much further than what had been granted first by the Deputy Commission and then by the Brief of Reduction. Both had opened only one door: the transition to another religion while retaining solemn vows. Now another door was opened, in a sense a back door, which was legal because it was based on a papal Brief, but outside what was established by the official order. A new manipulation linked to the fraudster name of Albizzi, all the more serious and destructive when one considers that it was not a simple personal concession to Cherubini, pompously justified, but the preferred means of abandoning the poor congregation of Pious Schools. And it is unfortunate to note that Cherubini was the first to open this false door, which gave him another reason to be called “destroyer of the Order”. He opened the door, but stayed inside. He picked up the letter and kept it for himself, just in case; but he was not going to use it. What the poor man did not know was that he only had 21 months to live, and that the door he had to go through was none other than the one Mario opened to leave this world.

The day before signing the new Brief for Cherubini, when the Brief about the reduction had not yet been published, the Founder had already heard some confusing news about what was going on in the Roman Curia. And so he shared it with Berro:

“It is said that Father Jerome [Laurenti] of St. Francis, in Savona, has received a Brief to return to the world in the clerical habit, but in such a way that he can have means to live with easy, by presenting the letter to the bishop under whose jurisdiction he must be, and it is said that the dossier will cost him 6 golden escudos. It is also said that Father John Baptist [Barone] of St. Dominic and some others will do the same. It is also believed that the Brothers will be given a generous dispensation to return to the world, paying a little more for the Brief.”[3997]

3997 C.4357 (dated April 12, 1646). He already speaks of it on March 3, 1646 (C.4349).

This was all true. In later letters, he repeatedly speaks of this and of other religious having a Brief,[3998] but he did not know that Cherubini had been the first to receive it and open the way. In early June, he learned that both he and Fr. John Stephen Spinola, the new rector of San Pantaleo, have the Brief, although neither seems to be using it for the time being.[3999]

3998 Cf. C.4358, 4361, 4369, 4373, 4384.

3999 Cf. C.4380 (dated June 9, 1646) and 4390, 4391, 4442.

The reference to the Brothers is also correct, with the disturbing peculiarity that the Brief they received contained exactly the same text as that for the priests, and no one in the Secretariat of Briefs took the trouble to adapt the text to the “lay” religious. So, it was incomprehensible that in the stereotypical form of absolution of censures they were exempted from a possible suspension that they might have deserved, even though suspension is a punishment due to priests. But the most striking thing was the concession itself. It is understandable that the priests were allowed to dress like the secular clergy, since they continued to exercise the priesthood outside the Order. But it is not understandable that the Brothers were allowed to return to the world and wear the habit of the secular clergy and live in their houses under the obedience of the diocesan bishop[4000], unless they continued to be bound by solemn vows, the exemption of which is not mentioned in these Briefs, neither for priests nor for brothers. And this was indeed the case. It was neither a secularization nor a reduction to the lay state, but simply a matter of leaving the habit and the houses of the Pious Schools to live outside, dressed like the secular clergy and retaining the solemn vows. But this curious concession was not entirely new, nor was the ability to convert to other Religions etiam laxiores. For this reason, we return to the two documents 2I and 23 of the Paolucci dossier, which we attribute to Cardinals Spada and Roma.

4000 All the Briefs were copied from the one granted to Cherubini, changing only the name of the Ordinary and that of the interested party (cf. G. SÁNTHA, o.c., p.265-266 and n.37). Berro brings in his Memoirs the Brief granted to Br. Charles Vuolo, of which he also did not avail himself, whose main nucleus reads: “mandamus ut constito tibi (the bishop) prius, quod dictus Carolus habeat, ut praefertur, unde extra dictam Religionem, eiusque domos Regulares commode vivere possit, eidem Carolo assumere Habitum Praesbyteri saecularis in eoque extra dictam Religionem eiusque domos sub tuae (sic, for tua) et ordinarii loci ubi pro tempore commorabitur obedientia quoad vixerit, permanendi, licentiam auctoritate nostra Apostolica concedas” (Berro III, p:10. The words in italics have been omitted by oversight in this edition of Berro). In the text, it reads “sub tuae (?)... obedientía)”, while in the Brief of Cherubini it reads “sub tua...licentia”. Nor did they bother to change the text of the Brief of Cherubini itself, which, being addressed to the Card. Vicar of Rome, said that the petitioner (Cherubini) could wear the clerical habit “sub tua et Ordinarii loci ubi pro tempore commorabitur licentia quoad vixerit...”, that is, with the license of the Cardinal and the Ordinary of the place. The other Briefs were addressed to the bishops, and since they did not know the concrete name, they began in anonymous: “Venerabilis Frater salutem et Apost. benedictionem”. And when they reached this clause they put obedientia for licentia, but left sub tua et Ordinarii loci... obedientia”, where tua has no meaning whatsoever. These and other stylistic oversights and shortcomings of Maraldi and his Secretariat of Briefs are not to be wondered at and are evident from reading them in the Bulario Romano. See as an example one of Innocent X in Bull. Rom. vol. 15, p.372-377.

In both documents, not without a certain unfortunate audacity, the intention was to completely destroy the Order, whereas Pope Innocent had already decided that only the “reduction to the Congregation” should be considered. In the first part, the author alludes three times to the recent suppression of the Order of the Humiliated and the Order of St. Barnabas and St. Ambrose ad Nemus and tries to apply the same measures to the Pious Schools, but he does not succeed, since they have neither goods of their own nor a stable income. He assumed that if the Orders were dissolved, all religious would remain bound by their solemn vows. When Pius V declared the Order of the Humiliated to be dissolved (Brief of February 7, 1571), he stipulated “that all existing religious who have made their regular profession shall henceforth be assembled in the houses and places we shall designate for them, with everything that is necessary for their maintenance, so that they may lead a regular life there according to their profession, under the care and visits of the Ordinaries of the place or another we shall delegate; or else that, according to canon law, they may pass to other Orders of equal or stricter observance.”[4001]

4001 Bull. Rom., 7, p.887.

In a supplementary Brief, he distributed the 84 religious and 17 servants among the 22 houses of the defunct Order and allocated each of them 40 gold escudos a year from their own income for as long as they lived.[4002] This solution was not feasible for the Piarists, not only because they had no income, but also because if the order was dissolved, they would cease to teach and would therefore no longer receive what was allocated to them for their upkeep. Yes, the second option could be used, to change Religion. And that is what was done.

4002 Ib., p.888-893.

With the letter of December 2, 1643, Urban VIII abolished the Order of Saints Barnabas and Ambrose ad Nemus, with the same characteristics as the previous one, but left the ordinaries the option of grouping the professed of the Order in some of their houses and giving them what was necessary for their subsistence from their income. And it added that they could also convert to another Religion with less rigor (etiam laxiorem).[4003] The ordinaries had probably not done their job properly when Pope Innocent X, in a letter dated April 1, 1645, once again intervened in the distribution of the religious and their income, designating half a dozen houses - out of the 22 that existed - where all those who preferred to live according to their own Rule until their death could gather and whose income would provide them with the necessary means of subsistence. The novelty of this Brief was that “many religious of this suppressed Order -said the letter - had received permission both from Us and from our predecessor Urban to leave the said Religion and return to the world, to remain in it in the habit of a presbyter or a secular cleric... and others remain in it by retaining their regular habit.”[4004]

4003 Bull. Rom., 15, p.292-295.

4004 Ibid., p.373-374.

The dates of both letters explain to us the fact that both the Holy Founder of the Pious Schools and the Deputy Commission were aware of what had been decided regarding the suppression of the “Order of St. Barnabas and St. Ambrose ad Nemus” and its similarities with the already extinct Order of the Humiliated. And it was not without astonishment that the measures taken for the Pious Schools were as far as possible identical. That is, the door was opened to them to another Religion etiam laxiorem; they were granted a return to the world in the habit of a presbyter or a secular cleric, in both cases retaining their solemn vows and being assured a patrimony for their subsistence; and those who wished to remain in their regular habit were to remain in their convents. The only difference was that the “suppressed” lived on the revenues, while the Piarists continued to live “on alms” as they had done hitherto, for which it was necessary that the body should continue to live in the minimal form of the Congregation without vows, and perform the same ministry as always, namely the justification of alms. But when the door was closed to further new members, the Pious Schools would die out with the death of the last Piarists. So “the non extiction” was not a boon, but a necessity to be able to support “those who are faithful to their vocation”.

There were some who changed to other Religions, but the vast majority, almost all of those who left, did so through the false door opened by Cherubini. According to rough calculations, the Order numbered between 500 and 550 religious at the time.[4005] In the records of the Vatican’s Secretariat of Briefs, Father Sántha counted 102 Briefs “to wear the habit of a secular presbyter” issued to Piarist religious, both priests and clerics or brothers, between April 1646 and December 1648.[4006] It is true that not all those who received the letter left the Order, but it is also true that after the death of the Founder in August 1648, the disbandment continued until 1656, when the institute was re-established as a Congregation with simple vows. Berro calculates that in total “more than 150 of our priests changed their habit; some entered different Orders and Congregations and others took the habit of the secular clergy”; and then he adds that about 200 professed religious returned to their homes, in addition to those who changed to other Religions.[4007] A real hecatomb.

4005 Pietrasanta, in his two Relations of October 1, 1643 and July 18, 1645, said that the Order had “circa 500 religiosi” (around 500 religious) (EC, p.2085 and 2116), and Calasanz, in a memorandum to the Pope of January 1647, says that it has “più di 550 religiosi” (more tham 550 religious), perhaps exaggerating a little (EGC X, p.359).

4006 Cf. EEC, p.1088, n.17; G. SÁNTHA, o.c., p.265.

4007 Cf. BERRO II, p.221 and III, p.9.

Some or many of those who had received the Brief to leave the convent followed Cherubini’s example and did not go. They were mainly his followers and friends of Mario, the very people who were expected to leave. These,” says Berro, “wanted to live as seculars as they pleased, living in regular houses, making use of the things of the house, receiving alms to provide furniture for their homes, without taking part in the ministry of the Pious Schools, much less observing our ancient Constitutions and the exercises of mortification and prayer. This was an annoyance to all the others, who, with more affection and diligence than ever to obtain the mercy of H. D. M., did their best to observe them.”[4008] As early as July 1646, the Holy Founder warned of these abuses and promised that remedial action would be taken.[4009] And indeed, a memorandum was sent to the Holy See asking those who possessed the Brief to leave it within four months, and if they did not leave it, the Brief would be annulled. And the Brief was published on December 4, 1646.[4010]

4008 Cf. BERRO III, p.14.

4009 C.4391.

4010 Cf. BERRO III, p.14-17; Bull. Sch. P., p.50-52; Bull. Rom., 15, p.487-489. There were new subterfuges, such as asking again, the Brief with first name or name of Religion, different from the one used in the first Brief, or having it detained in the Secretariat of Briefs without date, to ask for it in due time, etc. Of all of which the due remedy was requested (cf. EC, p.2511-2512).

Those who left

It would not be fair to think that this great dissolution is proof of the poor state the Order was in, and that both the good and the bad took the opportunity to leave: the good because they regretted the lack of religious and observant atmosphere, and the bad to seek greater freedom and at the same time to free themselves from the privations and rigors of poverty and the Rule. Above all, it must not be forgotten that the time when some or many had succeeded in freeing themselves by appealing to the nullity of their profession had come to an end years ago. Now, with a few exceptions, everyone left with solemn vows that had not been annulled.

It must be understood that the atmosphere that had been created favored the departure even of those who were well and enthusiastic about their religious vocation. It required a certain heroism to endure the humiliations, doubts, accusations and threats of total annihilation; the uncertainty of the future and the pressure of the family; the pious and impious advices of those who wanted to soothe the conscience by declaring the vows and their obligations non-existent; the enormous difficulties that arose to maintain houses and schools with so few people; the legal facilities that existed to give up and leave. Moreover, the government imposed by the Holy Office, by Albizzi and the Deputy Commission, concentrated in the unworthy hands of Mario and Cherubini and the complacent and fickle Pietrasanta, had frayed the nerves of all and aroused the spirit and anger of so many who uselessly and unwisely rebelled against injustice and abuse of power. And even when it is against injustice, protest does not cease to be protest, and rebellion does not cease to be considered a crime. And all this inevitably affected the communities, made the atmosphere breathless and provoked exodus. It was not fair that the same people who provoked the riots and rebellions complained about it.

It is therefore not possible to regard this bleeding of the Order as a healthy purging and take comfort in the well-known adage “every cloud has a silver lining”. Perhaps most of those who left the Order would have endured with dignity until death had disorder not been provoked and arrogance imposed since the rise of Mario. Perhaps this select group of Florentine ‘Galileans’ would have been an excellent school of scholars for the Order, but with the exception of Morelli they all left, some before and some after the Founder’s death.

It would have been healthy, however, if a few more had left, precisely those whom the majority hoped and wished would leave, and who did not, although some of them had the letter in their pockets, such as Cherubini, Ridolfi, Gavotti, Cerutti and others of the same ilk. The complaints of those who wrote to the Founder referred to them and to others who were dissatisfied, restless and affected by environmental conditions, such as Berro: “Since it seems that the Pope easily gives permission to those who do not want to be with us to leave, see to it that each house can send out whoever it sees convenient.”[4011] Or Fr. Patera: “In a way, it would be good if some would take out the Brief and leave. I am sorry that these people, because they have nothing to live on in their houses, do not leave and continue to live in their own way, infecting others and constantly tormenting the poor superiors and those who work for the Institute.”[4012] But the person who wrote this got the Brief the following year and left.

4011 EHI, p.327.

4012 EHI, p.1597.

In this atmosphere of defeatism, confusion and worry, some undoubtedly exaggerated the situation, like the meritorious Provincial Fathers of Germania, who wrote to the poor former General: “I ask you, Father - said Conti from Krakow - to encourage all those who desire to be true religious... and, on the contrary, to push out those who are quarrelsome and dissatisfied with the religious state... It is good that they are leaving now that the door is open to them, and it is enough for us that in Italy, indeed in the whole religion, there are still 50 or less, as they think all those who love our poor religion and are zealous for the glory of God.”[4013] And Fr. Novari from Nikolsburg: “I inform you in the name of the whole Province that neither I nor the said Province wish to receive the Brief sent to us in any way or under any pretext... So, whoever wants to be in Congregation, let him be. All of us in this Province do not want that. And you should know that as soon as the said Brief is published in these places of Germania, Poland and Bohemia, all will go unanimously and become secular priests in order to have their freedom... You write that the professed who wish to convert to another, more lax religion, may do so. I answer in the name of all, that you should not worry about such a license... for we want to be religious of the Pious Schools or secular priests and numquam amplius et in aeternum (no longer and forever) religious of any other Religion.”[4014] They were cries of pain and fear, but Novari, like Conti, stood firm with other supporters and saved these central European foundations of such a glorious future for the Order.

4013 EEC, p.323.

4014 EEC, p.886-887.

Especially in Italy, the confusion was greater, and even the good and staunch defenders of the Order and the Founder doubted themselves because of the difficulties or the arbitrariness of the local bishops, as in the case of Naples, whose archbishop, Cardinal Filomarino, and his vicar general let their heavy and capricious hand be felt over the communities. Fr. Charles Patera writes to Fr. General: “For God’s sake, see that you remedy the situation, for only a few will remain; ... whoever had the courage to persevere will indeed lose it, and I still doubt myself, but I hope in God that I will never go so far as to leave the habit. But I certainly will not stay in Naples, even if I encourage others to persevere”.[4015] And within a year, he asked for a Brief and left.

4015 EHI, p.1601.

The words of Fr. Vanni, who is torn between doubts and hope in the Blessed Mother, are moving. He writes to the Saint from Nursia: “We are up here in the mountains and believe more than we feel. We are told that Religion is in turmoil more than ever after all these events, although I cannot believe that the Blessed Mother Mary, under whose protection we are, wants to abandon us. Please, Y.P. should tell us something. What is certain is that, for my part, I want to help the Institute with words and works and persevere in the vocatione qua vocatus sum, even if greater difficulties are prepared and foreseen for the future than in the past... I hope that we will not always be in this humiliation and disgrace of the people, but that Our Lady will remember her servants.”[4016] And he too did not resist and left.

4016 EHI, p.2212.

And the excellent Fr. Mussesti, who wrote to him from Florence: “I ask you to tell me freely whether anything good is to be expected or whether things are such that it would be better if everyone took care of themselves, as it seems that everyone writes and says, because seeing that some are leaving, that others are obtaining a patrimony and others already have it, makes me think and moves me to do what I see everyone doing.”[4017] But he stayed.

4017 EHI, p.1520.

It is not surprising that many of these religious, who had left in disgust, as if driven by adverse circumstances or mistrust of the uncertain future, overwhelmed by the conviction that everything had been ended by the will of the Pope, felt the desire to return when, after a decade of suppression, the Congregation was re-established, first with simple and then with solemn vows, and regained the category of religious Order. Those who remained behind did not fear the return of these good religious, whose crime was rather weakness and pusillanimity, but rather the return of the troublemakers and undesirables. For this reason, even before the death of the Founder, it was unanimously decided not to admit any of those who had left the convent. With a certain poetic flourish, Father Bianchi suggested to the old saint:

“It is convenient to let the bad time take its course while we wait for the good one, when, if the outcasts want to return to the beach by the sea of the world to endanger us even more than before, I am sure that, having felt the damage their heavy presence has caused us in the poor little boat of our Religion, we will not admit them so easily, unless some ignorant person grants them admittance. It is not fitting that, having got rid of the bad people, we should again welcome the serpent into our bosom.”[4018]

4018 EHI, p.385.

And so it was done, without exception, despite all pleas.

All these desperate letters from the good sons, expressing their doubts, fears, anxieties and promises to the Old Holy Man, must have filled his soul with deep bitterness, and his poor body, with the weight of his almost 89 years, felt the blows. On August 25, 1646 - five long months after the announcement of the fateful Brief - he wrote: “I am still in pain from the heat of the liver and have not said Mass for more than a month because I cannot stand for so long; I feel relieved, however, in the hope that, God willing, I will soon be able to celebrate Mass again. But at the beginning of December, he still feels too weak to walk, “after last summer’s illness.”[4019] Even holiness cannot prevent the saint’s liver from suffering from displeasures.

