General Curia Organizer

Fr. Joseph Fedele, Fifth General of the Pious Schools

General Curia Organizer.

Fr. Joseph Fedele, Fifth General of the Pious Schools

Author: György Sántha

Year of publication: 2024

Publicaciones ICCE

(Instituto Calasanz de Ciencias de la Educación)

Conde de Vilches, 4 - 28028 Madrid

www.icce.es

ISBN: 978-84-7278-???-?

Translated by F. Antonio Marco

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

General Curia Organizer

Fr. Joseph Fedele, Fifth General of the Pious Schools

www.edicionescalasancias.org

Fr. Giuseppe Fedele (Art Gallery of Superior Generals. San Pantaleo - Roma)

CHAPTER I

BIRTH. ENTRY INTO THE ORDER. FIRST POSITIONS (1605-1637)

Father Joseph Fedele of the Visitation, one of the oldest companions of St. Joseph Calasanz, was born at the beginning of December 1605 in Sezze (Lazio), in the diocese of Terracina, and was baptized on the sixteenth of the same month in Castro di S. Stefano[1]. His father, named Antonio, was governor of Marino[2] and later of Castelgandolfo[3]; his mother’s name was Alessandra Marchioni[4]. His father was from Marino and his mother from Sezze, but the family also spent a lot of time in Frascati, especially when his father left office[5] due to illness[6]. When Joseph was twelve years old, in 1618, he began to attend the Pious Schools in Rome. There, during the three years of schooling, he came to love the Institute of Pious Schools and its prefect Calasanz[7]. When he was old enough, he asked to be admitted to the Congregation and was accepted. On July 2, 1621, the feast of the Visitation of the Virgin Mary, he took the habit of the Pious Schools in the Roman novitiate of St. Onofrio and took the name Joseph of the Visitation in Religion[8]. As he was a very intelligent young man and much could be expected of him, Calasanz devoted him to more serious and intensive studies while still in the novitiate[9]. After he had happily completed his two-year novitiate, he put his mind to finish his studies in Narni, where some Piarist clerics were already eagerly devoting themselves to the study of the humanities[10]. After making his solemn profession there at the hands of Calasanz on May 21, 1624[11], he was transferred to Nursia to complete his humanistic studies. He succeeded in this with excellent marks[12], so that he was now able to write Latin verse and prose with great skill, and was appointed to the first, i.e. higher, grammar class at the age of only twenty-three[13]. At the end of October 1628, he was transferred to Naples to the House of the Duchesca - whose rector at that time and until the beginning of 1631[14] was Father Esteban Cherubini and later Father Esteban Busdraghi - to teach the first grammar class[15]. He remained in this position until the beginning of October 1632, with the approval and applause of all, both superiors and students. He had barely reached canonical age when he was ordained a priest in Naples on February 23, 1630[16], and Calasanz considered him worthy of suggesting to him on this solemn occasion some excellent and holy reflections on the priesthood[17]. During their stay in Naples, it happened that their parents were in extreme need, not to say destitution, because of certain debts. Calasanz himself provided relief, not only by supporting his mother financially, but also by entrusting one of Father Joseph’s sisters to some nuns in Frascati for her education and maintenance[18]. In the meantime, he also endeavored to find for Don Antonio, Father Fedele’s father, a post in the Roman Curia[19]. But he died soon afterwards, in 1632[20], so that the care of the mother, the three sisters and the brothers John Felix[21] and Joachim[22] fell primarily to Father Joseph Fedele, Calasanz[23] and another brother named Bonaventura, a member of the Augustinian Order[24]. In the meantime, Father Joseph, who continued to reside in Naples, devoted himself to the more intensive study of matters of conscience on command of Calasanz, in addition to his daily scholastic service, in order to increase the lesser authority and experience that his youthful age brought with a more mature knowledge[25]. In the years 1630-1631, on the occasion of the unfortunate affair of Father Cherubini, Father Fedele, together with Fathers Peter Casani, then Provincial of Naples, Charles Casani and John Baptist Adinolfi, took part in the investigation of the trial of the said priest, by order of the Founder. However, this trial was later considered null and void “for certain reasons that influenced Calasanz’ opinion”, but in such a way that the authors were acquitted by Calasanz of any guilt and punishment[26].

At the end of the academic year 1631-1632, in October 1632, the authorities transferred Father Fedele from Naples to Frascati as superior in place of Father James Bandoni, the rector of the house[27]. There he also held the higher class of grammar and the office of confessor[28]. He remained in Frascati until July 1, 1634, did a great deal of work on the construction of the new church and brought glory to the good name of the Pious Schools[29].

On July 1, 1634, he was summoned from Frascati to Rome and put in charge of the novitiate as rector and master of the novices[30]. Just over a year later, with a patent dated October 14, 1635, he was transferred to Genoa as local superior[31]. In the midst of the very difficult situation of the province, which at that time had no major superior[32], he managed the house prudently until April 15, 1637, often exercising the office of provincial[33] or general visitator[34] and also holding the office of prefect of the schools[35]. He worked tirelessly to acquire suitable premises for the novitiate[36], to increase the number of novices[37], to promote and demand religious observance[38], and to fairly distribute the costs of the religious who had to move from one house to another[39]. And finally, as far as possible, to solve the increasingly serious question of the working brothers. These brothers, after giving up their own works, they devoted themselves to humanist studies, so that the Fathers sometimes had to work in the kitchen and refectory themselves[40]. Proof that Father Joseph Fedele behaved with integrity in the performance of all his duties are the letters that Calasanz addressed to him from Rome; only in one of which warns him of the excessive severity he had shown in admonishing his subordinates[41].

In the meantime, as the Order’s first General Chapter was to be held in Rome in the fall of 1637, Calasanz intimated the Provincial Chapters to be held in each of the Italian provinces in the spring of the same year. With a patent dated April 18, 1637, he appointed Father Melchior Alacchi of All Saints to preside them and Father Mario Sozzi of St. Francis as secretary[42].

Calasanz also gave Father Melchior Alacchi the authority to appoint provincial superiors in each province, only for the celebration of provincial chapters. Thus, the appointment of Father Joseph Fedele of the Visitation as Provincial of Liguria was made by Father Alacchi, with a patent signed by Calasanz on April 15, 1637[43]. Thus, the provincial chapter was held in Genoa from May 2 to 4, 1637, which, under the direction of the strict and fanatical character of Father Melchior, introduced some excessively strict norms regarding religious observance, extreme poverty and silence, which had to be strictly observed during most of the day. The Chapter also elected Fr. Hilarion Preterari of the Conception and Fr. Santiago Tocco of the Blessed Sacrament[44] as delegates for the next General Chapter. The Chapter also received the full approval of Calasanz in other respects[45].

CHAPTER II

PROVINCIAL IN GENOA (1637) GENERAL CHAPTER OF THE YEAR 1637 PROVINCIAL IN NAPLES (1638-1641) AND IN ROME (1642-1646)

After he had received the office of Provincial in Genoa in 1637, a new era began in the life of Father Fedele. From then until his death, with the exception of the decade of the Innocentian reduction, he never ceased to exercise the office of major superior or general assistant and even supreme moderator, so that in a short time he became one of those Piarists to whom the future and destiny of the Calasanzian Order was entrusted in very difficult times.

Father Fedele’s provincialate in Liguria lasted only until the end of the General Chapter held in Rome in October and November 1637. Therefore, he was able to accomplish only a few things as provincial there. At the General Chapter, which was so agitated by the question of the cleric brothers[46], he was appointed by Calasanz as president of the congregation that was to deal with the Constitutions, and he was also the second in the congregation to deal with the studies[47].

A few days after the end of the General Chapter (November 24, 1637), Calasanz sent Father Fedele to Naples with a patent dated early December 1637[48], where he was to serve as Provincial for almost four years, i.e. until the next General Chapter in 1641[49].

In Naples, while still a young religious - he was thirty-two years old at the time -, he endeavored to determine the relations between the provincial and the rector within the House of Duchesca through a clear regulation, to propagate strict religious observance throughout the province[50] and finally to streamline the administration of the provincial curia through the introduction of a secretary[51]. After the first - incidentally happy - attempts in his new office[52] he encountered many and great difficulties in his administration. Part of this was due to his somewhat complicated character and manner, another to the particular circumstances and situation prevailing at the time both within the Order and in the Province itself. As for his manner, as the letters that Calasanz addressed to him at the time show, Fr. Fedele was not free from a kind of vanity that led him not only to accept but even to covet the admiration of his religious, including the rectors[53]. Father Joseph himself, who wanted to uphold his criteria at all costs, sometimes treated his subordinates with excessive harshness and violence[54] and with calculated anger[55]. This made everyone very nervous, especially the local superiors of the two Neapolitan houses, above all Father Vincent Berro. They were all unable to calmly assess the fact that the provincial wanted to personally carry out and settle even the most insignificant details of the things that depended on him[56]. For this reason, Father John Baptist Adinolfi of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, local superior of the house of Porta Reale, resigned soon afterward[57], and Father Vicente Berro exchanged his rectorship of the house of Duchesca for that of Palermo in December 1638[58]. Apart from this, Father Fedele did not show too much interest in scholastic work, as Calasanz had wished. For neither did he put into practice the daily and careful vigilance due to the superiors in the visitation and management of the schools[59], nor did he ever spontaneously assume the burden and office of substituting for absent teachers[60], nor, finally, did he have the proper concern for the training and preparation of competent teachers[61]. On the other hand, Father Joseph was highly devoted to helping his brothers, sisters and relatives[62]. As early as 1636, he saw to it that his brother John Felix was taught at Collegio Nazareno[63]. As for his brother Joachim, who also studied at Collegio Nazareno, after being dismissed by Calasanz for his violent character[64], he kept him by his side in the Duchesca house[65], which was not exactly conducive to the discipline of the religious, who grumbled about it.

Father Fedele did not always choose to obey Calasanz, his superior, even treating him as an equal[66] or sometimes interpreting his instructions and orders as he saw fit, allowing himself to be guided too much by his own authority[67].

This difficult character meant that he even had some problems with the Cardinal Archbishop of Naples[68]. His provincialate was also complicated by the increasingly tangled affairs of the cleric brothers who, by not accepting the decrees of the General Chapter of 1637 or the letters of Urban VIII of October 22, 1639 and February 27, 1641, seriously endangered the Order with their demands and arrogance[69]. As things stood, at the end of 1638, precisely on October 15th[70], Calasanz sent Father John Baptist Constantini[71] to Naples as General Commissioner, who, after carefully examining the situation of the houses of Naples, was determined to solve the question of poverty in the best possible way[72]. This visitation, also taking into account the time spent in Campi and Sicily[73], did not end until May 1639; however, it did not have the desired effects, as it was not viewed favorably by Father Fedele[74]. The serious matter with the cleric brothers disturbed the peace in the province so much that it was impossible to settle any of the other matters that were of great importance at the time[75].

As the situation had still deteriorated after the aforementioned visitation, two years later, at the end of 1640 to be precise, he sent another visitator, Father Stephen Cherubini, to the province of Naples[76]. Before this second visitation, however, the second provincial chapter of the Neapolitan province was held[77] precisely from November 16th to December 4th, 1640, which wisely decided several things for the good administration of the same. It determined that each house of the province should contribute a certain amount of money to the maintenance of the novices, appointed the lector for cases of conscience, philosophy, rhetoric and humanities, as well as the examiners of those who were to receive the habit, the confessors and the preachers. The same chapter also elected two delegates to be sent to the General Chapter of 1641, namely Fathers Michael Bottiglieri of the Blessed Rosary and Francis Trabucco of St. Catherine[78]. The second, however, was not elected until December 2, 1640, after Calasanz declared invalid the election of Father John Luke Rosa of the B.V.M., who had voted for himself twice[79]. Although the election of the delegates had its problems, Calasanz finally approved the chapter with joy[80].

The visitation by Fr. Stephen Cherubini began immediately after the conclusion of the chapter and was completed in December and January. This visitation, with its decrees addressed both to the province as a whole and to the individual houses, was aimed at eradicating various abuses, which at that time were particularly directed against extreme poverty and religious discipline and observance[81]. As this visitation showed that Father Fedele was not the most suitable person to lead the Neapolitan province, Calasanz wanted to call him to Rome before the General Chapter, after having given him the hope of becoming General Assistant and also offering him the opportunity to assist a sister who was about to give birth[82]. However, Father Fedele remained in Naples until the General Chapter[83], at the beginning of which he finally arrived in Rome on April 15, 1641. As provincial, he was never to return to Naples.

The General Chapter, which took place in Rome from April 15 to 30, 1641, was all in all nothing more than a certain revision and correction of the Constitutions and decrees of the previous General Chapter, where necessary. It also dealt again with the still unresolved question of the cleric brothers, and in it the scientific direction introduced by Calasanz succeeded in prevailing against the envy of Fr. Sozzi[84]. Father Fedele, as one of the oldest provincials, also played a role in this chapter. In fact, he was appointed by the General Chapter as one of the three procurators who had to present the proposals of the others[85] to the capitulars, and he was entrusted, together with some others, with the task of preparing the directory for the celebration of the Chapters[86]. However, he was not elected assistant general, but Father Bonaventura Catalucci of St. Mary Magdalene, because Calasanz wanted it that way[87].

Eight months after the end of the General Chapter, Father Fedele was appointed Roman provincial[88] with a patent dated January 1, 1642. In this office, which he almost always exercised in the house of Frascati[89], he remained until the reduction of Innocent X, i.e. until the month of March 1646. After Calasanz was suspended from the office of Superior General at the beginning of 1643 and his assistants were dismissed, Father Fedele maintained his office through the patronage of Father Muzio Vitteleschi, General of the Society of Jesus, and Father Pietrasanta, Visitor General of the Pious Schools[90]. In these very difficult times, Father Fedele endeavored to show his filial piety towards Calasanz and to render due obedience to the new superiors appointed by the Holy See[91]. Thus, he was ready to help Calasanz in whatever was necessary when he was brought before the tribunal of the Holy Office[92] in August 1642; later he supported him as best he could with material means and prayers[93], and he even undertook to bring his good offices bravely before Father Pietrasanta[94]. But as far as his care for the schools and the students was concerned, he was not as diligent and faithful as Calasanz would have liked[95].

CHAPTER III

POSITIONS OR OFFICES OF FR. FEDELE DURING THE INNOCENTIAN REDUCTION. DILIGENT COOPERATION TO OBTAIN AT LEAST PARTIAL REINTEGRATION OF THE INSTITUTE (1646-1656)

With the Innocentian reduction of the Calasanzian Order, which among other things abolished all the major superiors of the new congregation, Fr. Fedele’s provincialate logically ended ipso facto. So, Father Fedele left Frascati and moved to Rome to the house of St. Pantaleo, where he initially taught the third class of grammar and also performed the pastoral task of confessor[96]. He then held the office of prefect of the schools[97] and in this capacity drew up an orderly catalog of pupils and also a detailed and precise vacation calendar for the students[98].