4019 C.4396 and 4428.

Those who remained

Not only had the tares been uprooted, neither all the rest was wheat, but the field had been shorn. Yet, despite the imposing denudation, not a single house was closed, but some were pitiful, though not all. And the rectors, although the houses had been declared independent and autonomous, continued to appeal to the deposed Father General for help, but often without success.

From Pieve di Cento, Father Paoletti wrote to “Father General”: “With tears in my eyes, I beg you to have mercy on this poor house, where I alone have to care for three sick people in bed, to whom I cannot give the help they need. I beg you to give me a Father or Brother who will help them a little more.”[4020] The rector of Genoa, Father John Luke Rapallo, writes to him on June 23, 1646, that there are only 10 religious living in “this poor, ruined house”, 6 of whom are priests, whereas there used to be 20. However, he adds that “all the schools will be maintained until the vacations, but if no help comes, it will be impossible.”[4021] In November, he received the Brief and left.

4020 EHI, p.1577. Fr. Vincent Paoletti is called in an obituary “an exemplary religious of great charity for the sick”. He died in 1683, at the age of 66, Rector of Pieve di Cento, of malignant fever contracted while assisting the sick (ibid., p.1578).

4021 EHI, p.1759-1762 and the following letter, p.1762-1764.

There was no lack of difficulties on the part of some protectors, such as the Marchioness of Campi, Mary Paladini, who, when she learned that the Order had been reduced to a Congregation, seriously considered expelling the Piarists and converting their house in Campi into a nunnery.[4022] But they barely managed to keep the house.

4022 Cf. EHI, p.1383 and 2068; C.4371.

Even more dramatic was the harshness, lack of understanding and arrogance with which the Piarist priests were treated by some local bishops. Berro reports on many houses, shedding light on the relationship between the bishops and sometimes their general vicars and each of them. On the one hand, we must deplore the abuses, the caprices and the excessive interference of the Bishop of Conversano in the house of Turi, as well as those of his general vicar and other personalities of his curia, who alternately stayed in the house for weeks at the expense of all free food; the general vicar of Frascati, who without any consideration ordained ignorant and lax Brothers whom our superiors did not want to ordaine; the Bishop of Savona, who practically transformed the school into a diocesan seminary; the Cardinal archbishop of Naples and his General Vicar, about whom Berro, then residing in that city, complains a lot, and among his grievances he recalls the edict of expulsion of all “foreigners” (non-Neapolitans), which included Fathers Berro and Caputi, who joined the community of San Pantaleo. There are also complaints about the Bishop of Lecce regarding the school of Campi and of Modena regarding that of Fanano.[4023]

4023 Cf. BERRO III, p.27-68; C.4352.

The majority of the bishops, however, behaved in an exemplary manner towards the poor Piarists of their dioceses, as can be seen from their letters to the Founder and from Berro’s explicit recognition: The Cardinal Archbishop of Genoa and his General Vicar regarding the school and novitiate of the city; the respective bishops of the houses of Narni, Poli, Moricone, Ancona, Nursia, Chieti, Nocera dei Pagani, Florence, Pisa, the islands of Sicily and Sardinia and the corresponding bishops of Germania and Poland.[4024] In some places the letter of reduction was not published, either because of the will of the bishops, as in Florence, Germania and Poland, or because of the will of other authorities, as in Sicily, of which he writes: “the Most Illustrious and Reverend Luis Cameros, judge of the Monarchy in the said kingdom [Sicily], took all our religious under his protection and never allowed the archbishops to lay hands on them, but willed that they should always be regarded by all as true religious, and he always kept them as such until Pope Alexander VII. granted us the grace of reintegration.”[4025]

4024 Ibid., p.26-27, 30, 69-75, 78-94; BARTLIK: Archivum 4 (1978) 148-151; 167-170. Sometimes there are isolated complaints against some of these bishops, which Berro praises in general, as it is the case of the archbishop of Genoa (cf. EHI, p.149), or that of Cáller in 1648 (ibid., p.469-470). On the other hand, there is also praise for the archbishop of Naples in the early months (ibid., p.496-499).

4025 BERRO III, p.85. The news is confirmed in CCP, let.96, 97,102. Of the archbishop of Florence Niccolini says: “we cannot but praise him highly, because he neither published the Brief, nor made any act of jurisdiction, leaving our religious in their regular state, exempt from the jurisdiction of the Ordinary...” (ibid., p.79). Of Germania and Poland, he says: “There was no lack of tribulations in all those parts, although the Brief reducing the Order into a Congregation was never published by the local Ordinaries” (ibid., p.90).

The precarious situation in which the houses found themselves when those who had received the Order left them; the decrease in alms due to the discredit caused by the reduction of the Order; the attitude of some bishops and their vicars towards the poor Piarists; the threats and rumors of imminent irretrievable extinction were the cause of the emergence of another type of disturbing enemy: “the heirs”.

On March 10th, six days before the fateful Brief was signed, a Father from Genoa wrote to Fr. General that the Jesuits had already made plans to convert the Piarist house into a school of their own and had the money ready to pay the purchase to whomever.[4026] In April, the Discalced Augustinians and the local clergy of Nursia disputed the Piarist house as a plunder, and the following year the Capuchins intended to use it as a hospice[4027]; in May 1646, the Discalced Augustinians asked the Marquise of Campi to take possession of the Piarist school, while the Marquise thought of giving it to some nuns[4028]; the house of Carcare was requested by the Conventual Franciscans and Fr. General wrote to the rector, Fr. Ciriaco Beretta, in March 1647: “here they have been disappointed; they cannot think of setting foot in this place as long as there is only one of us who wants to stay”[4029]; it is also the Conventuals who turn to the Pope and ask for the school of Ancona, and the Pope forwards the request to Albizzl, who is in charge of disappointing them[4030]; in Savona, the Discalced Carmelites turned to the local Senate in September 1647 to buy the school. Unfortunately, on July 7, 1648, the powder magazine of the fortress of St. George exploded, destroying much of the town and devastating the Piarist house, under whose rubble six religious died[4031]. In 1647, the “Minims” of St. Francis of Paola tried to recapture the renovated convent they had given to the Piarist novitiate in ruins in Cáller in 1645, causing a scandal, but they did not succeed because the authorities intervened[4032]. Those who lived in Pieve di Cento, faced with an uncertain future, feared simply being dismissed by the founder, Captain Francesco M. Mastellari, and they wondered with fear where they would go if they did not want to change to another Religion, and who would support them if the houses were autonomous and with the right to exclusion.[4033]

4026 Cf. EHI, p.1340-1341.

4027 Cf. EHI, p. 184 and 2140.

4028 Cf. EHI, p. 1385, 1383, 2068.

4029 C.4443 and EHI, p.281.

4030 Cf. BERRO III, p.11-12.

4031 Cf. CCP, p.345 and EHI, p.403 and 386. The school was rebuilt by the Piarists.

4032 Fr. Battaglione communicated it to Calasanz in local Spanish: “Seppa, pues, como a los 24 del passado en el amaneçer nos saltearon todos los frayles de San Francisco de Paula con armas y garrotes muy gruessos, dando grandes bozes, diziendo que querían a su Convento...” (Know that on 24th of past month, early in the morning, the friars of St Francis of Paola assail us with weapons and sticks, telling they wanted their convent…) (EHI, p.205). (EHI, p.205). More details in ibid., p.1900-1902.

4033 Cf. EHI, p.1437.

After the first months of lamentation, humiliation and despair were over, when the disbandment ceased, the persevering ones began to reanimate themselves and reorganize their work and school duties according to the forces at hand, feeling calmer and more eager to live their life of observance better. There are numerous testimonies of this new era of peace and tranquility, of enthusiasm and optimism, of the religious spirit that revived after the storm of the Apostolic Visitation and the Brief of Destruction.

It is interesting to read the numerous letters that reached the Old Holy Man from everywhere in this twilight of his long life, with the undoubted light of the sunset for him and the dawn of hope for his sons. Let us look at a few selected paragraphs:

From Genoa (January 25, 1648), “The Institute is well conducted by the grace of God, and although it is a time of scarcity, we have never had such an abundance of students... At home we live with observance, and through the protection of Your Paternity I hope one day to see the Religion elevated”. Again (August 15, 1648): “Here there is no one who exercises the office of troublemaker, and it would please God if all houses had such peaceful subjects as in Genoa, each of whom exercises his office”. From Cáller (January 26, 1648): “Since the time that this house was founded in Caller, at whose foundation I was present, I have not seen it walk with greater observance than now”. And another (November 23, 1647): “The schools are, by the grace of God, full and flourishing. And this is all the more to be appreciated, for if you knew, Father, what steps the Jesuits are taking to substract our students, you would be astonished.” And Father Salazar (December 28, 1646): “Here no one has gone out, neither to the world nor to the convents, nor asked for the Brief of 30 which we are... I have not yet lost hope, and whatever it may be, I hope to die in the Pious Schools”. From Pisa Michelini writes (November 6, 1646): “This house of Pisa is very well populated with good people and so far, it seems to me to be like paradise and I hope it will remain so... we want to build a house of saints as soon as possible and the restless ones we will send elsewhere to exercise their bad talent”. From Nursia (September 2, 1647): “This house of ours ... seems to me today to be the best and most peaceful for those who really want to take care of the health of their soul and their neighbor, as we profess”. From Campi (May 1, 1646): “The schools, by the grace of God, are now doing very well, and there are more than a hundred students, more than ever before.” From Fanano (September 22, 1646): “We are still at the old, or rather, usual observance, to which the house of Fanano has always professed. Here none of the usual exercises are omitted...” From Carcare (May 30, 1646): “We do not omit our habitual way of life, either in the schools or in other matters. And this is what we always intend to do”. The rector of the Duchesca of Naples (June 13, 1646): “I endeavor, to the glory of God, that the house and schools go with all exactness in observance... The abacus is very full, with more than seventy boys, who promise much... and the other five classes are well ordered, the church well served... the alms arrive... there is great peace”. And also, the rector of Porta Reale, Naples (April 24, 1648): “As for the resumption of the institute with greater zeal, not only has it not been interrupted in my house by the grace of God, but it is being carried on with greater profit through the diligence of the Fathers and Brothers who have always taken it to heart. In fact, the number of students has increased... and the oratories and teachings are maintained, with confessions, communions and daily catechism for the students... and the family consists of 23 people”. And Michelini sums up (October 20, 1646): “I hope in God that our things, that is, his work, will progress better than before, for through this open-door the Religion will be cleansed of the scum that has infected the whole body and rendered it incapable of virtuous actions. I am not troubled by the departure of people; on the contrary, I am encouraged by the hope or expectation of zealous men, by whose example I may return to, or at least be more directed to, the spirit of our primitive Church, of which, when I remember it, I sigh and weep for my misfortunes.”[4034]

4034 EHI. p. 403-404, 391, 1269, 832, 1898, 1456, 2139, 1383, 1584, 276, 1404, 882, 1434.

There is no doubt that those who remained were able to maintain or recover the spirit of the Order, to fulfill its true mission with fidelity, heroic commitment and hope for the future, without - let us repeat - closing even one of the houses during the critical decade of the Innocentian reduction. For the old saint, these precious letters would be a consolation for the bitterness of his soul and even a physical relief for his liver pains, more effective than the marble slabs he used to apply as a remedy.

The motherhouse of San Pantaleo

There was no cardinal in the entire Roman Curia who was so kind and condescending to Father Calasanz as Marzio Ginetti, who by virtue of his office as Vicar of the pope and Ordinary of the diocese of Rome was legally appointed superior of the Piarist houses of the Urbe, according to the provisions of the Brief of Reduction, with the exception of Collegio Nazareno, which - based on Berro - he himself obtained to take it out of the hands of Father Cherubini and Pietrasanta and place it under the direct dependence of the Roman Rota.[4035]

4035 Cf. BERRO II, p.223-224.

Although, according to the Brief, each house depended directly on the Ordinary of the place, the Mother House of San Pantaleo, because of the unbroken tradition of being the seat of Father General and his Curia, and because the venerable Father Founder still lived there, retained not only the honor but also a certain supremacy and central authority recognized by all the other houses of the Order. In a sense, Cardinal Ginetti thus acquired the authority of a universal superior of the entire fragmented body; but in reality, with extreme gentleness, he did nothing more than allow Father General to act as freely as possible in order to maintain unity and carry out the attempts at restoration.

On March 25, 1646, Palm Sunday, barely a week after the Brief was read, Msgr. Joseph Palamolla, the Cardinal Vicar’s secretary, gathered the entire community in the oratory and asked them in his name to elect the rector of the house by vote. Thank to the Cardinal’s concession, the Brothers were also admitted to vote. At that time, the community consisted of 23 fathers and 18 brothers, making a total of 41 religious.[4036] After an initial poll, it was decided that Father General - as he was still called[4037] - should propose three candidates to be voted on, and he chose Fathers Spinola, Baldi and Fedele. Father Spinola was elected, but he was not considered appointed, as this was to be done by the Cardinal. The secretary Palamolla informed him of the result and the next day the Card. Ginetti went to San Pantaleo to proclaim him nemine discrepante after a formal vote. He took the opportunity to comfort them and encourage them all to live in peace.[4038]

4036 Cf. in RegCal, 69, there is the list of the Fathers and Brothers who were present at St. Pantaleo while the Brief of reduction was read, with interesting notes on the movement of the people up to the death of the Founder.

4037 Many substituted the title General for Founder, others continued to call him General and others General and Founder. Some even excused themselves from calling him General “not to give admiration to the restless ones of the Religion” (EHI, p. 1439). He was never a friend of rumbustious titles. To Cherubini he would say: “Write to me without titles” (c.1962); to Alacchi: “put in the address, in the Spanish style: ‘To the Father General of the Pious Schools of Rome’” (CCP, p.219). (CCP, p.219); to Fr. Vitali: “Never write to me Most Rev. but only Fr. General” (c.431), etc.

4038 Fr. Bianchi, an eyewitness, told Berro all the details in a letter of March 31 (BERRO II, p. 222-223). Cf. c.4349, 4350, 4357.

At the beginning of June, it was already said that Fr. Spinola had taken the Brief of exclaustration, although he had never used it.[4039] But some rebellious members of the community must have disturbed him so much that he resigned as rector before the end of the year and went to Narni.[4040] Father John Garcia was elected in his place and confirmed by the Cardinal, and remained until May 1649, when he was replaced by Father Francis Baldi.[4041]

4039 C.4380. His exemplary life - he is included among the Venerables of the Order - and the offices he held before and after the Innocentian reduction until his death in 1674 (cf. EEC, p.1119-1120) show once again that even among the very good there were those who obtained the Brief, due to the confusion and the hopelessness of survival of the Religion in those circumstances.

4040 Cf. n.4036 above.

4041 Cf. G. SÁNTHA, Card. Martius Ginetti...: EphCal 4-5 (1972) 149-150.

The autonomy and independence of the houses was in fact not so absolute, partly due to the kindness of Ginetti, who allowed them to do as they pleased, or to the personal and capricious decisions of some bishops, such as that of Cardinal Filomarino, Archbishop of Naples, who expelled the “strangers” from his diocese. There was some movement among the religious, but the prevailing tone among these restless or expelled religious was their desire to go to Rome and live in San Pantaleon together with the Founder. This community experienced many ups and downs in the two and a half years between the Brief of reduction and the death of the Founder. When the letter was read out, there were 41 religious, 23 of them priests and 18 brothers. Of these, 6 priests and 7 brothers left the convent, and 8 priests and 3 brothers changed houses. Total. 20 fatalities. These vacancies were occupied by 6 priests and 7 brothers[4042] to join the house. From Naples came Father Berro and Father Caputi, the two witnesses of the last years of the Founder’s life, who were able to collect so many memories, confidences and testimonies of him, as well as a wealth of documents that they left us in their Memoirs.

4042 Cf. n.4036 above.

However, it was not so easy to become a member of this privileged community, which, like others, had established the rule of subjecting the admission of new members to a vote. Neither the personal interest of the Holy Patriarch sometimes gained the admission of some, as was the case of Fr. Berro and Brother Agapito Sciviglietto, and he had to turn to the Vicegerent, Msgr. Alessandro Vitrice, to obtain their admission.[4043]

4043 Cf. G. SÁNTHA, o.c., p.151 and 159, n.46-47; EC, p.2515.

The confusion caused by the relatively large number of withdrawals and the consequent loss of staff, as well as the devastating effects of the public defamation caused by the Apostolic Visitation and the papal reduction, threatened to close the schools, while at the same time there was a decrease in alms. This forced Calasanz to make an appeal to the “Conservators” of the Capitol. It is moving to imagine that the man who had gone to the Capitol half a century earlier to ask for a raise for public school teachers so they could admit poor children into their urban classrooms had to ask again for financial support, for alms, to maintain the Pious Schools. It is an overwhelming memorandum in which once again the troublesome notions of the usefulness of the Pious Schools appear, for “there is no lack of those who have said that this institute is injurious to society because it teaches the poor.” And after stating the deplorable condition in which they found themselves because of the Brief of reduction, he adds, “And finally, because, owing to the uncertainty of their condition, they can no longer find anyone willing to give them alms... therefore, being thus abandoned, they turn to your Excellencies and ask you for such help as appears to you according to your prudence and charity.”[4044] We do not know what happened.

4044 EC, p.2513-2514.

Had it not been for these economic difficulties and the lack of space in the house, the Old Holy Man would have welcomed all those who asked him, because he felt he was the father of all and “this house is the mother of piety”, as he said to Berro when he invited him to go when he knew he was banished from Naples.[4045]

4045 C.4426.

The Founder is still the center of the Congregation, as in times past. People turn to him for religious, advice and decisions, and what he cannot do because he has no authority, he turns to Cardinal Vicar for approval. So, as soon as the reduction Brief was published, he got Ginetti to give permission for Fr. Onofrio Conti and Br. Agapito to go to Germania and Poland, although he had not received permission from the Congregation of Propaganda Fide to confer the title of Apostolic Missionary on Fr. Conti, because Msgr. Albizzi informed them that he was one of the “troublemakers of the Order”.[4046] From Cáller they asked him to send them a Visitator, and in 1648 he sent them Fr. Onofrio Conti.[4047] From Turi, in 1648, they asked him to send them two priests.[4048] In Florence, he decided to send some of them to other houses.[4049] From Nikolsburg, they wrote to him in July 1648: “All decisions and orders that need to be made will always be sent to you, Father, and we will do nothing without your knowledge and consent.”[4050] And from Naples, the Rector of Porta Reale informed him: “Your Reverend Paternity’s letter was a great comfort, not only for me, but also for all the Fathers and Brothers of this family who boast of being subjects of Your Paternity and who, as far as time permits, are dependent on your orders and advice. And as for the matter in Aversa, let us await the outcome and the solution, as you write.”[4051] All these are just examples of a generalized attitude.

4046 Cf. C.4362, 4562; G. SÁNTHA, o.c., p.151; ID., S. Congregatio de Propaganda Fide...: EphCal 4 (1960) 119-120.

4047 Cf. EHI, p.226,233.

4048 Ibid., p. 2203.

4049 Ibid., p.236.

4050 EEC, p.602.

4051 EHI, p.882.

Promoter of hope

“Your hope gives us all courage,” Berro wrote to the Saint in a succinct formulation.[4052] And it was true. It was like an inexhaustible spring. Before the nefarious Brief came out, between the bad prognoses and the threats of impending doom, until the last moment, he hoped in spe contra spem that the Order would remain, that it would not be destroyed: “I hope,” he said to Berro, “that all that our enemies have done and will do will be undone with God’s help, and that truth will be mightier than envy; but your Reverence will be of good cheer, together with those who love the Institute, which will doubtless return to be perhaps more glorious than before.[4053]

4052 lb., p.327.

4053 C.4336 and 4333, 4335, 4337, 4340, 4341.

When he received the fatal news of the Brief, though his pulse trembled and the letters of his signature crumbled, he said again and again: “Do not lose heart, for we hope in the Lord that everything will be set right if we are united”; “I hope that the more they mortify [the Religion], the more God will raise it up”; “If the Institute remains, the Lord will put timely order at the service of the people”; “God will not permit the loss of an Institute so necessary throughout Europe”; “Be sure that the Institute will remain ... and pray to the Lord to condescend to help the cause of the poor”; “here we have firm hope in spem divinam contra spem humanam and we are determined to maintain the Institute until the blessed God sends us the remedy.”[4054]

4054 C. 4342-4345, 4341, 4348, 4350, 4351, 4353, 4354, 4364, 4366, 4369 (all from March 17th to April 28th).

And so he continued, undaunted, sowing hope, without hesitation. A few paragraphs from three selected letters are reproduced here from the large number of letters: The first is addressed to Fr. Novari, the Provincial of Germania and Poland, who is desperate in the face of adversity and writes:

“... I am very sorry that you, as the helmsman of the boat, have doubts, because I am sure that the boat will not sink even if there are headwinds, even if there are only a few in Y. Reverence’s company who support the Institute. Here we will not stop helping with prayers and personnel in your time. And the more it seems to be left to human help, the closer it will be to divine help.”

And to Palermo:

“If anyone writes or tells you that our cause is hopeless, do not believe it, for I hope the Lord will help us sooner than some think. Exhort everyone to run the school with zeal and be sure that where human means are lacking, divine ones will come. But pray and persevere in the exercise with the sure hope of divine help.”[4055]

4055 C.4393,4434 and cf. C.4379, 4390, 4406, 4429, 4435, 4437, 4438, 4474, 4483, 4484, 4556, 4557.

Finally, a historic letter, because it is the last one he wrote in his own handwriting. It is a real gem, because his last message is written in the words of a prophet:

«Constantes estote et videbitis auxilium Dei super vos. Et nunc sumus orantes pro vobis, ut non contristemini, sed in tribulatione magis elucescat virtus vestra. [Stand firm and you will see the help of God above you. In the meantime, we pray for you that you will not be sad, but that your virtue will shine brighter in tribulation (2 Par 20:17; 2 Macc 1:6; 1 Thess 4:12)]. Due to a visual defect, I am unable to write at length. May the Lord bless us all always. Rome, May 20, 1647.”[4056]

4056 C.4463.

This sowing of hope took root in many, and alongside so many letters full of bitterness and defeatism, he also received others full of optimism and confidence in the future, often recognizing that they needed the support of his comfort and encouragement. As an example, the following statements may be mentioned: “I hope that Y. P. will see the Religion restored in your days”; “Now we are sailing in a constant storm, - they write to him in Spanish from Sardinia - but I hope that the time will come when he will return his face to us; to this end there is no lack of constant prayers to the sovereign and heavenly Neptune, so that he may be favorable to us and be our pilot in his kingdom”; “We all rejoice in the good hopes you give us concerning the next arrangement of our Religion, and for this reason we will not cease to pray more earnestly for the complete satisfaction of all. For two years we have been praying the morning Miserere with crossarms and doing other penitential exercises for the good of our Religion, our mother”; “Here [in Florence] it is done and will be done what is possible for each of us. But the greatest of our hopes lies in how much Y. P. can do”; “Praise be to the Lord, who through the mouth of Y. P. console us with the hope of the sure and speedy, I do not say preservation, but increase of the Institute and of the number of those who profess it”; “We are comforted by the good hopes which Y. P. gives us and we will not cease to raise prayers to His Divine Majesty to grant the pious wishes, not only yours, but those of all the good”; “Your last letter was read with great tenderness and affection, and it especially caused me great resignation, praying to the Lord for those who opposed a work of such charity. When I see the serenity of Y. P., I pray to the Lord to fill me with his Holy Spirit in this miserable life”; And Michelini from Pisa writes to him: “I am sure that Y. P. will receive more consolation from our religious than in the past, and I think he will be much more venerated and appreciated than before. The restless ones have disappeared and the others will do great things.”[4057]

4057 EHI, p. 395; EC, p.257-258 (to Fr. García); EHI, p.222, 170, 148, 152, 78, 1456.

No less significant are the numerous letters written to him in recent years, asking him to give them consolation and complaining that they were waiting for it and that this consolation did not arrive. The Provincial of Liguria: “The mail has arrived, but I have not received a letter from Your Paternity, which saddens me greatly. And I do not know what that means. Please chastise me in any other way, but not in this way”. Father Beretta from Carcare: “We wish that you would think of us and write to us often to comfort us”; “in the time of our greatest need and desire to receive letters from you, we are deprived of this”. Father Grien from Nikolsburg: “We are ashamed and astonished that we do not even receive a line of consolation from there. Perhaps the reason for this long silence is that you cannot give us hope. But we are not so much interested in what you write to us, but in the affection and love with which you write to us”. And this last letter comes from Fr. John B. Morandi, who wore the Piarist cassock on the same day as the Founder and died a few days after him: “As the son that I always was and that I always will be, I ask you to console me once with one of your letters, which gives me so much joy that I feel my soul and my weak spirit are being reborn.”[4058]

4058 EHI, p.1669, 274, 537-538, 1481.

He knew how to inspire hope, and all hopes were pinned on him. But the last few years were not all words and promises, nor did he sit back and wait for miraculous help from heaven. With an energy unbefitting his age of nearly ninety, and a deep conviction that Pope Innocent X had been misinformed, sinisterly uninformed, he took up the final diplomatic battle with enthusiasm, practically dying in one´s ground.

The final battle: two apologies and a pamphlet

With this stale impression of a hackneyed idea, one is tempted to say that this Saint General in his nineties, dethroned and demoted, fought and lost the last battle of his life. But the war was won. All that remained was to wait for the death of Pope Innocent X.

The Florentine court of the Medici maintained its attitude of protection and defense of the Pious Schools, and as soon as they heard of the destructor Brief, they wrote to the ambassador in Rome, Gabriel Riccardi, showing particular interest in ensuring that at least in their States the schools “could continue to teach in the same way as they had done here hitherto, that is, including the sciences, even if their abilities were curtailed”. But in addition to this wish of the Grand Duke, Prince Leopold asked the ambassador “to do everything humanly possible for them, not only in regard to the above wish, but also in regard to their other interests, as the said Fathers desire.”[4059] In reality, Calasanz had feared in recent months that they would be deprived of instruction in the humanities and Latin, as he regarded this as a destruction ex indirecto, fears that he also expressed after the public reading of the famous Brief.[4060] The Medici’s request referred specifically to the mathematical sciences, but ultimately the two requests coincided in that the Pious Schools should not be restricted to primary education.

4059 EC, p.2906 and EGC IX, p.149-150.

4060 Cf. C.4287, 4288, 4327, 4348.

Ambassador Riccardi spoke to Innocent X in mid-April - the fateful letter had just come out of the press - and the Pope told him “that he did not want to rescind a letter made four days ago and that the Grand Duke should use the said Fathers in the form and manner described in that Brief, and he told me - Riccardi said - many bad things about those Fathers. He also promised to speak to Msgr. Albizzi about it, but he suspected that the Deputy Commission would no longer meet and that the matter was “as good as settled.”[4061] Perhaps his suspicions were confirmed when he spoke to Msgr. Assessor, and he no longer insisted. The leading role in the defense of the Pious Schools was handed over to the Polish court.

4061 EGC, IX, p 149-150.

As soon as the Brief of reduction was signed, an alleged Capuchin named Fr. Thomas of Viterbo in Rome wrote a short composition of barely two pages with the title: Amara Passio Congregationis Matris Dei Sch. P. secundum Thomam (Bitter Passion of the Congregation of the Mother of God of the Pious Schools, according to Thomas). It is a kind of paraphrase of some Passion texts from the Gospel, applied to the Pious Schools, in which the Jesuits present themselves as the Sanhedrin, which decides before Caiaphas to sacrifice the Pious Schools for the public good - their good - explicitly naming Pietrasanta, Mario and Cherubini.[4062] An insignificant pamphlet which, according to a letter dated March 24, 1646, the author distributed not only to the Roman Curia, but also to the bishops and nuncios of the dioceses and nations in which there were Piarists. If the letter of introduction was identical to the one he had sent to the nuncio in Poland, Msgr. Juan Torres, it must have seemed counterproductive in attacking the Jesuits, accusing Msgr. Assessor of having “protected and praised some corrupt and pernicious members” of the Order and claiming that the pope had been persuaded “by Card. Spada and other Jesuit prelates” to decide to destroy it.[4063]

4062 Text in EEC, p.1088-1090. Orselli considers it to be a kind of Pasquinata (ibid., p.1086) and Fr. Conti believes it was the work of a nun (ibid., p.309). It is probable that the name is a pseudonym, since it is unknown to Capuchin historians.

4063 Cf. EGC IX, p.221.

More serious, well-founded but equally compromising was the Apology of the Pious Schools, written by Father Valeriano Magni, a Capuchin friar known throughout Poland, in Germany and in the Roman Curia, both for his personal merits and for being the brother of the imperial Count Franz Magni, both of whom were declared protectors of the Pious Schools in Germania and Poland, as well as the Count, the founder of the Piarist school of Strasnitz in Moravia.[4064] The Apology, written in May 1646, was sent throughout Poland, to the entire Piarist Order, to various personalities and cardinals of the Roman Curia and personally to Pope Innocent. In it, the famous Capuchin tries to prove with nobility and boldness that the Brief about the reduction was subreptitious because the Pope had been misinformed about the reality of the Pious Schools. He therefore asks that the application of the Brief on the reduction of the Order to a Congregation be postponed until it is certain that it was surreptitious. To this end, he asksed the Pope to appoint a new Apostolic Visitator, impartial and objective, who will then report to the Commission of Cardinals and the Pope; to reinstate the dismissed General and the old Assistants to their posts; and to ask the bishops and princes in whose jurisdiction the Pious Schools were located for a sincere testimony as to the usefulness or harm of the same.[4065]

4064 Cf. G. SÁNTHA, P. Valerianus Magni O.F.M.Cap. et Scholae Piae: EphCal 3 (1959) 130-145; Id., Comes Franciscus Magni et Scholae Piae: EphCal 1 (1960) 1-24.

4065 Cf. the text first edited by G. Sántha in EphCal 1 (1959) 11-18. And in EC, p.3088-3093. The style suggests that it is a “theological advice” given to King Ladislaus IV of Poland, to ask the Pope for what is stated.

The importance of this so-called “Apology” lies in the fact that it was practically the rational basis of the diplomatic action undertaken by King Ladislaus IV of Poland, his magnates, the National Council or Parliament and other estates and public figures in favor of the Pious Schools. The King’s project consisted of the College or Theological Academy of Krakow examining the ideas of the Apology and confirming them with its official authority, declaring the Brief subreptitious and exempting the Fathers from accepting it. The intervention of Nuncio Torres prevented things from becoming too hasty and provoking further decisions in Rome that could be detrimental to the Pious Schools.[4066]

4066 Cf. G. SÁNTHA, P. Valerianus Magni…, p.137; ID., Calasanz, las Escuelas Pias y el Duque Jorge Ossolinski; RevCal 12 (1957) 321-324.

To promote the defense campaign in favor of the Pious Schools in the countries of the Empire and in Poland, where he was already known, Calasanz had sent Father Onofrio Conti, accompanied by Brother Agapito, after the publication of the famous Brief. When he arrived in Austria, with the support of Prince Maximilian von Dietrichstein, he received letters of recommendation from the Prince himself and other magnates of the Empire, as well as from the nuncio in Vienna, Bishop Charles Melzi, to write to the Roman Curia, in particular to the Congregation for Propaganda Fide, asking for the re-establishment of the Order.[4067]

4067 See especially the letter that Conti writes to Calasanz from Steyr on May 22, 1646 (EEC, p.311-313). Cf. also G. SÁNTHA, S. Congregatio de Propaganda Fide..., p.118-120.

In August, the said Congregation examined all these letters and decided to write only to the nuncio in order to reassure all the princes who had intervened in favor of the Order, knowingly softening the seriousness of the Brief: “Nothing has been done in this matter - said the secretary, Msgr. Ingoli - other than to place the said Fathers under the jurisdiction of the Ordinaries of the place where they are staying”. And that was not the whole truth.[4068] It was also not true, but simply false, what the Cardinal Secretary of State Camillo Pamfili wrote to Marshal Kasanowski, the President of the Polish Diet, on June 23, 1546: “The Fathers of the Pious Schools remain in the state of their first foundation.”[4069] Were the Secretariat of State and the Congregation of Propaganda Fide so ill-informed, or was it Albizzi who only half-informed them?

4068 In a first draft of this letter, something more was said, although not the whole truth: “the matter of the suppression (sic) of the Order in a simple Congregation under the jurisdiction of the Ordinary Bishops of the places where they reside having been completed long before (ibid., p.I29, n.20). And that had been the phrase used in the session of August 24, 1646 on the lips of Ginetti (ibid., p.118). Nothing was said of the reduction to Congregation “without vows”; nor of the absolute prohibition to dress and to profess; nor of the facilities to leave the Order.

4069 EC, p.2969. This was what was proposed in the first draft of the Brief, examined by the Deputy Commission: “... illam (the Order) ad Congregationem praedictorum trium votorum simplicium dumtaxat, iuxta primaevam eius a praedicto Paulo Praedecessore factam, ut praemititur, erectionem reduci” (EphCal 1 [1961] 27).

In the meantime, the King of Poland was waiting for a concrete answer to Father Magni’s Apology. He was determined to continue defending the Pious Schools and therefore hoped for some kind of retraction from the Pope regarding the Brief. And the answer came. The Cardinal Secretary of State Camillo Pamfili wrote to the Nuncio Monsignor Torres on December 1, 1646, sending him a “memorandum” informing him of everything that had happened with regard to the Pious Schools and asking him to “use the part that his prudence deems effective to convince the King to accept the solution chosen by the Cardinals.”[4070]

4070 Cf.EC, p.2971.

The above-mentioned “Memorandum” is known as the Racconto difuso (Diffuse Report), as Card. Pamfili called it in the accompanying letter. Although it is anonymous, it is clearly attributed by Calasanctian historians to Msgr. Albizzi, the man who knew the most about the events from the beginning. It was an attempt to show that the “sacred decision” of the cardinals - and thus the Brief - was not intended to extinguish the Institute, but to reform the Religion by reducing it to a congregation subordinate to the Ordinaries and exempt from so many strictures and rigors that made it impracticable. “In the Congregation - it is said - the habits and fasts will be less severe, the disciplines more tolerable, the food adequate and the lodgings suitable, they will be able to receive legacies and inheritances and possess solid goods in common, without altering poverty in particular...” (All this would be regulated in the Constitutions). It was particularly insisted that it could not be maintained as a Religion in Poland and as a Congregation in other places, not only because it was unknown in the Church, but also because if an exception was made for the King, it could not be denied to the Emperor and other Princes.

In establishing the historical facts, however, it was claimed, among other slanderous nonsense: “In the pontificate of Gregory XV, when great care was taken as to who was concerned with holiness, hypocrisy entered into those who headed the Congregation - remember that the reference is directed directly against the Holy Founder - and decided to wear a stricter habit and take off their shoes, they also thought of leaving the confines of Rome and its district.” And this incredible twisting of the facts continues, in which Albizzi was the protagonist, but he did not give in and slandered again: “At the time of Urban VIII, there were constant quarrels between the superiors and the subordinates, some because they wanted to command despotically, others because they lived in their own way, because they did not know what obedience meant, and finally, when the quarrel broke out, the Pope had the good will to suspend General Calasanz from his office.”[4071] So that was the official version of the Secretariat of State.

4071 Ibid. Italian text in EC, p.69-71; Spanish text in RevCal 12 (1957) 331-333, n.250. For Albizzi’s authorship see EC, p.3012, n.4, 2013-2014 and 72, n.I.

Certainly, those messages from the Racconto were only a small part of the hodgepodge of slander and misrepresentations with which the circle around Mario and Cherubini had wrapped up the Founder of the Order and the history of its origins in order to achieve the final dismissal of the one and the planned reform of the other. And Albizzi had taken the bait. As it happens, a kind of decalogue containing the most important accusations against the Holy Old Man himself has survived, which circulated in Sicily and which the good Father Thomas Accardo sent him in a letter in September 1646. Here they are, translated almost verbatim

1. Father General was the cause of our downfall because he followed only his own criteria and did not let Father Cherubini take his place, who could do us much good and was supported by the cardinals.