This quiet activity, dedicated to the service of the school, had to be interrupted in 1655 when the Piarists, after the elevation of Cardinal Fabio Chigi to the papal throne in April, decided to set to work again and with a more effective style to achieve the difficult restoration of the Order. On April 15, 1665, Father Camillo Scassellati, then rector of Collegio Nazareno, entrusted this mission to Father Fedele and Father Giuseppe Pennazzi to carry it out in his name[99]. Thus, because of the trust placed in him by his companions and because of his ancient and filial affection for the Institute, Father Joseph spared no effort to achieve what everyone desired, in fraternal collaboration with other venerable Fathers of the Order. Accompanied by Father Onofrio Conti of the Blessed Sacrament or Father Vincent Berro of the Conception, he often met with the prelates of the Roman Curia, Cardinal Marzio Ginetti, Cardinal Francesco Albizzi and Rev. Jerome Farnese, to discuss the matter with them. In these discussions, he always proceeded with great modesty and prudence, keeping the common good of the Order in mind and always weighing with maturity all the factors in such a difficult and delicate matter as the reintegration of the Pious Schools. In this way, despite the contrary attitude of some companions[100], he achieved with diligence and generosity, and with the help of the aforementioned religious, the maximum and the best that was possible under the given circumstances, namely the partial reintegration of the Order, which was granted to the Piarists on January 24, 1656 with the letter Iam dudum felicis recordationis Paulus Papa V[101]. As the new major superiors of the Institute were also to be named after this letter, Father Fedele, one of the oldest religious, was one of the three candidates proposed by some for the office of superior general, together with Father Francesco Castelli and Father Camillo Scassellati[102]. On March 12, 1656, however, it was not he, but Father John García del Castillo who was appointed by the Pope as Superior Moderator of the Order; but he was given the position and function of second Assistant General and his appointment was also confirmed by a special Brief published on April 4, 1656. Father Fedele, as Secretary of the General Congregation, played an important role in obtaining this Brief and, in particular, in the granting a deliberative vote to the Assistants. In the Brief, the four Assistants to the General were granted the right to deliberative vote “in matters concerning the regiment and the direction of the Congregation”,” a right they were to exercise jointly with Father General, while at the same time Father Garcia’s term of office was definitively limited to three years[103].

CHAPTER IV

FATHER FEDELE’S ACTIVITY DURING FATHER GARCÍA’S GENERALATE. HE HOLDS THE OFFICE OF GENERAL VICAR (1656-1659)

During Father García’s government, Father Fedele gradually began to take the initiative. He was immediately appointed Secretary of the General Congregation, and from April 11, 1656, he also acted as Procurator General on behalf of the same Congregation[104]. Later, when the first assistant, Father Francesco Castelli of the Purification, moved to the novitiate house in the Borgo (in the “alley of the hospital”), Father Fedele became the de facto first Assistant. Inspired by these offices and dignities and also trusting in the protection of Cardinal Marzio Ginetti, he pushed Father García aside and tried to govern himself. For this reason, having lured the Assistants, he managed more than once in the sessions of the General Congregation to get Father General to stay alone with his proposal or his candidacy, to really put himself in the place of Father García and to sign the decrees in his own name and in that of the other assistants, even against the will of Father General[105]. This was completely against the law, but the Cardinal Protector himself, misinformed by a memorandum Fr. Fedele sent him, preferred to favor the Assistants and not Father General[106], whom he ordered to submit to the decisions of the majority. This course of action by Father Fedele was in no way fair or balanced. For he should not have led the Assistants’ faction against the General, nor should he have made proposals against their will, nor, once they were accepted, should he have published them in his own name and in that of the Assistants without the General’s consent. But his enormous ambition blinded him and his ignorance of the law provoked this shameless behavior. His ambition increased even more after the death of Father Francesco Castelli, which occurred on May 17, 1657, when he became the first Assistant by right, so that Father García’s government became more and more complicated. Only death, which occurred on February 16, 1659, relieved Father García of the many burdens that his generalate brought him, especially through Father Fedele. After the General’s death, being the first General Assistant, in accordance with the Constitutions and also through the appointment of the Cardinal Vicar, Father Fedele automatically became Vicar General of the Congregation[107], which he headed alone, albeit not for long. For the General Chapter, which was to be held in the coming month of May, had already been prepared by Father John García in January 1659, so that Father Fedele had nothing more to do than the immediate preparation of the Chapter, which he certainly carried out satisfactorily.

It cannot be denied that during the three-years period from 1656 to 1659, Father Fedele, as Secretary of the General Congregation and as General Procurator, rendered many useful services to the Institute, both in clarifying the questions and doubts of the Piarists before the ecclesiastical congregations, especially in the matter of “aggregates”[108] and submission to the Ordinaries[109], and in preparing the catalog of religious who died of the plague[110] and, later, the general catalog of the Congregation[111]. He also proposed suitable means and appropriate norms for dealing with the plague[112] and finally presented evidence of the careful and conscientious administration of the Curia and the General Congregation.

However, at the General Chapter, which took place from May 6th to 25th, 1659, Father Fedele was ignored and Father Camillo Scassellati was elected Superior General on the 11th of the same month. Father Fedele was only confirmed as second General Assistant on the afternoon of the same day[113].

Moreover, in this Chapter, about whose new rules and proposals have been written in detail elsewhere[114], Fr. Fedele was appointed head of the commission of seven Fathers charged with revising the Constitutions[115].

CHAPTER V

FATHER FEDELE’S OBSTACLES TO THE GOVERNMENT OF FR. SCASSELLATI. THE APOSTOLIC BRIEF “CUM SICUT ACCEPIMUS” (APRIL 28, 1660). THE APOSTOLIC VISITATION (OCTOBER 10, 1661). FATHER FEDELE’S UNSUCCESSFUL ATTEMPTS TO OBTAIN THE GENERALATE (1659-1665)

At the beginning of Father Scassellati’s generalate, after the old friendship had broken down, Father Fedele became a fierce opponent of the new general. Firstly, because it was not he, but Father Scassellati, who was younger in age and religious profession, who had been elected; secondly, because Father Scassellati, convinced that the deliberative vote of the General Assistants on the leadership of the Congregation had been granted only for a three-year term, did not want to recognize the right of the Assistants to vote, either legally or de facto; and thirdly, because Father Scassellati, in accordance with the provisions of the old Constitutions, made it clear to everyone everywhere that his Generalate was for life. For this reason, Father Fedele, driven by a not very healthy ambition, was looking for an opportunity to ambush the new General, to force him out of office in some way, or at least to curtail his powers, as they had already done during the Generalate of Father García. And the truth is that such opportunities were not long in coming. Father Scassellati, who was determined to adapt the Institute to the new style of the Congregation established by Alexander VII and to introduce a more relaxed form of religious life, soon began to annoy the most loyal and eldest sons of Calasanz, who had inherited from him not only the Institute of the Pious Schools but also its ascetic spirit. Father Fedele joined them, i.e. primarily to Fathers Angel Morelli and Peter Mussesti. In a memorandum addressed to Alexander VII, he obtained a new Brief, on April 28, 1660, in which the Generalate was reduced to a six-year term, the right of the Assistants to a deliberative vote was confirmed, the custom of accompanying the children to their homes was ordered to continue, and so on[116].

But even with this Brief, he could not force Father Scassellati to recognize the right of the Assistants to a deliberative vote in practice, nor to reintroduce the original observance of the Rule in Piarist religious life. For this reason, both Father Fedele and his friends, on the occasion of the Apostolic Visitation that took place in October 1661 in the house of St. Pantaleo, after having written new memoranda, urged the Sacred Congregation of the Apostolic Visitation to settle once and for all the complicated governmental affairs of Father Scassellati according to the last Brief of Alexander VII[117]. The Congregation made a real effort to achieve this during the visitation of October 10, 1661 and through the decrees promulgated on May 4, 1662, but it did not achieve the goal desired by Father Fedele[118].

The year 1665, the last year of Father Scassellati’s term of office, had thus arrived, working hard to obtain the Generalate for life, or at least its extension for another six-year term. Meanwhile, Father Fedele, with the help of his penitent Donna Lucrezia Cayetana Caffarelli, and Don Elpidio Benedetti, Ambassador of the King of France to the Roman Curia, petitioned for his own election through Cardinal Marzio Ginetti, Protector of the Order. But he did not have the slightest success, thanks to the quick and wise intervention of Father Giovanni Carlo Caputi, who did not consider Father Fedele in any way suitable for such a high office because of his fragile health, negligent observance of community life and omission of common prayers, as well as excessive attachment to his parents, siblings and relatives. For this reason, he incited the working brothers against him, especially the brothers Lucas Brunoni of St. Joseph and Salvatore Signorini of SS. John and Paul. They turned to the Cardinal Protector and easily convinced him to abandon his intention to sponsor Fr. Fedele at the next General Chapter[119]. Consequently, Father Fedele’s candidacy at the Chapter was rejected and the choice for General fell on Father Cosimo Chiara of Jesus and Mary, the candidate of the conservative faction. Father Fedele was not even elected assistant[120].