2. He lacked the talents necessary for a good Superior and Founder, and he had not asked God for them insistently, which made him fall into remarkable mistakes.

3. He lacked prudence because he did not know how to solve problems such as the controversy with the brothers and other conflicts in the Religion.

4. He lacked mental discretion as he did not know his subjects and was content with the religious appearance of the lax.

5. Ruthless in appointing superiors to those who did not deserve it.

6. He was partial with his subjects, excluding the truly good and quiet.

7. Proud because he said, “Even if everyone left the Order, I and Br. Agapito would be enough to keep it”.

8. Ambitious because he did not want to cede the Generalate to others, even though he had already reached an advanced age and was almost incapacitated.

9. Negligent with regard to the most urgent needs of the Religion, as he did not make use of human means.

10. People make fun of his predictions of reintegration and conclude that God has abandoned him as something that does not belong to him.[4072]
4072 EGC VIII, p.346.

The accusations are so crude that they do not deserve any comment, especially when one reads the valuable reply that the accused himself gave to the one who sent it to him. It reads as follows:

“I have received your letter of August 13, in which you write me some accusations made against me by some who are more curious about the lives of others than about their own; to all these accusations I reply with one word: that we shall all soon see each other before the tribunal of Christ, where the pure truth will be found and known, and each one will be judged according to his works. I have a testimony of my life that stands above all, that of the present Pope, who, when Fr. Castille was with me, said these words to me: “There is nothing to say against you” when I offered to answer everything that was brought against me.”[4073]

4073 C.4400. The qualification of the testimony is the Italian translation of the legal expression omni exceptione major. The Saint returned three months later on the matter of the accusations (c. 4430).

It is satisfying to know that this was the personal view that Innocent X had of the Holy Founder, and it is therefore regrettable that he did nothing to restore his personal honor - at least, and by right - so badly damaged, as can be seen from Msgr. Albizzi’s Racconto diffuso.

The failure of two legations

Msgr. Assessor’s pamphlet reached the Nuncio of Poland at the beginning of 1647. After reading it, he considered it appropriate not to say anything to the King and used the excuse that Count Magni had left for Rome at the end of December to propose to the Pope the formation of a Catholic League against the Turks, having already proposed this to the Emperor and Venice. The King had also instructed him to negotiate with the Pope about the reestablishment of Pious Schools, at least in Poland. The nuncio therefore waited for the outcome of that meeting.[4074]

4074 Cf. EC, p.3012-3014.

The Count was warmly received by Father General and the community in St. Pantaleo and honored with a solemn academy. The Founding Father presented him with three memoranda: one for himself, in fulfillment of the royal will, he urged him to petition the pope resolutely for the restoration of the Order; the second for the pope, in which he asked him to “restore this Religion to its first honors and privileges”; and the third for Donna Olimpia Maidalchini, the pope’s sister-in-law, to intercede with him for the same purpose.[4075] Count Magni’s embassy was a failure, both in the matter of the anti-Turkish league and in relation to the Pious Schools, in which discourse he must have overstepped the bounds of diplomacy, decency and prudence. The pope’s attitude was unyielding, both with regard to the Order in general and to its partial restoration in Poland.[4076]

4075 Cf. the three memoranda in G. SÁNTHA, Comes Franciscus Magni..., p.22-23, n.36-38. Among the Calasanzian biographers the idea has been maintained that Lady Olimpia Maidalchini intervened before her brother-in-law, the Pope, against the Order for an alleged rejection received from Father General, for having taken away her confessor, sending him out of Rome. It does not seem likely or probable, but quite the contrary (cf. Bau, BC, p.1097-1098).

4076 Cf. G. SÁNTHA, o.c., p.10-12; C.4436-4438, 4451; ID., Calasanz, las Escuelas Pías y el Duque Jorge Ossolinski, p.331-335.

In spite of this, the Polish court did not give up, but with renewed determination the question was raised at the General Diet in May, which decided on a new official appeal to the Holy See from the Ecclesiastical Arm and the Knightly Arm, demanding the restoration of the Pious Schools in Poland. The former stated that this was done to defend the cause of God (‘Dei nos causam agere existimamus’) and the latter even explicitly requested that the rigor and severity of the Order be maintained.[4077] But in addition to the two letters to the Pope, they also wrote to Cardinals Spada and Roma; and Duke Ossolinski - Grand Chancellor of the Kingdom and the first defender and introducer of Pious Schools in Poland - and Count Magni sent letters to the new Secretary of State, Cardinal John Jacob Panziroli.[4078] The king again asked the Pope to leave these religious “so meritorious in the Church of God” in his kingdom and not to allow them to be disturbed any further or to change their rules of life.[4079] In doing so, he expressly rejected the moderating reform that Albizzi had proposed in his Racconto difuso.

4077 “illos in integerrimo incorrupti vigoris statu conservari bono publico prorsus fructuosum... ut sacrum hunc coetum sanctum tutumque servare dignetur [S. S.], qui solidis austerioris vitae documentis ac sperimentis obvia catholicorum firmat studia, infensa haereticorum debilitat odia...” (G. SÁNTHA, Calasanz, las Escuelas Pías y el Duque Jorge Ossolinski, p.338-339).

4078 Panziroli is another of the adversaries of the Pious Schools. Berro says of him: “he felt an extraordinary passion against our Sacred Institute, considering it not only unnecessary in the Church, since the Jesuits (of whom he had been a pupil) were present, but also harmful to the world for teaching the poor” (BERRO II, p.202). Cf. S. Giner, El Proceso de Beatificacion..., p.42, n.47.

4079 “... quatenus tam benemeritos in Ecclesia Dei Religiosos, et vere pios in Regno meo Dominiisque his annexis circa Sacra Sanctaque Instituta conservare eosque vel turbari amplius vel primaevam vivendi normam non patiatur immutari” (G. SÁNTHA, o.c., p.340). Very deficient text in EC, p.3036.

The response from the Secretariat of State by means of Panziroli was categorical: “This matter depends directly on the Pope, who has already concluded it, and nothing more should be said about it.”[4080] And at the beginning of August, he gave the Nuncio an account of the letters received from the bishops and lords of the Diet, affirming: “It will reply to all of them using the Relato Difuso that was sent to you about everything that has happened, because the decision was certainly taken with every consideration... and it should not and cannot be withdrawn.”[4081] The unworthy Relato Difuso remained the official version imposed on the archbishops, bishops, prelates and knights of the Diet as well as the King himself. A papal Brief dated August 7, 1647 was also sent to the king, stating: “As we have dealt with and resolved the matter in the most just manner, no further consultation is necessary.”[4082] A definitive word.

4080 Letters of July 6th and 20th (ibid., p.342, n.258 and EC, p.2972).

4081 Cf. ibid., p.342, n.258.

4082 Ibid., p.345, n.263. Full text of the Brief.

The Holy Founder had pinned his hopes on the intervention of the King and the Diet[4083] and wrote a precious Latin letter to the King on August 20, long before he learned of the pope’s negative response, thanking him for what he was doing for the Order and regarding him as “the only Achilles and Maecenas” (defender and benefactor) of “our minimal Religion in the adversity”.[4084]

4083 Cf. c.4472-4474, 4478, 4479, 4483, 4485, 4490, 4495.

4084 C.4475.

Until November, the nuncio Torres did not inform the King of the contents of the last papal Brief and tried with extreme diplomacy to get him to accept the irrevocable papal decision. He did not agree. And even after learning of the Brief, he continued undeterred to bend Innocent X’s will. It was his last attempt. At the end of 1647, he sent Monsignor Dominic Roncalli to Rome as an extraordinary delegate to obtain from the Pope the cardinal’s birretta, which Crown Prince Casimir had renounced, in favor of Father Valeriano Magni. At the same time, he was to try to persuade the Pope to appoint another commission of cardinals to look into the matter of the Pious Schools again. And from the moment he arrived in Rome, he took his mission so much to heart and with so little diplomacy that he aggravated the mood of the Pope and Cardinal Panziroli. The latter complained about this and wrote to the nuncio in Poland in May: “The Pope replied to Roncalli that it had already been discussed enough and that from the first day of his arrival in Rome, since he had always insisted on the same thing, he could have understood by the refusal that was given to him seriously that the decision was irrevocable... His Holiness says that if all Kings spoke as Roncalli makes the King of Poland speak, the Holy See would be in a very pitiable state.”[4085]

4085 EC, p.2973-2974.

This mission also failed, but Roncalli had not only encouraged the saintly Founder’s hopes in vain[4086], but also encouraged him to obtain letters of recommendation from the imperial family. And the Saint arranged for the Prince of Dietrichstein to intervene in the matter, persuading the Empress Eleonora Gonzaga to write to the Pope on March 3, 1648, interceding on behalf of the Pious Schools.[4087] But instead of favoring them, he only exasperated tempers and forced Panziroli to write to the Nuncio in Vienna to make the Empress understand that the matter had already been settled and could not be dealt with again, and that “the said Fathers should be satisfied and reassured with what had already been so maturely settled, and that they should not cause His Holiness any greater trouble without hoping to achieve it.”[4088] Hope, however, was the only thing they could not forbid.

4086 Cf. C.451 5, 4522, 4524, 4532, 4537, 4555, 4556.

4087 Cf. EC, p.2907, C.4524.

4088 Ib., p.2973.For this last period of Roncalli’s embassy cf. G. SANTHA, Ultimus S. J. Calasanctii ad redintegrandum Ordinem conatus...: EphCal 4-5 (1958) 109-115.

On May 20th, the King of Poland died. In one of his letters, in which he reported his death and asked for prayers for his soul, Calasanz said to Father Orselli: “We hope “that he will help us much more in heaven with H.D.M. than he did with his Vicar on earth.”[4089] Orselli, for his part, wrote to Fr. General in early June that the Grand Chancellor of the Kingdom, Duke Ossolinski, had assured him that he would continue to protect the Order, and that he had written to Bishop Roncalli to continue to support our cause and to tell His Holiness “that this religion will always be protected as long as the Crown of Poland exists.”[4090] In early July, when the Holy Founder received this letter, he wrote another in very elegant Latin - incredible for his ninety-one years - to Duke Ossolinski, recognizing him as the greatest protector in Poland after the King and assuring him that this was the hope he was instilling in them to gain future favor “that feeling that we will irrevocably perish if the King dies, it seems to us with reason that we can only breathe and live in you.”[4091] And with these feelings of a future hopeful, he came to the end of his long days before two months had passed.

4089 C.4573 and 4559-4562, 4575.

4090 EEC, p.1099.

4091 “Tu, qui in isto Regno... quasi a Rege secundus, secundus nemini post ipsum in testificanda amoris tui erga nos voluntate semper es cognitus, tantum spei facis ad secunda omnia in futurum expectanda, impetrandaque, ut qui rege extincto interiisse penitus visi sumus, in Te uno respirare et vivere non inmerito posse existimemur” (RevCal 12 [1957] 351-352, n.282. Letter omitted in EGC, even in the supplementary vol. X). This letter was probably composed by the great Latinist Fr. Carlo Mazzei, who was then living in San Pantaleo.

The embarrassing end of Cherubini

It had not been possible to persuade the Pope to nullify the Brief in its entirety or to allow the Order to continue to exist as such, at least in Poland. But from the very beginning there was hope of obtaining at least two partial concessions, namely that the new Constitutions would not be drawn up or published and that the novices would be allowed to be clothed again. And both were achieved during the Founder’s lifetime. These were undoubtedly two triumphs that ensured the continuity of the spirit of the Order and the victory over a slow and inexorable death. The decree of the last meeting of the Deputy Commission, from which the definitive letter was to emerge, recommended the drafting of the new Constitutions to a commission composed of Msgr. Fagnani, Paolucci and Albizzi, Father Pietrasanta and a Father of the Oratory.[4092] It is noteworthy that none of the members of the commission thought that it would be advisable to add at least one Piarist priest who was familiar with the life, customs, needs and requirements of the existing society. However, the Pope did not mention names or commissions in his letter, but merely said that the Constitutions would be drawn up “in relation to the said Institute” by his own mandate (iussu nostro edendas).[4093] It is very likely that Albizzi overlooked what was insinuated in the Commission and also left the matter undefined in the Brief in order to have the opportunity to entrust the task to Father Cherubini, who was best suited to translate the reform desired since the time of Mario into concrete norms.

4092 Cf. EphCal I (1961) 29.

4093 Cf. Bull. Sch. P., p.48.

The Holy Founder received the news that reached him regarding the new draft of the Constitutions with particular interest and commented on it. On March 17, the Brief of reduction had been read and at the end of the month he assured that the Constitutions will be drawn up by “some prelates by order of the Pope” and he feared that “they will take away poverty and the apostolic style of dress, which will be equivalent to its extinction [of the Religion], and most probably that they will take away the Latin language from the schools, which will be completely extinguished in a moment.”[4094] In June, he learns that Father Cherubini is writing the Constitutions and rightly suspects that Bishop Albizzi has entrusted them to him, although he (Cherubini) boasts that it is being done on behalf of the Pope. Calasanz comments with derision: “Think, Y.R. [Berro], what Constitutions could come out in this way.”[4095] At the end of July, he qualifies the news by saying that Cherubini will make a draft and two or three prelates will revise it. At the end of the month, news spreads that he has resigned from his duties at the Nazareno and is thinking of leaving with the Brief he had received some time ago, so the saint concludes that he will not finish the Constitutions he had begun.[4096]

4094 C.4347, 4348, 4350.

4095 C.4386. A week later such news already reaches him from Genoa with identical feelings of astonishment and rejection (EHI, p.I763).

4096 C.4388, 4390.

But Cherubini did not leave, and in August the Old Saint trembles again, saying that as soon as they are finished, they will be revised by the prelates and promulgated “with a new Brief more destructive than the first”.[4097] In September it seems that they are already finished, “with many nonsenses,” says the Saint, “all contrary to the good of the Institute. Some prelates have seen them, but no one wanted to approve and sign them, except Father Pietrasanta. It now remains to be seen whether they will be published.”[4098] And this doubt gradually turns into a conviction that they will not be published, until at the end of April 1647 he even jokes about the matter: “Not only have the Constitutions not been published, they have not even been translated into Latin, because the legislator who drafted them does not know well, let alone is known whether they will be published.”[4099]

4097 C.4394, 4395.

4098 C.4401 and 4402, 4404, 4406. In August and September, above all, some write to the Saint about the Constitutions that are going to come out, accusing them of being harmful to the Order (cf. EHI, p.359, 396, 757, 1346-1347 ...).

4099 C.4456 and 4413, 4436, 4440, 4442, 4443, 4448, 4449; CCP, p.333-334.

Here follows a very long narrative by Caputi about the final fate of the famous Constitutions, and although he himself is the protagonist, we cannot help suspecting - as is generally the case in his Notizie Historiche - that there is a great deal of fantasy in all this, typical of his novelistic style, but essentially it must be historical. In March 1647, Mons. Prospero Fagnani, secretary of the Congregation of Bishops and Religious, asks the Founder to send him a religious for a mission that concerns them, and the choice falls on Father Caputi, accompanied by Father Bonaventura Catalucci. The mission is to hands over the new constitutions to Cardinal Ginetti. The new Constitutions, which he says were drafted by Father Pietrasanta, Father Cherubini and Father Ridolfi with the advice of Father Gavotti and checked by a Father of the Oratory, were handed over to Cardinal Ginetti. They were seen, signed and sealed by Cardinals Roma, Spada and Cueva and by Msgrs. Fagnani and Albizzi. The only one who did not sign was Ginetti. The two messengers Caputi and Catalucci pass the church of St. Augustine on their way to Ginetti and, as it is a Lent Friday, they go in to hear a sermon by a famous preacher. While waiting for the sermon to begin, they became curious and tore off the wrapping paper to read the long-awaited constitutions with interest. They immediately went to San Pantaleo, confessed their mischief to Father General, who scolded them, but had the text read out in full and told them to ask Cardinal Ginetti to prevent its publication at all costs.

The next morning, Caputi and Catalucci take the opened package to the Cardinal and apologise for their misdeed, adding Father General’s request. The Cardinal merely alludes to the fact that Father General has read it and is very happy about it. He instructs them to tell him “that these Constitutions will never see the light of day”, “that they will never be published or seen by anyone”. Caputi returns home and reports the conversation to the General. He assures him on behalf of the Cardinal “that he will keep them in a place where no one can ever find or see them”. The following day, a Sunday, Caputi returned with Father General to visit Ginetti and thank him warmly for the promise that the Constitutions would not be published. The whole thing ended with a very friendly conversation between the Founder and the cardinal, who offered his carriage to take the Old Holy Man home, but apologised because San Pantaleo, five minutes from the vicariate, was nearby.[4100]

4100 See the original Italian account in full in EphCal 4-5 (1972) 152-158, n.38.

Be that as it may, apart from Caputi’s novelistic inconsistencies,[4101] it seems beyond doubt that the core of the story is that Card. Ginetti, as Prefect of the Congregation of Religious - which was ultimately responsible for approving the Constitutions before the final papal Brief - when all the competent prelates except him had already seen, approved, signed and sealed Fr. Cherubini’s Constitutions, kept the originals, which were not presented to the Congregation and never left his personal custody. Berro, for his part, confirms that the Constitutions “passed through the hands of Father Stephen” to the cardinals of the Commission, were also approved by Pietrasanta and kept by Cardinal Ginetti, and “the original was never seen again.” But he included in his memoirs a copy of “a minuta made by Father Stephen himself”, thus preserving the curious text for posterity.[4102]

4101 It does not seem plausible that Fagnani would ask Calasanz for a religious as a “courier”; that Caputi and Catalucci with such an assignment stop to hear a Lenten sermon; that they violate the sealed package; that they read the contents; that they go to his house and not directly to the Vicariate, which is two steps away; that the General has the Constitutions read; that they wait until the next day to go to the Cardinal; that the Cardinal overlooks the misdeed of opening a sealed package.... Caputi says that a copy was given to each of the cardinals and prelates of the Comission who signed and sealed them. Logic demands that, if this was so, all the copies should have gone to Fagnani, as secretary of the Congregation of Religious, and he should have sent them all together to the President of the said Congregation, who was Ginetti, who retained them all and made them disappear. In the letters Calasanz writes in April (cf. C.4456 and CCP, p.333, 334) he insists that it is not known if they will be published or if they will come out, and he could hardly say this if the interview with Ginetti was in March. Perhaps in this too Caputi fails and his account refers to April or May.

4102 BERRO III, p.238. Disregarding the comments added by Berro, its 32 short chapters with the Preamble occupy about 20 printed pages (ibid., p.213-238). He defines with breadth and clarity the framework of teaching, which made the Founder so fearful, and says that it consists of “teaching, free of charge and for the love of God and without stipend, to read, write, abacus, grammar, humanities, rhetoric and cases of conscience and all other sciences with the permission of the Ordinary” (Chapter 1). At no time is there any reference to “poor” children, and Berro comments that “for this reason the poor, for whom the Pious Schools had been founded, would soon be excluded” (ibid.). 3. Although the bishops are Superiors “as for the other priests... they cannot or should not therefore have any dominion over the houses, goods and income of the said workers, much less have a vote in the congregations to elect Superiors and other offices, but only the authority to visit the schools, churches and persons and to see that the Constitutions are observed” (Chapter 2).4. In spite of the isolation of the houses, it is permitted to relate between those of the same diocese or city, with the exchange of individuals and even between dioceses with the consent of the respective ordinaries and communities (c. 3). 5. They may have stable goods, income, annuities and receive wills, legacies and donations. And they are not to accept foundations without the necessary appropriations for their support (can. 4). 6. They shall be shod and dressed practically like the secular clergy, without silks or luxuries, although the Oblates or Brothers with short cassocks up to half a leg; neither shaven nor with long beards, but like the clergy; they shall eat meat every day, fasting on Fridays and on the days commanded by the Church only; they shall eat enough without excess “to sustain life and not to satisfy the taste and pleasure of the senses” (c. 5-6). 7. They shall have in the morning half an hour of mental prayer in common and in the evening a quarter of an hour of examination of conscience after the Litany of the Saints, adding on Fridays the discipline of a Miserere and a De profundis. On Christmas night, Holy Week and All Souls’ Day they will say the Office in common. Many feasts of the year will be celebrated with music and great solemnity. The clerics are to receive communion every eight days and the brothers every fifteen days (c. 7-9). 8. The Superior of the house is to be called Rector, not Minister, and is to serve for three years. Only priests, deacons and subdeacons can vote for his election, excluding clerics and “Oblate Brothers, called Brothers or Cleric Brothers” (c. 10). It is very interesting that he still maintains the institution of Cleric Brothers, not abolished in the General Chapters of 1637 and 1641, as we noted. He names them again in c. 30). 9. All (priests and clerics) will be ready to teach when the Rector and other priests order them to do so. But the “Brothers” “neither in time of extreme necessity...” nor to read and write (c. 17). 10. The Rector alone can admit novices, with the consent of all the priests; for clerics they are to be no less than seventeen years of age and no more than forty, and for Brothers, if they are needed in the house, no less than twenty-two and no more than thirty-five years of age (c. 27). 11. Students under seven years of age are not to be admitted. There are to be two and a half hours of classes in the morning and two and a half hours in the afternoon (c. 31). 12. The other chapters deal with the various offices, such as rector, vice-rector, prefect, master of novices, procurator, confessors, teachers, secretary, sacristan, infirmarian, door keeper, treasurer, refectorian, cook, alms-givers-questors, etc. NB. See an earlier edition, with Spanish translation and preliminary study of these Constitutions: D. CUEVA, Las Constituciones del P. Esteban Cherubini: AnCal 50 (1983) 633-681; the text is that of Berro, but his comments have been omitted. On the other hand, we do not understand how Cueva says that in these Constitutions “the Brothers are made to disappear” (ibid., p. 641). (ibid., p.641) See ch.9, 10, 17, 20-25, 27....

Cherubini and his colleagues adhered to the requirements and restrictions of the reduction Brief and the “reform” ideas of the Pontifical Commission, because, as the preamble states, experience had shown that the old ones were “excessively strict and rigorous ... impossible to comply with ... leading daily to inconsistencies and damage”. Certainly, they could not have pleased the Holy Founder, for with them he changed the physiognomy of the Piarist almost fundamentally, above all by toning down poverty and other deprivations. Perhaps they could not please the majority who wanted to remain faithful to the spirit of the Founder. But it must be acknowledged that some of Berro’s criticisms are unjust and even slanderous, and he tries to find malice where there is none.[4103]

4103 He describes Cherubini and his supporters as “enemies of Christian virtue and religious perfection”; (p.213) “the purpose of making these new Constitutions is only to flee from the mortification of the flesh and to give oneself to the comforts of eating well and drinking better and then to practice with boys.” (p.214) This is simply slanderous (cf. summary above, points 5-6). “How much malice the composer puts forth to destroy holy religious poverty and to bind the souls of his Workers and lead them all down the straight road to hell.” (p.217) Thus he comments on ch. 4th. And he continues: “Damned Pious Schools would be these invented by Father Stephen of the black Angels. (sic). Cherubini did not invent this Congregation. All this of possessing stable goods and of lightening austerity was a common idea of the Commission and it was expressly approved not only by those who asked for the reduction or extinction, but also by Ginetti, Falconieri, Cueva, Paolucci and Pietrasanta in the 2nd and 3rd sessions, and much more in the 4th and 5th sessions, where the definitive decision was made. Cherubini says that bread and wine should be given as much as necessary, and Berro comments: “He who has all the wine he wants, what will he do? (p.219) Which is also slanderous, etc.

Cherubini’s malice and weaknesses went in a different direction. The Brief of reduction had paradoxically dealt him two blows: he was stripped of his office as Superior General by abolishing the office, and contrary to the decree of the 5th session of the Deputy Commission to retain him as Rector of Nazarene College along with Pietrasanta, he was also marginalized and the appointment left to the discretion of the Roman Rota. It is likely that all his haste to obtain a Brief allowing him to leave the Order in the guise of secular clergy was not for the fallacious reasons he gave in his plea, but in the hope that the auditors of the Rota would more easily confirm him in the lifelong position of Rector.[4104] It was not necessary for him to make use of the Brief, as the auditors - probably under the protective guidance of Msgr. Albizzi - kept him in office until mid-July. But suddenly, as the saint wrote to Berro on the 21st of the same month, “Fr. Stephen resigned, as is commonly said, from the direction of the Collegio Nazareno to return to the world.”[4105] And surely something very serious must have happened if he decided to leave the college for the second time.

4104 The reasons for justifying the Brief of his exit (hated by all and threatened with death) still remained: why, then, did he not leave? Then the real reason for the Brief was other and not those.

4105 The text is obscure for omission of words or grammatical deficiencies: “qui quando speravamo quando contrario accidente è successo, che il P. Stefano, secondo comunemente si dice, ha renontiata la cura del Collegio Nazareno per ritornarsene al secolo” (c.4391). The ‘speravamo’ requires a complement, and the following (‘quando contrario accidente’) does not make sense.

On the same day Fr. Patera wrote to the Saint from Naples: “I have heard that Fr. Stephen has been caught in the school by Br. Horatius, etc.; please tell me how and what he has done, for here many say many things [multi multa dicunt]. In particular, Fr. Vincent M. [Gavotti] writes to one of his followers that everything is slander and persecution and that Monsignor [Assessor] welcomes and favors him even more for this reason, adding that for this reason there is a danger that he will become Generalissimo.”[4106] Father Caputi, who was then living in the community of San Pantaleo, gives us another long account of these events, the main features of which we know from the two previous letters. The fact was that Fr. Cherubini returned to the old methods and tried to abuse a student of Collegio Nazareno who turned to Br. Horatius Rinaldi. The new scandal soon became public, as we have seen in the letter from Naples, and attracted the attention of the Auditors of Rota, some of whom went to the Nazareno under false pretenses to ascertain the facts. When the accusations were confirmed, Cherubini was removed from the Collegio and sent to Frascati, but he did not return to the world as expected. The auditors of Rota appealed to Father General to appoint a new rector of the Nazareno and he proposed Father Camillo Scassellati.[4107]

4106 EHI, p.1615.

4107 Cf.BAU, BC, p.1004-1005; BERRO II, pp.223-224; G. SÁNTHA, P. Camillus Scassellati Rector Collegii Nazareni et Tertius Ordinis Sch. P. Generalis: EphCal 5 (1961) 167.

The death of Pietrasanta and Cherubini

Father Pietrasanta had been suffering from the so-called stone disease since 1642, before his appointment as Apostolic Visitator of Pious Schools. The disease worsened noticeably and caused such unbearable pain that he decided to have an operation on May 3, 1647. Father General of the Society, Vincent Caraffa, offered to celebrate 500 masses for a good outcome to the operation. He accepted and wanted them to be offered for the souls in purgatory so that they would protect him. He called Father Nicholas Maria Gavotti, whom he had appointed as delegate of the Apostolic Visitation for some houses, informed him of the decision of his immediate operation, and asked him to recommend the religious of San Pantaleo to include him in their prayers. And so it happened.

The operation was successful, but the post-operative pain prevented him from sleeping. He asked for painkillers and was given opium on the night of May 5th. He was able to fall asleep but did not wake up. On the morning of May 6th, he was found dead in bed. He was fifty-six years old. His body was displayed in the church of Gesù and some Fathers of San Pantaleo went to see him, as Berro and Caputi confess about themselves.[4108]

4108 Cf. EC, p.2074; BAU, BC, p.1133; C. VILÁ, P. Silvestre Píetrasanta S. I. Daos biograficos y bibliograficos; Archivum I (1977) 107-108.

The Founder - recounts Berro - asked Father John García, the Rector of the house, and Mr. Peter Ciesi, the teacher of the music class in the Pious Schools, to celebrate a solemn sung funeral Mass for Father Pietrasanta and also asked all the priests to offer Masses and prayers of supplication for his soul, “as is customary for our religious superiors.”[4109] Many offered him private masses, but the sung mass was not held so as not to give anyone cause to misinterpret it. The Saint regretted this, however, because “he truly wished with all his heart - Berro continues - to return good to the one who had caused us so much suffering. And he adds this remarkable statement: “I can say and confirm with all truth that O. V. Father never spoke of the said Father Pietrasanta, but in good terms, excusing all his actions, and when someone insisted on complaining, he rebuked him with great emphasis, expressing his particular displeasure.”[4110] Perhaps this attitude was not only the fruit of that heroic charity which demands to love one’s enemies, but at the same time an expression that the saint knew something more of the intimacy of Father Visitator, who really tried to save the Order as such and defended its right to teach sciences, humanities and Latin, but in other things he felt forced “by those up there” to bow to their demands against the good of the Order. And this was not evil, but weakness.

4109 BERR0 III, p.109.

4110 Ib, p.109-110.

On the same day, May 6th, Cherubini returned to Rome, probably after hearing about the serious situation in Pietrasanta. He went to see him at Gesù, but found him already lying in state on the catafalque. It seems that he did not return to Frascati, but was displaced and did not know where to go. Berro describes this situation in dramatic and compassionate terms. He says: “He was detested by the entire Roman Curia [perhaps because of his recent scandal at the Nazareno?) Everyone pointed at him, called him the destroyer of Pious Schools and he was not even wanted by the Fathers in San Pantaleo and otherwise had to wander around Rome alone like a loser. He was so poisoned and his blood was so tainted that he developed a kind of scab that could not be cured by purification or anointing, and the more remedies he was given, the worse it became, so that the scab turned into a very bad leprosy that remained in the hidden parts of his body for some months...”[4111] Perhaps Berro’s explanation is not clinically valid, but that it was leprosy is confirmed by the testimony of Dr. John Mary Castellani, who - as we have already said - was personal physician to Gregory XV, professor at the College of La Sapienza, and at the same time physician to the community of San Pantaleo and a great friend of the Founder.

4111 Ibid, p.113-114.

After his return from Frascati, he was probably received at Collegio Nazareno by its rector, Father Camillo Scassellati, the future third General of the order. At the time, the college was located in Borgo Angelico “behind the arches or bridge that leads from the Vatican to Castel Sant’Angelo, near the church of St. Anne.”[4112] And we give the floor to Father Scassellati, who explains it in the Saint’s Ordinary Informative Process:

4112 Ib, p.116.

“I am a witness that one of those from whom he [Father Founder] had received many complaints, whose name was Stephen Cherubini, when he was dying at the beginning of his illness, enjoined me, in his name, to ask forgiveness of the said Father General for the complaints he had made to him and the displeasure he had caused him. When I complied with this request, Father General, his face glowing with enthusiasm and his arms folded, said these very words: “I forgive him with all my heart, I forgive him with all my heart, so may God forgive me my sins. I have never wished for anything other than the salvation of his soul”. Words spoken with so much spirit that every time I earnestly remember them, I cannot hold back the tears. And at my simple request, he visited him twice in the Borgo, in Collegio Nazareno, and comforted him like a kind father, exhorting him to the salvation of his soul.”[4113]

4113 ProcIn, p.108-109.

Berro tells us that he accompanied Father General to visit Father Stephen, who was in bed and seemed lethargic, but when he heard Father Joseph’s greeting, he came to his senses and said to him with great joy: “Father General, help me, I am very ill...”, and “in the presence of all of us - Berro adds - he asked forgiveness in general for all the displeasure he had caused him. Our Ven. Father Founder gave him a blessing and paternally exhorted him to acts of contrition for past mistakes and to hope for divine mercy”. He asked him to go to confession and wanted to do so with him, but the Saint refused and advised him to do so more quietly with Father John García. When the visit was over, he returned to San Pantaleon and sent Father García to hear his confession. He then received Holy Communion and soon after fell into a delirium from which he could not emerge, and when he fell into agony, he was given last rites. He died at noon on January 9, 1648 at the age of forty-eight. His body was transferred privately to San Pantaleo, where a funeral was held and he was buried in San Pantaleo on January 10th at around 5 o´clock in the afternoon. On the same day, the Holy Founder wrote in a letter to Nikolsburg:

“We hope here also for something in favor of our Institute, since yesterday at 19 o’clock Father Stephen of the Angels passed from to the other life, and was buried this evening at 23 in our church of San Pantaleo, to whom all our Fathers showed special charity and benevolence both in sickness and after death, to the great satisfaction of his relatives and friends.”[4114]

4114 C.4522. BERRO III, p.115-117 (wrong dates saying he died on the 6th and was buried on the 7th).

Thus ended the sad story of Cherubini, without us knowing whether his great friend and protector, Bishop Albizzi, deigned to visit him during his last illness or while his body was laid out in San Pantaleo.

Glimmers of hope

The failure of so many diplomatic interventions and other attempts to achieve something positive made the Holy Founder increasingly distrustful of human means and hopeful of divine help. Specifically, he alludes to them in the death of a number of personalities. The sad news of the death of the King of Poland led him to express, in two letters, the hope that he could obtain more favor before God from heaven than he had received on earth before his Vicar.[4115] Cherubini’s death also gave him hope in the opposite direction, namely because an obstacle had been removed. Probably his greater confidence in these helps of the deceased was strengthened by the death of Father Peter Casani, especially by the number of people who attended his funeral and by certain rumors that he had worked graces or miracles, all of which testified to his reputation for holiness and consequently to his greater power of intercession. He died on October 17, 1647 at 9 o’clock in the night. In three letters written on October 19th, the Founder repeated the same paragraph in which he conveyed the news. He said:

4115 C.4562, 4573.

“It has pleased the good Lord that our Father Peter of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin, after a long infirmity, his illness was aggravated by a very troublesome cold. And since he lived very piously throughout his life, it pleased the blessed God that he met a holy death on Thursday afternoon, the 17th of the present, at the age of 76, at two and a half hours in the evening [9 o’clock]. After his body was brought to the church, countless people flocked to see him throughout Friday. I will say nothing at present about the graces received by some, except that it was necessary to prevent such an influx by bringing the body into the house. We hope this will help the Religion more in death than in life. Please pay him the usual suffrages and if anything should happen again with regard to his body, we will let you know.”[4116]

4116 C.4497-4499. In C.4500 he modifies something, saying that he was exposed on Friday “and Saturday” and that there was an influx of people “and nobility.”

Before the end of 1647, he began to take an interest in collecting information “on the life, virtues and miraculous works” that God had worked through the intercession of Father Casani. At the beginning of 1648, he had a pamphlet published with his picture and the title of the Venerable, “with the permission - he says - of the Master of the Sacred Palace”, in the hope that “he will now pray for the needs of the Religion”. He thus intends to initiate the process of beatification, but, as he says at the beginning of August 1648, “I also now see the difficulties that exist at present for lack of money to bring a notary and other ministers to so many different places. It seems to me that it would be better to postpone this to another, more favorable occasion.”[4117]

4117 C.4575 and 4504, 4517, 4529, 4534, 4551, 4563. More documentation on the death, fame of sanctity and beginnings of the process in posCas, p.1516-1606.

The sower of hopes was also approaching death. When he wrote this letter, he only had 25 days to live. No doubt it would have been a great thing to maintain his illusion and trust in the living and the dead until the last moment and pass on his optimism to others. But in reality, that would have been too little. They were needed more than promises and hopes. In this closed environment, where the doors only served to go out, there was a feeling of suffocation. And the Old Holy Man had the great satisfaction of seeing a new door open: that of the novitiate.

In the unfortunate decree In causa P. Marii of January 15, 1643, the admission of new novices had been forbidden for the first time without papal permission, a permission that had never been granted again since. In mid-1645, Father Salazar Maldonado and his community in Cáller (Sardinia) accepted seven novices after believing some letters from Genoa assuring them that there was already a license for the indoctrination of novices. However, when he received the news that such a license did not yet exist, he wrote to Cherubini, explaining the error and asking him, for God’s sake, not to tell anyone, “Especially not the Commission, for it is certain that if this were to become known, it would be an insult to God and the ruin of someone.”[4118] And the wretched Cherubini told the Commission, so that six months later Pietrasanta accused the entire Order of disobedience to the Holy See.[4119]

4118 EC, p.2294.

4119 EC, p.2121. Salazar’s letter appeared in Paolucci’s dossier (doc. 2), which proves that Cherubini gave it to the Deputy Commission, even though it was addressed personally to him.