CHAPTER VI

SECOND ROMAN PROVINCIALATE OF FR. FEDELE. HIS APPOINTMENT AS SUPERIOR GENERAL

After the death of Fr. Peter Mussesti, he became the first Assistant. Nevertheless, Father Fedele hardly took part in the General Chapter, except that on May 4, during the morning session, he was appointed by Father Camillo Scassellati as chairman of the commission of ten religious to study the spiritual and material situation of the houses[121]. After the General Chapter, at the first appointments of the provincials on May 21st, he remained without office; and only after the resignation of Father Nicholas Menegatti of St. Francis Xavier, he was elected Roman provincial[122] on the 22nd of the same month, with the unanimous vote of the general congregation, an office in which he was reconfirmed on March 16, 1668[123].

It is difficult to say what Father Fedele did during the six years of his provincialate, since the documents that could inform us about his activities are completely missing[124].

When Father Cosimo Chiara’s generalate was coming to an end, Father Fedele once again set about preparing his elevation to the dignity of supreme moderator of the Order, as he had done in 1665. To this end, he first proposed removing Father Onofrio Conti of the Blessed Sacrament from Rome, giving flimsy reasons, and then the provincials of Germania and Poland as suspected accomplices of Father Onofrio[125]. Almost simultaneously, he presented Clement X a memorandum in which he declared Father Cosimo Chiara unfit to govern and asked that the General Chapter be convened in due course, as provided for in Alexander VII’s Brief, confirmed by Clement IX[126]. In this respect, the death of Cardinal Marzio Ginetti, Protector of the Order and President of the General Chapter, on March 1st was also very opportune. As soon as he learned that Clement X had appointed Cardinal Camillo de Massimi as the new president of the Chapter in a Brief dated April 17, 1671[127], he immediately confided in him with the help of some penitent ladies, first and foremost the Duchess of Bracciano, wife of Don Caspar Altieri, the Pope’s nephew, and what is more, he managed to reach him personally to discuss his cause and his merits[128].

Thus, the General Chapter was held from May 10th to 23rd, 1671. Father Fedele’s insidious attempts failed, as Father Onofrio Conti managed to attend the Chapter, and the provincials of Germania and Poland were also admitted thanks to the skillful intervention of Father Giovanni Carlo Caputi at the Holy See[129]. But when it looked as if the entire Chapter was going to elect Father Onofrio Conti, Cardinal Camillo de Massimi left the see of the Chapter on the pretext that there were other, more urgent matters to resolve. When he returned on the morning of the following day, May 14th, he had in the meantime asked Clemente X to appoint Father Fedele as Superior General. Previously, Father Onofrio Conti, accompanied by the two delegates of Sardinia, had received nothing from him[130]. So, he ordered the secretary of the Chapter to read out the apostolic Brief appointing the new general and Fathers Camillo Scassellati, Thomas Simone, Alexis Armini and Joseph Pennazzi as General Assistants[131]. Faced with this supreme papal decision, neither the Capitular Fathers nor Fr. Onofrio Conti dared to go a step further[132]. In accordance with the papal Brief, Father Fedele finally received the much longed-for and so often coveted generalate on May 14, 1671, when he was sixty-five years old.

CHAPTER VII

GENERALATE OF FR. FEDELE (1671-1677)

After receiving the coveted post of General, Father Fedele’s perhaps most fruitful period began. From now on he no longer had to fight the General to take charge of the situation and, for the same reason, it was easier for him to devote all his energy to solving the Order’s problems. First of all, it must be recognized that Father Fedele, despite his advanced age, successfully resolved many problems of the Order, both in matters concerning the central administration of the government, in the question of the studies to be pursued by the Piarists, and religious observance in the Order, through the personal General Visitation or through General Visitators[133]. Father Joseph also succeeded in promoting the development of the Order and, with the active collaboration of Father Carlo Giovanni Pirroni, he also successfully overcame the last difficulties that arose at the time regarding the validity of the professions done in Italy and the neighboring islands. He was certainly not a person of extraordinary intellect, nor a great scholar, nor endowed with a great capacity for work. But it cannot be denied that as a General he rendered services to the Order which deserve more applause from posterity than some Piarist historians have accorded him[134]. But we do not want to get ahead of the facts with words, so it seems more appropriate to present the most important events of this Generalate in an orderly fashion.

SPEEDING UP THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

One of the first measures taken by the new government under the leadership of Fr. Fedele was to double the number of meetings of the General Congregation, which were to be held on Tuesday and Friday of each week[135]. This provision led to a streamlining of the administration and made the management of the Order more efficient and faster everywhere. In order to make the administration more rigorous, Father Fedele finally decided to transfer copies of all the letters he sent to a register intended for this purpose. In this way, he became the first General of the Order whose letters, or at least drafts of them, were transcribed and have been preserved to this day[136].

SEPARATION OF FRS. CAPUTI, CHIARA AND CONTI

In order to be able to govern more comfortably and without fear of interference from his former opponents, Father Fedele ordered Father Chiara to return to Palermo, from where he did not allow him to return to Rome[137]. He sent Father Onofrio Conti, whom he had initially left without any office[138], to Sardinia after reappointing him provincial[139] on May 27, 1671. On June 1, 1671, after a fruitful and active stay of twenty-five years in Rome, he sent John Charles Caputi, the most outstanding and faithful collaborator of Father Cosimo Chiara and the main person responsible for the reintegration of the Piarist Order, back to Naples to devote himself with free hands to the leadership of the Order, together with the assistants, most of whom he had chosen himself[140].

THE QUESTION OF THE COMPETENCE OF THE ROMAN PROVINCIAL AND THE GENERAL CONGREGATION

To ensure that everything would proceed correctly and in accordance with the law, Father Fedele wanted, as soon as he took up his mandate, to clarify the old question of the jurisdiction of the Roman provincial in the houses of Rome, which had been withdrawn from him by the decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Apostolic Visitation of May 4, 1662[141]. As a result, he humbly asked the cardinals of the Sacred Congregation of the Visitation to restore the said jurisdiction to the Roman provincial, but to reserve to the General the right to carry out the canonical visitation in the houses of Rome[142]. However, Cardinal Peter Ottoboni, to whom the memorandum had been submitted for examination, ordered that nothing should be changed in this respect, so that the legal status of the houses in Rome should remain as before. Fr. Fedele was not immediately satisfied with this decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Apostolic Visitation. For the same reason, shortly afterwards he submitted another memorandum to the prelates, in which he asked them to explain better and more precisely certain privileges of the General and his Assistants, as well as the jurisdiction of the Roman Provincial. However, the Sacred Congregation again replied with “Nothing should be done”[143].

LIFE AND INTERNAL CONDITION OF THE GENERAL CURIA

As Father Fedele had largely determined the conditions and lifestyle of the curia himself, the curia developed quite well throughout his six-year term of office. However, less than a year into his tenure as assistant General, Father Thomas Simone of St. Augustine resigned on March 8, 1672[144], due to incapacity, as he himself asserted, but probably also because he was not too happy with the office of visitator of the Neapolitan province that had been entrusted to him and felt too drawn to Campi, where he had begun building a church and where he was also looking for a restful place to write his ascetical books. However, his resignation was only accepted by the General Congregation on August 24, 1672 after a careful examination of the matter. Father Simon Bondi, rector of the house of San Pantaleo, took his place[145].

Three years later, precisely in August 1675, Father Fedele was deeply saddened by the death of Father Joseph Pennazzi of St. Eustace, his fourth assistant, who had been Procurator General of the Order in the years 1660-1665 and a close collaborator of Father Scassellati both in the direction of Collegio Nazareno and in the administration of the Institute, and Assistant General from 1665 until his death. He was succeeded by Father Benedict Quarantotto, the Roman provincial[146].

In addition to these two assistants General, the General Procurator was also replaced during this administration. Father Joseph Pennazzi, Assistant and General procurator[147], resigned in mid-1673 due to poor health, and on September 21, 1673, Father Charles John Pirroni, provincial of Naples, was appointed in his place, who was also put in charge of teaching the Piarist students at the house of San Pantaleo[148]. The benefits that this change brought to the Order can be seen in the successful resolution of some of the most difficult problems in the following years of Fr. Fedele’s govern and in the future developments of the Order.