The decree of the 5th session of the Deputy Commission renewed the prohibition of the Brief In causa P. Marii to admit anyone to the religious habit “without a license from the Holy See”, but an unknown hand erased this allusion to papal licenses, so that the final letter of reduction categorically forbade the admission of new candidates to the religious habit.[4120] The saint adhered to the prohibition and wrote on April 5, 1647: “Until now, no one has been granted the habit here.”[4121] However, the matter does not seem to have been entirely clear, as in July 1646 the Founder wrote to Nikolsburg that Father Salazar Maldonado had gone to Rome and “Card. Vicar Ginetti had admonished him to give the novices the habit voluntarily, because before the two years of the novitiate had elapsed, he said that a means would be found to bring them to profession.”[4122] In October he wrote again to Nikolsburg, making it clear that he could not clothe novices “according to the old Constitutions”.[4123] But whether because of what was already allowed at Cáller or because of concessions made by the local bishop, the fact is that novices were received at Nikolsburg in May 1647.[4124] But it must not have been very orthodox if in July of the same year the Saint presented letters from Bohemia to the Congregation of Propaganda Fide requesting permission to clothe novices, and the secretary Ingoli supported the request without receiving an explicit concession.[4125]

4120 EphCal 1 (1961) 29; EGC IX, p. 115-116. The final Brief stated: “ne de coetero ulli amplius in dicta Religione recipiantúr et ne iam recepti in novitiatibus degentes Professionis emissionem admittantur”. (EGC IX, p.218).

4121 Cf. C.4448.

4122 C.4390.

4123 C.4418.

4124 C.4469; EGC, p.549, 552.

4125 Cf. G. SÁNTHA, S. Congr. de Propaganda Fide..., p.120-121.

Finally, in January 1648, Msgr. Albizzi gave an interpretation of the Brief’s prohibition, as expressed by Father General in a letter to Nikolsburg: “I did not write to you in the two previous mails, hoping to learn the will of Msgr. Assessor, who the day before yesterday informed two of our Fathers that we are not forbidden to give the habit, and that we may dress as we do now, but may not make profession without a new order from His Holiness.”[4126] In mid-July, the saint supplemented the previous message with this: “As far as putting on the habit for the novices is concerned, there is no special Brief, but a written permission from His Eminence the Cardinal Vicar, saying that we can dress according to the Brief, but no one can be admitted to profession without a new order from His Holiness.”[4127]

4126 C.4522.

4127 C.4568.

One cannot fail to recognize the benevolence of Card. Ginettiti and Msgr. Albizzi when they give the novices permission to dress, interpreting what is laid down in the Brief. But frankly, there are no exegetical laws that allow such an interpretation. On the other hand, our admiration is strengthened by the agreement of both opinions that “no one can be admitted to the profession without a new order from His Holiness” Such possible permission from His Holiness was also excluded in the letter. And this with much logic, for the new Congregation of Pious Schools was not to have vows. All this muddle of permissions and prohibitions with or without a Brief - as at other times - betrays Albizzi. However, the first to give explicit “permission” to dress is Ginetti in July 1646 to Father Salazar, while Albizzi gives it a year and a half later, in January 1648, at a time when it begins to become generalized.

After Albizzi’s “concession”, Father General began to spread the word everywhere about the possibility of dress novices, and in San Pantaleo they began to apply it at the end of May 1648.[4128] However, when they received the first novices in Naples, Cardinal Filomarino called the superiors there and asked them to justify their boldness, as this was forbidden by the Brief. They explained to him that the General Vicar of the diocese had given them verbal permission and that novices had already been admitted in Rome with all the approvals of the Roman Curia. But the despotic cardinal had three fathers thrown into a public prison without bothering about such reasons: Francis Trabucco, John Francis Apa and Mark Manzella. They wrote to those responsible in Rome, and Berro - who tells the story - took up the matter by contacting Msgrs Albizzi and Farnese and Card. Ginetti. Albizzi had to write two letters to the Cardinal of Naples to force him to release the poor prisoners after more than forty days of captivity, informing him “that there was no one who knew better the opinion of Pope Innocent X and it was an injustice to have them prisoners”.[4129] That was precisely Albizzi’s idea and that Berro has therefore faithfully reproduced it is proven by another letter from the monsignor, written on 10 May, 1653 to the Bishop of Savona, who still had scruples about granting licenses to dress. Albizzi said that when the Pope transformed the Religion of the Pious Schools into a Congregation, “it was not the intention of His Holiness to forbid them to dress as long as they were not obliged to take any vows, so as not to extinguish the institute, which was considered useful in the Church. I am fully informed of this intention of His Holiness, as I was secretary of this Commission and have drafted the Bull.”[4130]

4128 C.4551 and 4528, 4531, 4533, 4552.

4129 BERRO III, p.61-63.

4130 EC, p.68, n.3.

With some delay, Albizzi clarified his own mentality and even that of the Pope, although it was more a tergiversation than a clarification, because everyone had understood the Brief as an absolute prohibition on the admission of novices. Given these inconsistencies in Albizzi’s interpretations, one could surmise that both the Pope and Albizzi, after so much struggle on the part of the Court of Poland and others, came to the realization that they had gone too far and since were “in no position to back down”, so they decided on this strange version of the Brief, which in reality was not just a glimmer of hope, but a real wide-open door.

In these last years, so full of gloom, two proposals for foundations in Spain, particularly in the kingdoms of Valencia and Aragón, must also have seemed to him like new doors to hope. The first offer came in August 1646 from the Marquises of Quirra and Nules and the Counts of Centelles (Castellón), who resided in Cáller at the time. Father Salazar was the Marquise’s spiritual director, and both were very devoted to the school and benefactors. Father Salazar undoubtedly have informed them of the ban on founding and the deplorable state in which the Order found itself after the Brief of March of the same year. For this reason, the marquise alludes to the sought intervention of an Augustinian, assistant of Spain, “to obtain permission from Cardinal Ginetti to extend this religion to the kingdom of Valencia, where we have our state... and... the convenience of making it possible for the Fathers.”[4131] Father General apologized, as he thaught not prudent to speak to the Pope about it, “since he had expressed a desire to extinguish it [the Religion] rather than extend it, but if the Lord comforts us by putting it back on its feet, Your Excellency will be served in the first place.”[4132] And that is how it was...

4131 EHI, p.1762.

4132 C.4428. Dated December 1, 1646.

The second petition was addressed to him on February 4, 1648 on behalf of the Royal Council of Aragón by Don Michael Paul Gamón, who ended his letter with the words: “I would be pleased to be an instrument for the introduction of a Religion so holy and so useful for the common good and especially for the needy.”[4133] To this request, whose answer we do not know, the Saint gave greater interest, referring it to his friend and almost compatriot Don Miguel Jiménez Barber, who had expressed his desire to become a Piarist. In fact, Calasanz imagined seeing him already in Sardinia, doing his novitiate and then set off with some Fathers to found the first Piarist school in his lands in Aragón.[4134] But here, too, it was all in vain.

4133 EchoCen 8 (1947) 28-29.

4134 Cf. C.4543, 4547.

Last illness, farewell, and miracles

They called him the Old Holy Man, but no one knew his exact age; it was undoubtedly very advanced, almost bordering on the improbable. And if they had been writing to him for some time, asking God to keep him alive for many more years, it was because they really feared that he would die at any moment. Salazar wrote to him in March 1645: “May the Lord keep you a little longer, for we need you very much”; and in April 1646: “My father, I will suffer as long as you, Father, live (if I do not die first, God willing, so as not to see such a ruin), for I cannot believe that the goodness of the Lord would let you die with so much pain. But if you close your eyes and we stay like this, the Institute is finished. So far, I have fought, prayed and tried for some of us here not to give up the habit and that is why I say that those of Cáller will be the last to die, but if Y. P. lives.”[4135] And he was wrong. Not even the saints are necessary for the works of God to continue.

4135 EHI, p.1880, 1891.

In mid-July 1648, the ailing Father General left the house for the last time, accompanied by Father Angel Morelli and the young Sicilian cleric John Domingo, to buy some indulgences at the nearby, now vanished, little church of San Salvatore, which was located at the end of what is now the Senate Palace, opposite the façade of St. Louis the French. On the way home, he tripped over a stone and injured his bare foot as he was wearing “apostolic style” sandals. It was not a big deal, but enough to keep him at home without being able to go out.[4136]

4136 The two most important early chroniclers, Berro and Caputi, left us very detailed accounts of everything that happened during the illness, death and funeral of the Founder, of which they were eyewitnesses. Caputi wrote a first report in 1656, entitled Breve narratione dell’infermità et morte del V. P. Gioseppe della Madre di Dio, Fondatore delle Scuole Píe (cf. CAPUTI, Notizie Historiche, vol. IV, part IX, f.56-65). From it he later made another copy, changing the text somewhat and making it much longer at the end (cf. ibid., f.26-55). In 1673 he wrote in Naples the 6ª Relatíone, in which he treated the subject again at much greater length and as a new account (cf. ibid., vol. III, part VI, paragraph I., f.1-120). Fr. Egidio de Marigliano, OFM, friend of Caputi and reviser of his Neapolitan manuscripts, composed an Index to this account -as he did with others- which he divided into marginal numbers (two per page) (cf. EcoCen 11-12 [1948] 79-83). For his part, Berro wrote in 1664 a Vita del P. Fondatore delle Scuole Pie, whose only extant copy was made by Caputi in 1675 and was included in his vol. IV (part IX, f .1-26). Chap. XXII (f.18-27) deals with the illness and death of the Saint, that is, the same subject of Caputi’s “Brief Narrations”. The distance of years with respect to the facts makes them confuse details to both, which can be corrected and amplified with the declarations of eyewitnesses, like Castelli, Morelli, Scassellati, etc., made in the Informative Process of 1651-1653.

On the first of August, a Saturday, he celebrated his last mass, after which he felt unwell and went to bed. But the next day, even though it was Sunday, he did not dare to say Mass because he did not feel up to it, and he waited for the children’s Mass, which took place every Sunday in the oratory next to his room. Berro celebrated it, and the Holy Master, surrounded by the students, took part in the Mass and received communion. And this is the moment that Goya immortalized in his famous painting “Last Communion of Saint Joseph Calasanz”[4137], more precisely, if he had added “in the midst of the children”, because he received communion several more times before his death.

4137 Until 1990 it was kept in the Church of San Antón (Madrid), annexed to the homonymous school. When the building was sold, the painting was installed in the Oratory of the former Colegio Mayor Calasanz (Gaztambide, 65. Madrid).

The persistence of his indisposition made it advisable to call the doctors, four of them on different occasions, namely: John Maria Castellani, already doctor of Gregory XV, great friend and, with his brothers, founder of the school of Carcare and professor of anatomy at the nearby La Sapienza University; Peter Prignani, ordinary doctor of the house, Ludovicus Berlanzani and John Jacobo, doctor of Paul V and his Borghese family. They all agreed that it was a matter of weakness, a symptom of old age, without attaching much importance to the matter. But the sick man insisted that it was a matter of the liver, from which he had been suffering for many years. And he said to his religious: “The doctors do not know my illness. When the Lord wants to take someone to heaven, he takes away the doctors’ knowledge of the illness so that they do not use the right remedies.”[4138] And the home remedy he used to soothe his burns was to place a marble slab on his side and wet it with fresh water.[4139] Another remedy that Dr. Castellani prescribed for him, contrary to the opinion of the other doctors, was bloodletting, a very common remedy for many ailments at the time.

4138 Cf. BAU, BC, p.1166.1.

4139 In the inventory of objects conserved in the room of the Saint, made on June 17, 1649, five of them are included, two of them half broken (cf. R. PUIGDOLLERS, Texto y actualización del inventario de 1688 de las reliquias de S. Jósé de Calasanz...: Archivum 11 [1982] 163-164, n.50 and 56). All five are still preserved (cf. ibid., p.101, n.1-2).

He suffered most, it seemed, from thirst, both from the burning of the liver and from the high and persistent fever in the middle of the Roman August. The doctors forbade him to drink, so he had to resign himself to moistening his tongue or rinsing out his mouth. One day he was visited by a great friend, an English nobleman named Thomas Cocchetti, whom he had favored since his arrival in Rome in 1616.[4140] And here is what Father Angel Morelli told about this visit on March 6, 1652 as a witness in the Informative Process:

4140 He arrived in Rome as a widower with four children, three of whom were students of Father General. One of them later entered the Collegio Nazareno and another became a Piarist priest. The other three were also priests: Canon Regular of the Lateran, Celestine Monk and Benedictine Monk respectively (cf. S. GINER, El Proceso..., p.78-79).

“... being very much burnt out with fever, and could scarcely speak, he was told by Mr. Thomas Cucchetti (sic)[4141], an English gentleman, steward to Charles Stuart King of England, to take thin slices of small lemons with sugar, and put them on his tongue, as they would keep it cooler; which the said King of England did. We had prepared some slices for him; he took one, but then he remembered that it was a remedy used by that heretic, and would not use it on any account, as he detested that remedy on account of the person who had invented it. And all this happened in my presence; moreover, I served him the said things myself.”[4142]

4141 Generally, they write Cocchetti, but being English, it is more likely that his name was Cook or something similar and that when he arrived in Italy, he changed it to Cocchetti, pronouncing Cucchetti, as Morelli must have done.

4142 ProInf, p.407-408.

Berro adds in his narrative that at that moment he entered the room and asked what was going on. Father Garcia explained it to him and then Berro intervened to convince the Old Saint, saying, “Father, the little lemons are from Rome; the sugar must come from Spain or Sicily; King Charles has been dead for many years; we are giving them to you, we are your children, so what has King Charles got to do with it?” But these words were of no use - Berro continued - and only intensified his protests: “I do not want it, I do not want it, it’s the invention of a heretic,” and he ordered Father Caputi, who was holding the bowl of lemons, to throw them out of the window.[4143]

4143 Cf. Vita, by Berro, in Caputti, o.c., part IX, f.20.

Although the reaction was somewhat exaggerated, the Saint thus showed his aversion to heresy and his deep attachment and reverence for the Catholic faith, which the witnesses try to emphasize with this famous anecdote. Perhaps this led him to seek a more positive and eloquent means of professing his faith, as we shall see later. It is curious, however, that traditional Calasanctian biography to this day attributes the invention of this remedy to Henry VIII, against whom the sick Saint’s aversion was specifically directed.[4144] But Morelli and Berro named King Charles, and Caputi simply spoke of the “King of England” without naming him.[4145] And the person who could clear up the question, namely Mr. Cocchetti, said nothing about it in his procedural statement, but he remembered that he had served “the Majesty of the King of England, by name James Stuart, as secret steward.”[4146] It is therefore very certain that “the heretical king” was James I of England (1603-1625), the son of Mary Stuart, whose secrets and details of the bedroom and table must have been well known to his steward Thomas Cocchetti, and not those of the distant Henry VIII (+ 1547).[4147]

4144 Cf. ARMINI, p.170; TALENTI, Vita, p.469; TOSETTI, Compendium, p.194; BAU, BC, p.1168 and 1186, etc.

4145 Caputi in the 1656 first version of his Breve narratione (cf. previous n. 4136) does not name the King of England, nor in the second version, though not literal (cf. Caputi, o.c., part IX, f.32r and 59r). But in the third version, his 6th Relatione, written in 1673, he already gave the name of Henry VIII King of England (cf. Caputi, o.c., vol. III, part VI, paragraph 1, f.77v, n.307), and the amendment was expressly recorded in the Index of Fr. Egidio de Marigliano (cf. EcoCen 11-12 [1948] 81), who probably was the one who advised the detail. Berro composed his Vita in 1664, making much use of the Informative Process of 1651-1653, and thus copied from Morelli the (wrong) name of King Charles, as we have seen in the textual quotation. But when Caputi wrote the copy in 1675, he added to Berro’s text a marginal note that says: “he wants to say that the inventor is Henry King of England” (Caputi, o.c., vol. IV, part IX, f.20r). Naturally, later authors copying Caputi used for ease the Index of Fr. Egidio and accepted the name of Henry VIII, more famous “as a heretic” than King Charles.

4146 ProcIn, p.178. The reign of Charles Stuart I began on March 27, 1625, while Cocchetti was already in Rome in 1616. Then it had nothing to do with him, but rather with his predecessor James I. However, Morelli appointed King Charles, whose name must have sounded a lot throughout Europe then for his deposition from the throne on November 30, 1648 and his decapitation on January 30, 1649. And Morelli deposed on March 6, 1652, believing that Cocchetti had served Charles.

4147 Cocchetti must have spoken a lot to Calasanz about King James I, who professed the Calvinism typical of Scotland, where he was king (1567-1603). The “Gunpowder Plot” (1605) fueled the persecution against Catholics in England, imposing on them in 1606 the oath of which Cocchetti speaks in his statement: “an edict went out, that all at court should profess every Easter with an oath that the king of England was the head of the Church” (ProcIn, p.178). For this reason, Cocchetti fled London. To this “heretic King” Calasanz alluded, then, and not to Henry VIII, of whom it is unlikely that the English court could remember the trifle of “the little slices of lemon with sugar”after half a century (1547-1603) and after the change of the Tudor dynasty for the Stuart.

As soon as the news spread in Rome that Father Joseph of the Pious Schools was seriously ill, an endless parade of former students, old friends and personalities of rank or emissaries of the same set off to visit him... and to say goodbye. The eyewitnesses remember by name the religious: Father Constantin Palamolla, a Barnabite, a holy man, ninety years old like him, brother of Cardinal Ginetti’s secretary; Father Thomas del Bene and Father Zacharia Pasqualino, well-known theatines of the nearby community of St. Andrea della Valle; Father Luke Wadding, an Irish Franciscan, founder of the Roman convent of St. Isidore, who had clashed with Bishop Albizzi; Father Vincent Candido, Dominican, Master of the Sacred Palace, with whom - Caputi recalls - he spoke about Father Nicholas Ridolfi, General of the Dominicans, who was deposed and imprisoned during the pontificate of Urban VIII[4148]; the four monsignors, his former students, Bernardino Biscia, Nicholas Oreggio, Charles Vincent de Totis and John Francis Ferentillo, auditor of Cardinal Antony Barberini; the personal envoys of some cardinals, such as Don Giulio Cesare, master of the chamber of Cardinal Ginetti, who visited him several times; Don Giovanni Battista, brother of Cardinal Pallotta; Don Julian, brother of Cardinal Giustiniani; other envoys of Cardinals Lanti, Franciotti, Chigi, Cecchini, Colonna, and the Constable Colonna; Peter della Valle and his four sons, all students of the Pious Schools. Perhaps the deplorable state in which the Founder and his work had practically fallen out of favor with the Holy See “diplomatically” prevented the personal visit of all these and other cardinals. The only one known to have been at home was Cardinal Sacchetti, who was somewhat forced because on the feast of Saints Justus and Pastor (August 6th) a solemn academy or evening event was dedicated to two of his nephews, and presumably he went in to see the dying Saint.

4148 On Frs. Wadding, Vincent Candido and Nicholas Ridolfi and their relations with Albizzi and the Barberinis cf. L. CEYSSENS, o.c., p.102, 200-201; 113; 105, 251-252. And Caputi in EcoCen 11-12 (1948) 81.

There were two other special visits that ended with a miracle: that of Sebastian Previsano, a shopkeeper in the basement of San Pantaleo who had known Father Joseph for more than forty-one years. He went up to the holy friend’s room with crutches and came down without them after the sick man had made the sign of the cross on his disabled knee.[4149] The other lucky winner was the four-year-old child Francis Dominic Piantanidi. His father Felix, a notary, had been a pupil of Father Joseph. His mother, who was already a widow, brought him to San Pantaleo and wanted someone to take the child to the Saint’s room to touch his feet, which were deformed from birth, which is why he always wore orthopedic shoes. Father Fedele, accompanied by Father Caputi, brought the child to Father Joseph and they asked him to touch the child’s feet and pray for him. Not without resistance, for he suspected that a miracle was intended, the old holy man did both. And after four days, the mother returned with the healed child and new shoes to thank him in some way for the grace she had received.[4150]

4149 BAU, BC, p.1170. He testified in the first Informative Process (cf. S. GINER, o.c., p.86-87).

4150 In the process the mother, called Victoria Gracchi, and Fr. Fedele both testified (cf. S. GINER, o.c., p.85). Caputi also recalls it (cf. BAU, BC, p.847-849, 1165).

And speaking of miracles, we must not omit two famous visions or dreams or apparitions that the Saint revealed to some confidants. Father Castelli, who lived in the novitiate of Borgo, and Father Camillo Scassellati, rector of Nazareno, visited him one day in his room. Both made sworn statements about what Father General then confessed, in the 1651-1653 Informative Process. Father Castelli recounted:

“... I visited him and said to him: “Father, I am afraid that you want to play a trick on us; you want to leave us; I am very afraid of that”. He answered me: “I am in the hands of God, His Divine Majesty does what he wants”. And when I replied: “In any case, Your Paternity can only be lucky”, he answered me quietly and confidentially: “Yes, Our Lady told me to be happy and not to doubt anything.” This statement left me in suspense, and so that he would repeat it, I said to him, “How, father, how is it?” And he repeated slowly: “Madonna dei Monti told me to be happy and not to doubt anything”. And I made him repeat it so that the other Father could hear it, and he repeated it.”[4151]

4151 BAU, BC, p.1179-1180.

Similarly, that other Father, namely Scassellati, made his statement. Others confirmed it, such as Armini and Bianchi who knew it by hearsay, and above all Caputi, who affirms that the Saint revealed it again to him and to Fathers García, Berro, Morelli and the Barnabite Father Constantine Palamolla.[4152] He made another significant revelation to the latter, at which Father Castelli and Father Berro were also present, who reports it. It must have been another dream or vision in which all the deceased Piarists visited him. Some were standing and others were sitting. The Saint asked Father Constantine what this difference could mean. The Barnabite in turn asked him with whom Fr. Glycerio Landriani was, and the Saint replied that he was with the seated ones. From this they concluded that the seated ones were already in glory and the others in purgatory. The Saint added that only one was missing, and when Berro asked him who it was, he would not answer.[4153]

4152 See the original Italian texts by Armini, Scassellati, Castelli, Caputi and Bianchi in C.VILÁ, La Madonna dei Monti e il Calasanzio: EphCal 9-10 (1980), 388-392. And Berro in his Vita (Caputi, o.c., part IX, f.91). We have to allude - for historical objectivity - to another supposed “Apparition of Our Lady”, which is said to have occurred in the domestic Oratory of San Pantaleo, called until today “Chapel of the Apparition”, presided over by a canvas that represents the scene: while the Saint was with the children in Continuous Prayer, the Virgin appeared to him with the Child, who blessed those present, that is, the Pious Schools, at the suggestion of his Holy Mother. In order to perpetuate the event, the Founder had a picture painted - now disappeared - of which the present one (anonymous) would be a second, more artistic version. The first author who refers to the fact is Armini in his Vita, published in 1710 (cf. p.238), but already composed in 1686. and I would not be very sure, if in the Process of 1690, he did not dare to recall it, although he did speak of the Apparition of Our Lady dei Monti. The absolute silence of everyone up to that time, especially since so many had spoken of the vision of Our Lady dei Monti, leaves Armini’s late account without serious support. Nevertheless, Talenti collected it in his Vita of 1753 (cf. p.127-128) and so did Tosetti in his Compendium (cf. p.78), thus giving substance to the false tradition. The first to deny it was Bau (cf. BC, p.495-501). There is no doubt that the painting, therefore, did not want to represent “a fact”, but a symbol: the protection of Our Lady to the Pious Schools (cf. L. PICANYOL, La Capella dell’Apparizione della casa di S. Pantaleo dedicata a Maria Assunta: Rass XVI [1950], 2-12).

4153 BAU, BC, p.1190; TALENTI, Vita, p.463.

The death of the just man

During his Roman life, he was very devoted to St. Charles Borromeo and St. Philip Neri, and on his deathbed, he gave the last proof of this: At his own request or on the advice of others, a biretta of St. Philip was brought to him, which was venerated among the relics in his room in the Chiesa Nuova, and Father Palamolla brought him a sash of St. Charles Borromeo, which was kept in the church of San Carlo ai Catinari, which belonged to the Barnabites.

The sick man wore both objects with great reverence, but not to ask for health. Morelli tells us that during his last illness he prayed the rosary many times[4154], day and night, and it was one of the devotions he most recommended to his religious in those days, as Berro and Caputi[4155], among other witnesses, recall. He was also faithful until the last moment to the other profound devotion of his life, the passion and death of the Lord, and had it read frequently during his last illness. He also bore witness to extreme poverty by expressly wishing to give the little he had in his room to the superior, Father García, so that he could die with nothing of his own. The English nobleman Cocchetti stated at the process: “What I admired most in this Father was his great poverty, and I can say that everything he had in his room at the time of his death, that is, his bed and clothes, were not worth an escudo in my opinion, so worn and old were they.”[4156]

4154 ProcIn, p.400.

4155 Cf. BAU, BC, p.1184 and 1189.

4156 ProcIn, p.200.

For many, however, all the poor things that surrounded him began to acquire an inestimable value as relics of a Saint, and with more or less dissimulation they took them, such as cups, small plates and earthenware vessels, a pair of sandals that lay under the bed, articles of clothing, various skullcaps that were put on and taken off under the pretext that they were sweaty, and so on.

A few days before his death, he called Father Joseph Fedele and asked him to ask Cardinal Datario, Cecchini, to obtain the Apostolic Blessing and plenary indulgence in articulo mortis from Pope Innocent, which he received with great satisfaction. While for others this was a normal sign of veneration and ultimate attachment to the Pope and the Holy See[4157], for Calasanz this gesture takes on a more emotional and profound nuance when one considers that the hand whose blessing he asked for was the same one that two years earlier had signed the Brief of reduction that definitively deposed him from his office as General and condemned the Order to a slow but inexorable extinction. On the same day, he also sent Fathers Berro and Caputi to the Vatican Basilica to kiss the foot of the statue of St. Peter, ask for his blessing and - according to Morelli in his procedural statement - “to manifest on his behalf to St. Peter and the holy apostles that he wished to die in the holy Catholic faith.”[4158] And they did. He thus completed, even more worthily, his earlier gesture of rejecting the refreshing recipe with lemon and sugar of the “heretical King of England”.

4157 Also St. Ignatius of Loyola asked Fr. Polanco to obtain for him the Apostolic Blessing of Paul IV. Polanco did not believe that the sick man was so seriously ill and left the request for the following day, but the Saint died around 7 a.m., much more before Polanco returned from his mission badly done. (cf. J. J. TELLECHEA, Ignacio de Loyola solo y a pie [Madrid 1986], p.402-403).

4158 Procln, p.405.

It is not possible to say exactly on which days he received communion again, since he went to bed; perhaps on Sundays, that were the 9th, 16th and 23rd, and on the 15th, the festivity of the Assumption, and some days more.[4159] Both Caputi and Berro recall various scenes of these last communions, which took place in the presence of many religious of the community, with moving exhortations from the Saint who knew he was going. Caputi, for example, describes one that took place in the early morning of August 10th or 12th, when he received the viaticum for the first time. Berro, Morelli, Caputi and four or five others were present. Father García gave him communion, but before receiving it - Bau translates and summarizes - “he began by asking forgiveness for those he had offended, he went on to a very moving exhortation, full of memories and advice, speaking to us of holy humility, of patience in our work, of brotherly charity, blessed us and called those present and absent, those in Rome and in other houses, his dearest sons, and forgave from his heart all those who had offended him, repeating for them also the title of beloved sons. And if our tears were moved by the tenderness and love we felt for him, his tears were no less numerous, for he had burst into tears as if all the affections of his soul were escaping from his eyes, and by these expressions of dearest sons.”[4160] Both Berro and Caputi agree that on the morning of the 23rd he again received the viaticum and addressed another fervent exhortation to the entire community present.

4159 Bau supposes that he received communion on 9th, 12th, 15th, 20th, 23rd (cf. BAU, BC, p.1185); Talenti on 10th, 18th, 20th, 23rd (TALENTI, Vita, p.460-466; in Fr. Egidio’s Index only days 10th and 20th are recalled (cf. EcoCen, cit., p.80).

4160 BAU, BC, p.1167.

The end was near. “On the evening of that Sunday (August 23rd) - Bau continues - he asked the Fathers to administer the sacrament of Extreme Unction to him and affirmed that he wanted to receive it in full consciousness. The bell was rung and all the Fathers and Brothers went to the oratory. Father Castilla, his confessor and Rector, administered it to him in his adjoining room, with the usual prayers, and he responded to everything with his usual devotion, while the whole community and some lay people who joined in, wept with emotion.”[4161]

4161 Ib., p.1175.

Sunday the 23rd and Monday the 24th passed, and that night Father Berro and Father Morelli stayed to watch over him. Around midnight, Morelli declared in 1652,

“I was praying matins of the following day kneeling at his bedside, and when I realized that he was slowly losing his breath... I called Father Vincent [Berro], who was lying on a chest in the same room, and went to ring the bell so that all the Fathers and Brothers of the house would come, which they did immediately to witness his death. And while Father Rector, John of Jesus Mary, alias Castilla, said the last prayers, which according to the Roman ritual are said for the commendation of the soul, and Father General repeated the name of Jesus, as one could guess from the movement of his lips, which other Fathers suggested to him, he passed away with great peace, as if he were entering into a sweet sleep.”[4162]

4162 ProcIn, p.422-423; BAU, BC, p.1192-1195.

Berro’s memoirs are later, from the year 1664, and add further details, such as these:

“The Venerable Father - while the recommendation of the soul - answered everything. He raised his right arm as if to bless, and at that moment, without moving or rattling, without retching or puckering his lips, he flew to heaven and said Jesus, Jesus, Jesus three times. It was half past five [i.e., half past midnight according to today’s time] in the early morning of Tuesday, August 25, 1648. His body remained as beautiful and handsome as if he were still alive... A singular and inward joy seized us all, which had us as if we were out of our senses, and so comforted us that we seemed to celebrate instead of mourn, and instead of being depressed by the pain peculiar to the case, we experienced a common and universal joy.”[4163]

4163 BAU, BC, p.1190. Caputi’s version in Italian, cf. in EcoCen I (1945), 7; free translation in BAU, BC, 1177. On the same day, the 25th, Fr. Mazzei, witness of the events, wrote in his elegant Latin to the also Latinist and friend Peter della Valle, who lived nearby: (cum omnes per eos dies, quibus ille aegrotabat, moerore ac dolore maximo vexarentur... illo tamen mortuo, mira pace sunt omnes, et iucunditate perfussi”. (EC, p.1849).

In the eyes of God - and men - the death of his Saints is precious!

The rector instructed Fathers Berro and Caputi and four Brothers to wash the body according to custom and prepare it for burial, while the others went back to bed at night. So they remained witnesses to the event and took in the atmosphere of the unbelievable with astonishment - if Caputi is not exaggerating in his Memoirs. When the covers of the bed were lifted, everything was very clean, even though the sheets had not been changed during the three weeks of illness and he had sweated so much; moreover, the bed smelled of fresh roses and “I can swear to it with an oath,” says Caputi, and “when he took off his clothes to go to this last service of washing - Bau summarises -, the corpse came with his right hand to cover what cannot be seen without immodesty, and when they changed his position, he repeated the gesture with his left hand.”[4164] They put the cassock and priestly vestments on him and had him exposed in the adjoining oratory.

4164 BAU, BC, p.1195, and CAPUTI, o.c., part VI, f.86.

At dawn, the Rectors of the novitiate and the Nazareno were notified, and when they arrived, the office and mass for the deceased were held behind closed doors. The three Rectors decided not to pass on the news yet, except to Card. Ginetti, the superior of the house, and reserved the entire 25th for the community to watch over him and collect the death mask and perform the autopsy, as was customary for people of this category. In the meantime, the Rectors of the three houses closest to Rome, Frascati, Moricone and Poli, were notified so that they could send representatives to the public funeral on the 26th.

Among the Jesuits of the Gesù lived a painter, John Barbarino, who had a certain fame at the time and later was forgotten by history. He was commissioned to make the mask, which was perfect except for one detail: as the saint no longer had any teeth due to his advanced age, the lower lip was too sunken.[4165] Nevertheless, the Calasanctian iconography has remained consistent over the centuries thanks to this mask. Several cunning attempts were made to paint a living portrait of her, and it seems to have succeeded on only two occasions.[4166]

4165 This painter also made an engraving of him when the corpse was exposed, and then carried out several paintings and engravings of which Caputi speaks at length (cf. L. PICANYOL, De origine primarum S. Iosephi Calasanctii imaginum: EphCal 4 [1933], 151-158; ID., S. Giuseppe Calasanzio nell’arte e iconografia varia: EcoCen 13-14 [1949], 32-37. See two photograms of engravings by Barbarino in the first article cit. p.152-153, and in the second, p.18-19. This second can be seen also in BAU, BC, p.49. Both are rather mediocre engravings.

4166 Cf. n.1408 of ch.12.

As they had decided on the morning of the 25th, the doctors who had assisted him during his last illness were called to the autopsy, i.e. the professor of anatomy from La Sapierza, John Mary Castellani, the family doctor Peter Prignani, another doctor from Luquese called Ludovico Berlinzani and the practicing surgeon Christopher Antoni, who had been a student of the Pious Schools of San Pantaleo, for whose community he rendered his services together with Prignani. The latter two, Antoni and Prignani, were heard as witnesses in the Informative Process in June 1651 and December 1652 respectively. And it is worth recalling a statement by Prignani, according to which Father Joseph “said these very words to me the day before he died: Mr. Peter, come tomorrow to my autopsy [they called it ‘notomy’ or ‘anatomy’] and see what is here, that is, in the area of the liver.”[4167] The doctor’s statement was intended to show that Father Joseph was predicting something future in this case, namely his own death. But at the same time, it suggests that the saint considered it natural that he would be autopsied after his death.

4167 ProcIn, p.573.

It happened after lunch, at the time of the siesta, which the Rector forced everyone to take in order to avoid crowds and obstructions near the corpse. The three Roman Rectors were allowed to be present as witnesses, as well as Fathers Baldi, Fedele, Morelli, Berro and Caputi and Fathers Paul Vastello and Joseph Toni. In a kind of candlelight procession, the body was taken from the oratory to the classroom in front of the oratory where the operation took place. Mr. Castellani knelt down and, after a short prayer, began the butchering. It was indeed found that the liver, small and compact, was the cause of the terrible burn that had caused his death. It was also found that the heart was larger than normal. The brain, tongue, liver and spleen were removed and placed in ceramic jars, while the heart was placed in a large glass beaker. It is likely, although it is not explicitly mentioned, that all these parts were impregnated or immersed in a special liquid to keep them from spoiling for a while. All these containers were then placed in a metal casket, which in turn was placed in a specially made walnut box, together with the reliquary of the heart of Ven. Glicerio Landriani and another pewter casket in which Berro placed the original manuscripts of the Constitutions of the Order and of Collegio Nazareno, which had been handwritten by the Holy Founder. The walnut box was locked with three keys and kept in Father General’s room, which was not to be occupied by anyone else.[4168]

4168 BERRO I, p.191; CAPUTI, Not. Hist., vol. III, part VI, p.88; BAU, BC, p.1196-1197; R. PUIGDOLLERS, o.c., p.116-118. By 1688 the three keys had been lost. The chest remained closed for a whole century and on August 2, 1748, it had to be unsealed, bringing to light the precious relics, which remained perfectly incorrupt (cf. RegCal,49,28). In 1752 they were enclosed in a precious silver reliquary, the work of Angel Spinazzi, father of Innocent Spinazzi, who was the author of the grandiose marble statue of Calasanz in the Vatican Basilica. Those illustrious relics (heart, tongue, liver and spleen) are still intact in their reliquary. The author of these lines had the fortune - as Bau (cf. BC, p.1200) - to hold in his hands and kiss the heart, when in 1948 it was fastened with golden threads, in view of the long triumphal journey through Spain, celebrating the third centenary of his death.