GENERAL VISITATION

As for the most important facts and achievements of Father Fedele during this period, we must certainly remember first of all the General Visitation, which he carried out partly in person in the provinces of Italy and partly through the visitators he appointed for this purpose. In 1673, Father Fedele himself, accompanied by Father Alexis Armini, Assistant and General secretary, visited the house of St. Pantaleo, the Roman and Tuscan provinces[149], especially in the months of April-May and October-November, and the province of Naples, though not the entire province, in April and May 1674[150], carefully observing and seeing to it that the Constitutions were observed everywhere. During his visits to the individual houses, he not only examined the church and the religious house, but also the schools, asked the students various questions about the different subjects and gave spiritual exhortations to everyone, both students and teachers. He was particularly conscientious in questioning the religious, especially the cleric students and novices. Each had to answer almost fifty points from the Constitutions, which really covered all aspects of Piarist life. The minutes of each visitation, written with the greatest care by Father Fedele himself, are still in the General Archives of the Order and provide researchers with a wealth of data on the literary, moral and disciplinary conditions that prevailed in the provinces concerned at the time[151].

In addition to these visitations to the three Italian provinces mentioned above, which he carried out personally, Father Fedele arranged for Fathers Thomas Simone and Charles Pirroni to visit the province of Sicily as early as 1671[152]. In 1672, he ordered that Father Simone should also visit the Province of Naples[153]; however, for reasons known to him, he did not carry out the visitation, so that he even resigned from his office as Assistant General the following March[154]. In February 1673, Father Fedele visited Messina again through Father Joachim Lenzi of the Concepción[155], and because of certain difficulties that arose there, he appointed other visitators to be sent there in April 1673[156]. Finally, in 1675, he arranged for Father Gabriel Bianchi of the Annunciation to visit the province of Genoa, although the office of visitator was given to him on a more honorary basis and at the request of the Duke of Genoa, Antonio de Passano, whose confessor Father Gabriel was[157], than with the hope of success[158]. He did not visit, either personally or through other persons, the province of Sardinia, which was under the discipline and regime of Father Onofrio Conti, where observance shone at least until the beginning of 1684[159]. Nor did he visit the ultramontane provinces of Germania and Poland due to the distance.

In all these visits, as has already been said and shown, he endeavored to promote everywhere the strict observance of the Constitutions, the Rules and the Common Rites, attaching particular importance to the education and formation of the novices and clerics and to the good running of the Piarist schools, whose economic situation, inner life and pedagogical achievements he always followed with meticulous attention and fatherly care[160]. A good proof of his deep concern for religious discipline, which he was not always able to maintain personally due to his often-weak health[161] - he was suffering from gout - is the fact that at the beginning of 1673 he did not abolish the use of tobacco, which had been introduced in all provinces, but severely restricted it by allowing the Piarist religious to use it only on rare occasions and only in their own rooms[162]. And in 1676 he appropriately suppressed certain abuses that were casually occurring at that time in the common recreations in the house of San Pantaleo, especially with regard to some card games played with money[163].

CONCERN FOR THE STUDIES AND THE PROPER FORMATION OF NOVICES AND PIARIST CLERICS

Like Father Scassellati and Father Chiara, his predecessors, Father Fedele carried deep in his soul the upright and careful formation of the Piarist novices and clerics, both in piety and in letters. He therefore endeavored to punctually follow the admonition of the General Chapter held in 1671, which urged the faithful execution of the decrees on this subject already passed in the General Chapters of 1659 and 1665. He strictly ordered the continuity of studies[164], supported with paternal zeal the houses of study already established and followed with great attention, both in the house of San Pantaleo[165] and in the Roman novitiate[166], as well as in the house of Poli and in the other houses of study[167], the problems of each one, both clerics and novices, and their progress in studies and piety. In 1672, for example, he prescribed that the Roman novice clerics should devote certain fixed hours of the day to learning calligraphy, arithmetic and the Latin language. He encouraged the novice brothers to study at least the basics of the faith and how to serve the mass, etc.[168] In September 1673, he sent Father Charles John Pirroni of Jesus, Provincial of Naples, to Rome to provide a better education for the cleric students of the House of San Pantaleo, appointing him both General Procurator and Lector of the students[169].

In order to increase the seriousness of the examinations to be taken by the clerics, Fr. Fedele sometimes ordered them to come to Rome from the houses closest to the Eternal City to undergo the prescribed examinations[170]. Later, in the penultimate year of his Generalate, the effective intervention of the Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars also contributed not a little to the better and more precise implementation of these modest initiatives. This happened after the final resolution, on February 27, 1676, of the very complicated question that arose at that time in the Italian provinces of the Order about the validity of the solemn vows that the Piarists had taken[171] from October 23, 1669 onwards. Due to the disregard of the instructions contained in the Bull Inter cetera of Innocent X from 1649, they were not taken in the houses provided for this purpose in Italy. With a decree dated March 18, 1676[172], the Holy See: 1) Determined the houses for the novitiates and for the so-called professorate or “studentati”; 2) Determined the number of those who could be admitted to the Order depending on the province; 3) Determined the modalities and the subject of the examination for the admission of novices and appointed the examiners; 4) Permitted studies in the second year of the novitiate; 5) Ordered the establishment of professorates in which the professed could prepare for their future pedagogical ministry and priestly apostolate for at least three years, separated from the other religious of the house, under the direct supervision and regime of the Master of the Spirit; 6) Placed all houses of study under the direct jurisdiction of the Superior General[173].

This decree, which Father Fedele immediately put into practice as far as possible with all diligence[174], although legally it referred only to the provinces of Italy and the neighboring islands, had to gradually resolve the whole question of studies in the Piarist Order, due to the centralized style of the Order, not necessarily in terms of the number of those who could be admitted, which was otherwise increased at will according to the needs of the Province, but in terms of the examinations of the candidates and in terms of the discipline and order of the novices and juniors[175].

In this way, the route was perfectly paved for the further progress that was to be made during Fr. Pirroni’s Generalate.

LITERARY ACTIVITY

Father Fedele, willing to faithfully fulfill the office of General, not only promoted with talent, as far as he could, the studies of the Piarists and thus, with the support of the Holy See, laid the foundation for the future development that could already be observed in the time of his successor, but he also endeavored to promote within the Order, with paternal attention, the care of the letters that he had received from his predecessors as a precious legacy. He did not emerge personally as a biographer of the Holy Founder, nor as a historian of the Order[176] appointed by the Chapter General in 1665[177], nor as a poet[178], but from the beginning of his generalate he maintained excellent personal relations with the Fathers Carlo Mazzei, Segismundo Coccapani, Tomas Simone, Gabriel Bianchi, Jerome Scassellati and other Piarists, who at the time were prominent in the literary republic. Particularly noteworthy is Father Fedele’s close relationship with Cosimo III, the Grand Duke of Tuscany, to whom he dedicated a work entitled Antichità Romane in March 1674, which he had republished[179], and with whom he also exchanged letters on other occasions. An even closer friendship existed between Father Fedele and Don Antonio Magliabechi, a very learned Tuscan scholar and librarian to the Grand Duke, to whom Fr. Fedele confidently recommended Father Segismundo Coccapani - who was just beginning to devote himself to literature, but had already published[180],in 1673, a booklet entitled Bibliotheca Medicea descripta et celebrata ad Cosimum III, Magnae Etruriae Ducem[181] - and the cleric Rodolfo Brasavola, a novice of barely twenty years[182]. Thus, by virtue and in accordance with this friendship, Don Antonio Magliabechi, himself for his part, dared to recommend again and again the cause of Father Charles Mazzei of St. Anthony of Padua to his venerated Father General, asking him to awaken in Father Charles in some way a greater interest in the preparation of new editions of his coveted works, especially the Anagrams and Enigmas so dear to Cardinal Fabio Chigi himself, and to free him from all offices that might hinder his devotion to poetry[183]. Don Antonio Magliabechi’s intervention was not without success, for it was precisely during Father Joseph Fedele’s generalate that the said religious published several works, including the Enigmas and the Anagrams[184].

During the same six-year term of Father Fedele’s generalate, alongside a panegyric of St. Andrew Corsino[185] written by Father Segismundo Coccapani, the In linguam Latinam Grammaticae Institutiones by Father Ambrosio Beretta saw the light of day in Florence, which was republished several times in the following lustrums[186] and which the provincial chapter celebrated in 1674 wanted to exchange for the grammar by Father Manuel Alvarez, which Father Fedele did not allow without consulting the General Chapter[187]. After Florence, Genoa was the second literary center of the Piarists, where Father Gabriel Bianchi of the Annunciation[188] published his ascetic-liturgical opuscules[189] and where several works by Father Scassellati[190] were also reprinted. In Rome, in addition to the works of Father Carlo Mazzei, which were printed in the Eternal City[191], the booklet Il Cristiano all’acquisto del giubileo dell’Anno Santo, published in 1675 by Father Francesco Foci[192], later General of the Order, should be mentioned[193].

Finally, the first two volumes of the ascetical work by Father Thomas Simone, the assistant General and later provincial of Naples, entitled Strada franca al Cielo per il Peccatore, were published in Naples during these years[194].

There are hardly any Piarist writers in Poland who printed their works during this Generalate, with the exception of Father Benedikt Zawadski with his Floridus agricola and Epigraphe Varsaviensis, published in 1677[195].

PROCESS OF BEATIFICATION OF THE VENERABLE FOUNDER

In addition to the noble commitment and zeal to promote literary activity in the Piarist Order, Father Fedele, like his predecessors, was very concerned to promote the process of beatification of the Holy Founder, which, as we have seen, had been happily initiated especially during the Generalate of Father Cosimo Chiara. According to this, the Process “Lest the evidence perish” was successfully carried out in Fr. Fedele’s Generalate. One of the witnesses was Father Fedele himself, who was repeatedly questioned by the examiners in the years 1671-1674 on 75 points relating to the life, customs and virtues of Calasanz[196]. The same was done by his brother, Most Rev. John Felix Fedele. The testimonies of both clearly show the feelings of affection and filial piety towards Calasanz, whom one, like the other, always revered as the father, master and doctor of their lives.

As early as 1674, Father Fedele gladly used the considerable amount of money the was in possession of Father John Stephen Spinola, who spent the last years of his life outside the Order with the nuns of Millesimo and was their confessor, to pay for the enormous costs of this process[197]. At the end of 1675, the General Congregation decreed that each province should contribute fifteen escudos each year towards the cost of the process[198]. To speed up the process, Father Fedele, together with the Assistants, finally decided that the former procurators or postulators of the cause should be joined by Fathers Carlo Giovanni Pirroni and Antonio Amadori of St. Francis[199]. Weighing up all these data, without fear of error or exaggeration, we venture to say that the success of the Process “Lest the evidence perish” is due above all to the generous commitment of Father Fedele, for with his personal testimony as a witness, full of filial devotion to Calasanz, and with his care and paternal solicitude as supreme moderator of the Order, he omitted nothing that could in any way be conducive to the furtherance of so important a cause.

EXPANSION OR DEVELOPMENT OF THE ORDER

Although almost every meeting of the General Congregation, as can be seen from the minutes, dealt, among other things, with some foundation offered to the Order, and the reasons for some foundations were repeatedly considered and examined by the Congregation, and even Father General himself addressed the ecclesiastical congregations and the Cardinal Protector Gaspar Carpegna more than once regarding these foundations, it is certain that very few Piarist foundations were made during this period. In 1673 the house of Tempio[200] was finally established in Sardinia and in the same year the foundation of Breznóbánya, in Hungary[201], was begun; in 1674 the house of Cittâ della Pieve was founded in Umbria[202]. To these were added two new houses in Poland in 1675: that of Piotrków[203] and that of Góra Kalwaria[204]. To the canonically established houses can be added in a certain way the residence of Paverano, near Genoa, founded in 1675 for the formation of novices[205], and the residence of Béla, which was given to the Piarists in 1674 together with the parish by Prince Stanislaus Lubomirski in favour of the house of Podoliniec[206]. Of the previously abandoned foundations, the house of Nocera dei Pagani, the future seat of the novitiate and juniorate[207], was re-accepted in 1671. Thus, while in 1657 the Order had forty houses in six provinces and three hundred and twenty religious[208], twenty years later, at the end of Fr. Fedele’s Generalate, the Calasanzian Institute had fifty-six houses in eight provinces and seven hundred and twenty-six religious. The number of religious had therefore more than doubled in these four lustrums[209].

CONVERSION OF HERETICS

The fruitful missionary apostolate that Father Francis Hanacius of St. Wenceslaus had already begun so fruitfully in the last years of Father Cosimo Chiara’s generalate in Szepesbéla (northern Hungary)[210] continued during these six years and even grew over time, so that Father Francis, assisted by some companions from the province of Poland and with the help of the supreme royal authority and the protection of Prince Stanislaus Lubomirski, was able to take over the mission. In addition to converting many Lutherans in Szepesbéla to the orthodox faith, Father Francis, also ensured the return of several churches that had been snatched from the Catholics by Lutheran pastors, in close cooperation with the Rev. Jorge Bársony, first Prelate of Szepesbéla and then Bishop of Varadiena, with whom he proved to be a faithful administrator, settling and resolving many complicated matters both before Prince Lubomirski and at the Polish court. The apostolic and missionary activity of Fr. Francis Hanacius thus consisted above all in convincing the princes on the one hand, and often informing the Roman Curia, i.e. the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda Fide, in good time, and on the other hand in faithfully carrying out the decrees issued by the said authorities, more than once at the risk of his life[211]. Although during these six years Father Francis wrote several letters to the Pope and to the Sacred Congregation for Propaganda Fide, asking them to promote the conversion of the Lutherans and the restoration of the churches in thirteen villages of Szepesbéla and to appoint him Apostolic Missionary with all the usual rights and privileges, he could not achieve all that he had so often and insistently asked for. The Holy See supported and promoted the conversion of the heretics with all its might, but it did not agree to appoint Father Francis as Apostolic Missionary of Szepesbéla, since this town had been entrusted to the Pauline Fathers[212] in 1667, as has already been said[213].

Nevertheless, the tireless activity of Father Francis Hanacius contributed not a little to the conversion of Szepesbéla to the Catholic faith and formed the happy and at the same time joyful starting point for the development of the Piarist missionary apostolate in northern Hungary. It was mainly thanks to this apostolate that he obtained the house of Breznóbánya and the residence of Béla for the Polish province, as well as the regency over other parishes[214].

LAST YEARS OF HIS GENERALATE

Anyone who soberly considers the facts and accomplishments of Fr. Fedele’s Generalate will undoubtedly conclude that, although he was often a serious obstacle to the happy government of others, as supreme moderator during his own govern he resolved many things well and prudently, both in terms of the growth of discipline and religious observance, the spread of the Institute and the promotion of the Process of the Founder’s beatification, and in terms of the timely resolution of the many problems connected with Piarist studies, which favored the ever more evident growth of the Pious Schools. However, there were some who, in 1675, as his six-year term was drawing to a close, accused him before the Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Religious, in an unsigned memorandum, of failing to comply in any way with the Holy See’s regulations concerning the formation of novices and clerics, that he had more than justly increased the number of working brothers in the Order, that he had sent teachers to the schools who were not yet priests, that he had allowed the number of students in the individual classes to increase uncontrollably, and that he had encouraged discord among the religious, who were divided into various factions[215].

To this memorandum, which contained scarcely an iota of truth, Father Charles John Pirroni, Procurator General, whose prudence and good sense in this case give us an estimate of Father Fedele’s administration worthy of our confidence, ably replied, refuting the charges point by point. The Generalate was certainly not free of difficulties and problems and human errors, but it was successful and positive, because it paved the way for the undoubtedly more effective and happier government of Fr. Pirroni[216].