Despite the secrecy with which things were done, they learned of the death and went to pay a moving tribute to him Mgrs. Ferentillo, Oreggio, Totis, Biscia, Vannucci, Pallotta and other prelates as soon as the body had been transferred to the oratory after the autopsy was completed. It remained there all night, with only Fathers Garcia and Caputi keeping watch over him.

Glorious funerals

The next morning, the 26th, the religious from Frascati, Moricone and Poli arrived in the middle of the night after a journey of several hours. The communities of the novitiate and Nazareno also arrived, the latter with all the students. They rang the bells of the bell tower, but soon a messenger arrived from Palazzo Orsini, which was located in the area of today’s Palazzo Braschi next to the Pasquino, and asked them not to ring the bells because the Duke of Bracciano was very ill and the bells were disturbing him. And they stopped ringing.

At around 8 o´clock, the funeral procession formed up and left the oratory. The coffin was carried by the priests Baldi, Scassellati, Fedele and Berro. The perfectionist Caputi writes: “We left the house through the gate, went around the little square and entered the church, where there was only Mr. Marcantonio Magalotto and a boy of six or seven years named Thomas, nephew of Father Francis [Baldi] of the Annunciation, who, seeing the body of the Father, began to cry out so loudly that he astonished all who heard him with these words: Behold the Saint, behold the Saint.”[4169] The coffin was placed in the middle of the church on a simple catafalque and Fathers Berro and Caputi stood guard beside it. The child’s voices found little echo, as only the religious and Mr. Magalotto were in the church to hear him. But during the funeral, a woman came in by chance, perhaps to shorten the journey from door to door. When she saw the catafalque and learned that it was Father Joseph, whose reputation for holiness she knew well, she approached and, encouraged by Caputi - as he himself says - she touched the feet of the corpse with her right hand and arm, which could not move, and was instantly healed, uttering an irrepressible cry of joy: “A miracle, a miracle!”. Her name was Catalina d’Alessandro. She went out into the street and continued to proclaim the miracle, and her cries were louder than the silent bells, which were no longer ringing for the dead but for glory.

4169 Cf. CAPUTI, o.c., vol. IV, part IX, f.45v. In the other copy (cf. ibid., f.65) it says that the child was 5 or 6 years old. Berro also says: “it passed by the house entrance through the middle of the square, turned around and entered the church through the small door.” (cf. ibid., f.25v). He did not turn around along the Via della Cucagna to enter through the main door, as Bau says (cf. BC, p.1204), confused by Talenti (o.c., p.478). The church had two doors, the main one, as now, open to Piazza di San Pantaleo, formerly dei materassai, through which passed the Via Papalis (cf. G. SPAGNESI, San Pantaleo, Rome 1967).

And more and more people came through the two doors, and before the funeral services were over, the little church filled up, then the two little squares too, and the adjoining streets seemed to be rivers of crowds pouring into San Pantaleo. Later, the carriages of the nobility and the court also arrived, adding to the tumult and confusion. The children of the Pious Schools probably contributed to this rapid and turbulent concentration of people. It had not been possible to warn them of the previous day’s events, as St. Bartholomew’s Day was a public vacation. And when they arrived at school on the 26th, they found that there were no classes. They returned home that morning and spread the news of the death of Father Joseph, who had performed miracles in the Church of the Pious Schools, in all the neighborhoods of Rome. And the voices of more than a thousand children were louder than the intermittent ringing of the bells.

The poor Caputi and Berro were soon no longer able to restrain the crowd pressing around the Saint and increased the guard by two more, by four, up to ten. They surrounded the tumulus with benches, but the incredible avalanche continued. From time to time the cry of “Miracle!” could be heard. And there were the two historians, Berro and Caputi, who, with their eyes wide open, tried to memorize everything they saw so that they could write it down later. And indeed, Caputi outdid himself.[4170] It seems that there were many healings of crippled arms that morning, although there were also some strange cases, like that of a woman named Catherine Joannini, who pushed her way into the crowd, determined to kiss the saint’s feet and hands, even though she did not have to ask for healing. But between so much crowding, the apron she was wearing was torn in two, one half getting caught between the pews of the catafalque. She rescued it, kissed the body and, before leaving the church, was amazed to see that the apron had been put back together in one piece. And the cry of “Miracle!” could be heard again. The miraculous apron in turn became a precious relic, the use of which brought about new miracles.[4171] There was another woman who was also healed of her disabled arm and performed a beautiful gesture: she went out, bought flowers, came back with a full lap and scattered them over the holy corpse with her newly healed arm, but they soon disappeared, transformed into relics whose touch produced other miracles.

4170 He wrote two reports of miracles: the first gathers 181 cases, occurring from August 26, 1648 to June 13, 1650; the second 418, from August 26, 1648 (again) to November 15, 1673 (cf. S. GINER, o.c., p.37, n.30. and 31; BAU, BC, p.1217). More famous than all these hundreds of miracles and graces, remembered in all the Calasanctian biographies and subject of precious paintings, is the so-called “miracle of Frascati”, attributed to the Saint during his lifetime: while he was in the school of that town, a woman involuntarily suffocated her little son during sleep. She took the corpse to the Pious Schools asking Father Joseph to appeal to Our Lady to bring him back to life. The Saint took him in his arms, carried him to the church before the image of the Virgin and made the children pray the Salve and the dead child was resurrected. The first who speaks of the case is Dionisio Mícara in a declaration before a notary on August 23, 1703, when he was 79 years old. He says that it happened 63 years earlier and that he was a witness. But on November 24, 1692 he had already testified under oath in the Process and said nothing about the case. How is it possible that a portent as striking as the resurrection of a dead man was totally forgotten? The first author to mention it was Father Innocenzo Cinnacchi in his Vita of the Founder in 1734. And after him, everyone remembers it, even Bau, who quotes in full and in Italian the notarial declaration of Micara of 1703. The argument of silence both in Mr. Micara and in all the others is overwhelming, so that we have to reject the ill-founded tradition. (Cf. BAU, BC, p.829-832; BAU, RV, p.337, n.312; S. GINER, o.c., p.172-174).

4171 She was called to testify at the Process on June 20, 1651 (cf. ProcIn, p.144-152). She gave the miraculous apron to the Fathers, who keep it to this day in a very particular reliquary (cf. R. PUIGDOLLERs, o.c., p.97, n.2).

But the people not only took the flowers, they also began to cut up the alb, the cassock, the hair and even the toenails, which almost turned into outright looting. Corsican soldiers from the papal service had to be called in to prevent the attacks. They managed to change the location of the burial mound and move it to the presbytery, where it was better protected by the walnut balustrade. But the balustrade soon gave way, as did the pews.

There was also the unpleasant detail of an anonymous, malicious person who approached the vicarate, denouncing the unrest in San Pantaleo and asking for an immediate burial order. The Vicegerent refused, saying, “For God’s sake, but is that possible? Even after his death they persecute him!

Among the crowd of high ladies, duchesses, wives of ambassadors and prelates of the Curia was Monsignor Camillo dei Massimi from the neighboring Massimi Palace, who with his brother was a pupil of Father Joseph. He was later to become nuncio in Spain and a cardinal, but at the time he was a simple papal secret steward.[4172] He spent a lot of time watching the moving spectacle from the choir and informed Pope Innocent, from whom he received a squad of Swiss Guards to watch over the body in danger.

4172 Cf. TALENTI, Vita, p.481-482; L. PASTOR, o.c., t.30, p.82-84.

Among the many specific names given to us by eyewitnesses, Father Augustine Ubaldini, former Visitator of the Order, stands out, who came to venerate the holy Founder together with other Somascan religious, Barnabites, Franciscans, Dominicans, Theatines, Discalced Carmelites, etc. But among the names of the prelates of the Curia, who were numerous, there is no record of Msgr. Albizzi’s arrival. It is worth mentioning Father Peter Caravita, one of the most famous Jesuits of the time, who gave an impromptu eulogy to Father Joseph in front of the enthusiastic crowd, extolling his virtues. But that took place in the afternoon.

They just managed to close the doors at midday. They brought the body back to the oratory to change the vestments, which had fallen victim to looting, with the intention of not displaying it in public again. But the people flocked again and managed to enter the house, even beyond the limits of the closure, so that they were forced to take the body back to the church to continue the pious parade of the people.

Br. Lucas Bresciani, one of the Almoners or questors of the house, asked the Duchess Farnese to order the coffin for Father Joseph. And with admirable speed, in the middle of the afternoon, they brought two coffins into the church, one made of walnut and one of lead, to enclose the first. And then the greatest miracle of the whole day happened. A poor cripple of thirty-five, crawling on the floor and leaning on his elbows to move forward, was allowed to enter as the bearers of the lead coffin entered the doorway. He was allowed to approach the tomb, which was in the presbytery, and when he arrived, - the tinker who had brought the lead coffin testified in the clarification process -

“I saw at his feet the crippled man praying and asking someone to pick him up from the ground so that he could kiss Father Joseph’s hands and clothes. Moved by pity, I lifted the poor man in my arms, brought him close to the body of the said Father and began to kiss his hands and clothes... and... he said openly, “O Jesus, I touch the ground with my feet, I stand on my own feet!” And he began to stretch out his fingers and arms, as if amazed and not believing that he had received this grace, for indeed he began to move his limbs and walk around the tomb many times, saying that he did not want to leave, but would sleep that night in the church beside the body, and the people crowded around him to know if it was he who had received this singular grace, and I was truly amazed, for I had seen him crawling through the streets long before and even on the same day, and indeed in my arms he stretched out his legs and became perfectly well.”[4173]

4173 ProcIn, p.135-136. The declarant’s name was Charles Antony Gamorra, 35 years old. He deposed on June 16, 1651. The protagonist of this splendid miracle was called Salvador Morelli, and in 1695, at the age of 82, he returned to Rome and underwent a special process - he and his son - to testify to the miracle (cf. S. GINER, o.c., p.181-182).

Around one o´clock in the morning, they managed to close the doors, although the crowds were still pouring from the city. In the early morning of the 27th, the two Rectors Scassellati and Castelli returned and, together with the Rector of San Pantaleo, decided to bury the body immediately before more people arrived. So much spontaneous glorification by the crowd must have frightened the religious in view of the official discredit to which the Founder and his Order had fallen. All this posthumous apotheosis might have seemed unwise to the Roman Curia. So, they dug the grave in the presbytery, at the foot of the main altar, on the Gospel side; they provisionally closed the double coffin in which the body lay and, with the usual liturgical prayers, lowered it into the grave and covered it with earth and bricks. It was about six o´ clock in the morning when the doors were opened again to let in the impatiently waiting people. The disappointment was great, as they had still expected to see the coffin open. They resigned themselves to kneeling and praying in front of the improvised tomb and many took some of the sacred earth, which could be scraped between the bricks, as a relic. The flow of people subsided when the news spread that the miraculous body of Father Joseph had already been buried.

In the afternoon, Don Joseph Palamolla, the Vicar’s secretary and his delegate, arrived to officially recognise the body. Behind closed doors, the coffin was dug up and opened. It is said that the body was still pliable, without the slightest sign of decomposition, and it smelled very bland. Monsignors John F. Ferentillo, Nicholas Oreggio, Charles V. de Totis and Camil dei Massimi, Don Peter Paul Baldelli and the doctor John M. Castellani signed the notarial deed as witnesses. The presence of important personalities was also permitted, as was that of numerous religious from the Piarist communities of Rome. A lead plate with a Latin inscription was placed next to the head of the corpse, which read: “Here rests the body of the Ven. Servant of God Fr. Joseph of the Mother of God, Founder and propagator of the Religion of the Poor of the Mother of God of the Pious Schools, who died at the age of ninety-two on August 25, 1648”. This was not his real age. At the beginning of September he would have been ninety-one years old, as he was born in 1557.[4174] The coffin was closed again, the earth covered and the pavement relaid. When the church was opened, the first to approach the tomb were Prince Borghese, Constable Colonna and the ambassadors of Tuscany and Savoy.

4174 His age was further exaggerated by some Roman diarists, such as Theodore Ameyden, who noted that he was 93 years old, as the Avvisi di Roma had said (cf. SÁNTHA, SJC, p.3, n.1). In Gigli’s Diary (p.322) we read: (A dí 23 agosto morí con nome di santo il P. Gioseppe della Madre di Dio fondatore delle Scuole Pie di anni 95”. (Cf. Ricerche l8 [1986] 376).

On the 29th, Fr. John García wrote a circular letter to the entire Order, announcing the death of “our Father General” and encouraging everyone to rejoice “because he has gone to the place where he can help us much better, as we can very well expect, given the miraculous signs that occurred when touching his body before his burial and later in the tomb, where the affluence of people is still very much present ...”[4175] And he was right. With so many miracles that had begun to blossom before his mortal remains and his tomb, there was no doubt that one day the firm hope that all his sons had placed in his prophetic words, which he had repeated so often since the fateful days of the Letter of Reduction, would also blossom: “I hope that all that our enemies have done and will do, will be undone with God’s help and that truth will be stronger than envy. Be of good cheer, Your Reverence, together with those who love the Institute, which will undoubtedly return to be perhaps more glorious than before.”[4176] That was the best epitaph that could be placed on this tomb, which - like that of Christ - spoke more of resurrection than of death.

4175 EC, p.1493

4176 C.4336.

Necessary epilogue

At the beginning of the Holy Year 1650, the Process of non cultu was introduced, which was completed within a month. It was the first firm step on the long road to the beatification of the Servant of God. And in mid-April 1651, the first witnesses of the ordinary Informative Process were sworn in, the last session of which took place in October 1653. Both Processes were held during the pontificate of Innocent X and - of course - with his approval. But he was intransigent on the question of the restoration of the Order. He died in January 1655.

In March he was succeeded by Alexander VII, who at the end of January of the following year 1656 - after the deliberations of a special papal Commission - signed a Brief by which the Pious Schools were again recognized as a Congregation with simple vows, as Paul V had founded them. As a result of these papal decisions and their preparatory work, Msgr. Albizzi, who was appointed Cardinal by Innocent X in March 1654, had the opportunity to confess personally to Fathers Berro, Caputi and Morelli: “My fathers, I have been deceived”. He continued: “If the importunity of some had not put my reputation to the test, Innocent X’s Brief would never have reached the public.”[4177] It was a kind of self-accusation that he had sacrificed the survival of the Order of the Pious Schools and the honor of its Founder to his own prestige and personal pride and that he had been deceived.

4177 BERRO III, P.14; Not.Hist., vol. II, part IV, F.74.

Alexander VII died and Clement IX succeeded him in June 1667. In October of the same year, the new pope gave his approval so that the Apostolic Process of Father Joseph’s beatification could be initiated as soon as the first phase of the Ordinary Process had been positively completed. And on October 23, 1669, after a special papal commission had once again thoroughly examined the whole question and the Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Religious had also given its positive verdict, Clement IX signed the Brief that restored the Pious Schools to their former rank as an Order of solemn vows with all privileges, thus fulfilling the prophetic hopes of the Founder.

The beatification process slowly took its course and in 1704 the young consistorial lawyer Prospero Lambertini joined as assistant to the defenders. In 1708 he was appointed Vice Promoter of faith and in 1712 he was appointed Promoter of faith or “devil’s advocate”, dealing ex officio with the enormous difficulties involved in the cause of a man who had been accused of disobedience to the Holy See and suspended from his governmental functions by the Pope, in addition to the fact that his Order had been reduced to a mere secular Congregation. But while he sharpened his weapons as an accuser, the great Lambertini did everything he could to find a solution to his own accusations, and he was filled with admiration and deep love for the Servant of God. In April 1728, he left the office of Promoter of the Faith when he received the cardinal’s purple and delivered an extraordinarily laudatory “vote” for the heroic virtues of Father Joseph, which Benedict XIII solemnly proclaimed in September of the same year.

In 1740, Cardinal Lambertini was elected Pope under the name of Benedict XIV and celebrated with great satisfaction the beatification of Joseph Calasanz on August 18, 1748 in the Vatican Basilica. The 25th of the same month marked the centenary of the death of the new Blessed and the solemn Triduum to celebrate it began in the church of San Pantaleo. And on the same afternoon, Pope Benedict XIV came across the ‘Via Papalis’, where Calasanz one day went captive towards the Holy Office to prostrate himself reverently before the tomb of Blessed Joseph Calasanz.[4178]

4178 See our exhaustive study on the subject: El proceso de Beatificacion de San Jose de Calasanz.

Finally, on July 16, 1767, Clement XIII included him in the catalog of Saints. That night, the dome, façade and colonnade of St. Peter’s Basilica were illuminated with the typical torches. It was the final apotheosis, the final glorification.

On the occasion of the third anniversary of his death and the second anniversary of his beatification, in 1948, Pius XII declared St. Joseph Calasanz the heavenly patron saint of all Christian elementary schools in the world before God.

Table of Contents

Prologue

Introduction

Sources and Bibliography

Acronyms and abreviations

Chapter 1

Peralta de la Sal, his home town

Chapter 2

Lineage and family

Chapter 3

Childhood at home and first studies

Chapter 4

In Lérida: arts and laws

Chapter 5

Theology and ordinations

Chapter 6

First years of priesthood outside his diocese

Chapter 7

In the service of the chapter of canons in Urgel

Chapter 8

The great pastoral experience

Chapter 9

Toward Rome

Chapter 10

The roman years of palace, of curia, and of aspirations

Chapter 11

The Rome of the saints

Chapter 12

The Rome of poverty, charity and devotion

Chapter 13

Origin of the Pious Schools

Chapter 14

Congregation of the Pious Schools of Rome

Chapter 15

The Ephemereal Union with Lucca Fathers

Chapter 16

The foundation

Chapter 17

Nature and novelty of Calasanz’ work. Piety and letters

Chapter 18

A place in history

Chapter 19

Temporary generalate: the expansion

Chapter 20

Temporary generalate: serious matters

Chapter 21

Generalate for life: expansion as problem

Chapter 22

The conflict of the brothers and the General Chapters of 1637 and 1641

Chapter 23

The perturbations of Father Mario

Chapter 24

Pietrasanta, Cherubini and the Commission of Cardinals

Chapter 25

The end of the drama

Necessary epilogue