INTIMATION AND CELEBRATION OF THE GENERAL CHAPTER OF THE YEAR 1677

In the midst of the affairs and concerns of the government, the end of the year 1676 came when, on November 14th, Father Fedele called the Major and local superiors to the General Chapter, which was to begin on May 2, 1677[217]. In this Chapter, which took place from May 2nd to 11th under the presidency of His Eminence Cardinal Caspar Carpegna, Vicar of Rome and Protector of the Piarists, thanks also to the intervention of the ambassador of the King of Spain, Charles II, to the Holy See[218], on May 2nd, in the second ballot, Father Charles John Pirroni, Procurator General, was elected Superior General, the fifth successor of St. Joseph Calasanz, by fifteen votes out of twenty-nine cast[219]. In the afternoon of the same day, the General Assistants were also elected: Fr. Camillo Scassellati, Benedict Quarantotto, Paul Horváth and, as a gift to Cardinal Protector, also Fr. Joseph Fedele with twenty-four votes out of twenty-nine[220].

CHAPTER VIII

THE LAST SIX YEARS OF FATHER FEDELE’S LIFE

As first General Assistant, Father Fedele, although already marked by age and frequent infirmities, once again declared himself a staunch defender of the real or supposed rights of the General Assistants, in whose defense he had played such an important role in the generalates of Father García and Father Scassellati. He never had a clear idea of the function and juridical power of the General Assistants in the Piarist Order. For he pretended to extend the use of the deliberative vote to all questions and even to the most insignificant details, and went so far as to assert that the Assistants, like the General, had the right to make proposals in the weekly general sessions. Thus, the General, as the first among equals, only retained a certain primacy of honor, which could easily be overcome by the greater number of Assistants who might be against him. Father García had accepted this way of thinking and acting only because of the coercion of the Cardinal Vicar, and Father Scassellati had accepted it out of compulsion, having been forced to do so by the contents of the new Brief that Father Fedele had requested for this purpose in April 1660. Now, however, Father Pirroni, who was better versed in canon law and who was also helped by the sharpness of his mind and his maturity, decided not to tolerate this state of affairs in any way and prepared to claim for himself the primacy of action and to limit the use of the deliberative vote of the Assistants to the cases prescribed by law. After a long struggle with the “triumvirate” of Assistants, consisting of Fathers Fedele, Quarantotto and Horváth, in which each of the parties went as far as the Pope himself[221] and in which the discussions that both Father Pirroni[222] and Father Angel Morelli[223] had held with Father Fedele were of no use in finally reaching the desired agreement, the solution came about in this way. Firstly, on April 18, 1682, Father Pirroni had the Secretary of the Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars explain to the complaining Assistants that the right to make proposals in the General Congregation belonged to the General alone[224]. Then, thanks to a private conversation with the Holy Father on June 1, 1682, on June 26th of the same month and year, he asked that the Holy See declare that the General did not need the consent of his assistants for the possible confirmation of the superiors at the end of the first three years[225]. Finally, one month later, on July 31, 1682, he obtained a third judgment of the Holy See in his favor, in which it was declared that Father General, in order to appoint the superiors and the directors of the houses of formation, in accordance with the decree of March 18, 1676 on the novitiates and the houses of study of the Pious Schools in Italy[226], only had to obtain the consultative vote of his Assistants[227]. Consequently, Father Fedele was defeated three times in a short space of time in such an important matter, which he himself had promoted. And not long afterwards, on September 26, 1682, he withdrew defeated from a legal dispute that he had pursued with great tenacity[228] over 200 escudos that a noblewoman, Mrs. Olimpia Longhi, had left him in her will. If we add that at the beginning of the same year, the Provincial of Rome, Father Joseph Maria Capoblanco of Jesus, a nephew of Father Fedele, also lost in a dispute over the jurisdiction and seat of the Roman Provincial and, after leaving the house of San Pantaleo, was forced to move to Frascati[229], we can easily understand the state of mind of Father Fedele who, due to his age and precarious health, gradually withdrew from the public life of the Order and was often forced to stay in bed In this last phase of his life, Father Fedele, joined by the two other assistants who supported him, Father Quarantotto and Father Horváth, sent to the provinces a circular letter full of the usual calumnies against Father Pirroni’s government, to be read in the next provincial chapters. But the provinces refused to do so. Moreover, they sent the letters to Father General[230], so that this last attempt of the triumvirate to overthrow Father Pirroni’s government also failed.

This led to the celebration of the General Chapter and the election of the new superior on May 2, 1683. Father Fedele, whose health was deteriorating day by day - he was in bed due to a stroke - was no longer able to take part. After being visited by the cardinal vicar, president of the Chapter, he promised to raise his prayers to God for a successful election[231] at his request. The General Chapter re-elected Father Pirroni, his great and fearless adversary, as Superior general because of his extraordinary merits, without confirming Father Fedele in the office of Assistant General[232]. A few days later, precisely on May 17th, marked by physical and mental illness, he gave his soul to God at the age of 77 years and 62 years of religious life, “after having worked very hard and endured countless hardships for the preservation of the Order during several pontificates”, as it says in the Book of the Dead[233].

Father Fedele was undoubtedly a faithful son of Calasanz, for whom he maintained his charity and piety unbroken until his death. He rendered invaluable services to the Order on many occasions, during the life of Calasanz, later until the first reintegration, and also while he held the office of General. But as Assistant General in the years 1656-65 and 1677-83, he did more harm than good to the Pious Schools, as he was overly ambitious and eager and hardly knew canon law. He wanted to strengthen the rights of the Assistants General by all means, with great harm to the authority of the General. Moreover, during Father Pirroni’s generalate, his frequent complaints and appeals to the Holy See, driven by his grumpy personality, the wear and tear of the years, and the ailments of his health, put the Institute in great danger, to the point of threatening the Order with further reduction or even extinction. It is only thanks to the intelligence, skill and iron will of Father Pirroni that the law, justice and love of the Institute triumph over the aberrations of human weakness, over all suspicion.

The great question of when and how the General Assistants could and should make use of their right to vote dragged on for several decades, and the general wording of the Cum sicut accepimus asked by Fr. Fedele was not defined more precisely until the General Chapter of 1754[234].

It was certainly not so easy to successfully introduce a completely “democratic” style in the Piarist Order for the benefit of all. After the “autocratic” government of the Holy Founder, it was almost in the nature of things that the abuse of the newly acquired rights of the General Assistants was a reaction that was gradually followed by a fair balance of power in the General Congregation. This whole legal development would certainly have been easier and faster if the Order had had a sufficient number of experts in canon law from the outset. This regrettable shortcoming meant that the Calasanzian Order often came to a correct and appropriate solution to its problems late and often only after much suffering, great danger and to the detriment of the Institute.

NOTES

1 Cf. letter P 1049. The life of Father Fedele that we are about to write is based almost exclusively on first-hand sources, as they say. The biographies written so far are of very little value, either because of their excessive brevity in presentation or because of the lack of critical sense with which they have been written. We give a short bibliographical list of such works: P. E. Llanas, Escolapios insignes, II, Madrid, 1899, 365-373; P. L. Picanyol, Epistolario di San Giuseppe Calasanzio, IV, 322; Rassegna di Storia e Bibliografia Scolopica, XVII (1951), pp. 10-20; in “Ephem. Cal.” II (1933) 55 there are also some very brief biographical notes, collected by Fr. Picanyol himself. Father R. Brasavola’s Hemerologium makes only a very brief commemoration of Fr. Fedele (Emerologium sive Sacrorum Fastorum Diarius Liber Ordinis Scholarum Piarum, Rome, 1940. p. 43, May 17). The biographical manuscripts of the general archives of the Order say almost nothing about him, except that the Catalogue of religious from the year 1630 to 1718 (Reg. Cal., 3) refers to the following about Fr. Fedele (f. 5r. n. 58): Joseph of the Visitation, formerly called Joseph Fedele of Sezze, cleric, received the habit in Rome on July 2, 1621. He made his solemn profession in Narni on April 21, 1624 at the hands of the Most Reverend Father Joseph of the Mother of God, Minister General, in the house of the Pious Schools in that city. He was ordained a priest in Naples on February 23, 1630, during ´tempora´. Finally, the Book of the Dead A (Reg. Rel., f. 101, n. 4, year 1683) contains the following indication about Fr. Fedele: Fr. Joseph of the Visitation, of Sezze (Lazio), died in Rome consumed by age and frequent attacks of apoplexy, on May 17, at 78 years of age and 62 years of religion. Ex-Assistant, Ex-General and Dean of the Order. Said father worked very hard for the preservation of our Order, having endured many labors during various pontificates.

2 Cf. letter P 103.

3 Cf. letter P 256.

4 Cf. the process Lest evidence perish in the cause of beatification of St. Joseph Calasanz, in the copy transcribed by Fr. Bau (Reg. Cal., n. 31°, f. 197); elsewhere, on folio 2 we find the surname mistakenly transformed into “Melchio(r)i”. The original volume of this process is in the Vatican Secret Archives, Sac. Cong. of Rites, v. 2698.

5 Cf. letters 219 (P 1333), P 1393, P 1402, P 1403, P 1420, P 1432, P 1465, 244 (P 1492).

6 Cf. letter 244 (P 1492).

7 Cf. the process Lest evidence perish, ff. 34.

8 Cf. Catalogue of Religious quoted in note 1.

9 Cf. letter P 103.

10 Cf. Some particular news about our novices, professed and deceased in Narni from the year 1624 to 1683. (Reg. Prov. 42. Casa de Narni, n. 5).

11 Ibid. And in the Catalog of Religious (note 1).

12 See Minutes, reports and specific observations of the visit made by Fr. James of St. Paul to the said house by order of Father General in May 1628 (Reg. Prov. 42, Casa de Narni, 11). Notwithstanding this title, the acts of the visitation of Nursia are also found there, where the following is stated about Father Fedele (May 12, 1628): Brother Joseph of the Visitation, a professed cleric of about 22 years of age, without a beard, black hair, of tall stature; a promising young man, he has not allowed himself to be dragged down by his companions, he shows a desire to make amends. Cf. also letter P 975. On his residence in Nursia, see also letter P 946.

13 Cf. letter P 975.

14 Cf. letters P 1560, P 1564.

15 Cf. letter P 975.

16 Cf. letters P 1237, P 1283, 215 (P 1316), 219 (P 1333); see also Catalogue of Relig. (note 1).

17 See letter 222 (P 1350).

18 Cf. letters 219 (P 1333), P 1393, P 1402, P 1420, P 1465, 244 (P 1492), 245 (P 1502), P 1507, P 1519, P 1795, P 1820, P 1824, P 1861, P 1863.

19 Cf. letter P 1757.

20 Cf. letters P 1795, P 1824.

21 See the letter of Fr. Fedele to Calasanz of August 16, 1636, written from Genoa (Reg., Cal. XV, 10); see also the process Lest evidence perish (Reg. Cal. 31°, f. 197, where the deposition of M. R. D. John Felix Fedele begins).

22 Cf. letters P 3071, P 3490.

23 In addition to those listed above, see also letters P 2495, P 2500.

24 Cf. letter P 1824.

25 Cf. letter P 1507.

26 See the documents of such declaration in the General Archives (Reg. Cal. XII, 124 and 185).

27 See patent granted October 1, 1632 (Reg. Cal. XII, 126) and letter P 1897.

28 Cf. letter P 1923.

29 See Fedele’s letters to Calasanz, written from there (Reg. Cal. XV, 10; and L. Picanyol, Epistolario di San Giuseppe Calasanzio IX, 35).

30 See patent (Reg. Cal. XII, 128) and letters P 2404, P 2413.

31 See patent (Cal. Reg. XII, 134); and letter P 2488.

32 Cf. L. Picanyol, Brevis conspectus, p. 102.

33 Cf. letters P 2561, P 2685.

34 Cf. letters P 2500 y P 2508.

35 Cf. letter P 2684.

36 Cf. letter P 2526 and that of Fr. Fedele of April 1636, sent to Rome from Genoa, which deals with this matter (Reg. Cal. XV. 10).

37 Cf. letter P 2685.

38 Cf. letters P 2500 y P 2508.

39 Cf. letter P 2488.

40 Cf. letters P 2495, P 2526, P 2529 and that of Fr. Fedele to Calasanz dated January 30, 1637, sent from Genoa (Reg. Cal. XV, 10).

41 Cf. letter P 2529.

42 See the Minutes of the Prov. Chap. of Liguria in the year 1637 (Reg. Prov. IV, 11).

43 Ib.

44 Ib.

45 See letter P 2725.

46 Cf. L. Picanyol, Epistolario di San Giuseppe Calasanzio VI, 276-279.

47 See the Minutes of the Gen. Chap. of the year 1637, in “Archivum Scholarum Piarum” XIII (1954) 38-40.

48 See Particular Historical News of the houses of the Province of Naples... written by Father Fedele (Reg. Prov. X, 10). The patent that is preserved in the General Archives bears the date of January 14, 1638; but it is a second patent that Father Fedele had expressly asked to be sent to him with more solemnity. Cf. the letter of Fr. Fedele to Calasanz dated January 2, 1638, sent from Naples (Reg. Cal. XV, 10).

49 In addition to the aforementioned patent, see also letter 407 (P 2788) and Historical News (note 48).

50 Cf. letters P 2791, P 2797. See also Decree for the good government of the province (December 25, 1637) (Reg, Prov. X, 10).

51 Cf. letter P 2802.

52 Cf. letter 407 (P 2788).

53 Cf. letters P 2797, 409 (P 2798). P 2879.

54 Cf. letter P 2837.

55 Cf. letters P 2879, P 2991.

56 Cf. letter 409 (P 2798).

57 Cf. letters P 2800, P 2802, P 2814.

58 Cf. letters P 2879, P 2925, P 2972. See also Historical News (note 48).

59 Cf. letters 436 (P 3012), P 3147.

60 Cf. letters P 2983, P 3041, 504 (P 3379), 508 (P 3400).

61 Cf. letters P 2983, P 3041, 504 (P 3379), 508 (P 3400).

62 Cf. letters P 2969, P 3479, P 3544.

63 Cf. note 21.

64 Cf. letter P 3071.

65 Cf. letters P 3071, P 3479, P 3490, P 3500. P 3520.

66 Cf. letter P 2954.

67 Cf. letters P 2879, P 2883, P 2954, P 3109.

68 Cf. letters P 3127, P 3327.

69 Cf. letters P 2829, P 2834, 437 (P 3019), P 3020, 460 (P 3114).

70 This is the day written on the patent; cf. Historical News (note 48).

71 Cf. letters P 2962, P 2966, P 2972, P 2999.

72 The Decrees on poverty can be found in Reg. Cal. X, 13.

73 Cf. letters P 3017, P 3018, 444 (P 3046), P 3069, P 3072, P 3077.

74 Cf. letter P 3015.

75 Cf. letter P 3086.

76 Cf. letters 518 (P 2534), P 3536.

77 See Minutes of the Provincial Chapter of 1640 (Reg. Prov. X, 18).

78 Ib.

79 Cf. letters 518 (P 3534), P 3539. See also the report of Fr. Fedele on this Chapter (Reg. Prov. X, 20).

80 Cf. letter P 3542.

81 See the Decrees of this visitation (Reg. Prov. X, 21).

82 Cf. letters P 3539, P 3541, P 3544, P 3563.

83 Cf. letter P 3574.

84 Cf. L. Picanyol, Epistolario di S. Giuseppe Calasanzio VII, 347-351.

85 See the Minutes of the General Chapter of 1641, in “Archivum Scholarum Piarum’’ XIII (1954) 59-60.

86 See the same Minutes in “Archivum Scholarum Piarum” XII (1954) 71.

87 See the patent as General Assistant delivered on April 3, 1641 to Fr. Catalucci (appointed directly by Calasanz in place of the recently deceased Fr. Pelegrino of St. Francis) shortly before the beginning of the General Chapter (Reg. Cal. XII, 172); see also the Minutes of the General Chapter in “Arch. Schol. Piar.” XIII (1954) 60.73.

88 This patent is in the CaI Reg. XII, 178.

89 Cf. letters P 4029, 615 (P 4199), 616 (P 4204), P 4302, P 4346. However, in 1643 he had the desire to return to Rome, as can be deduced from his letter of October 16, 1643 to Father Pietrasanta, Apostolic Visitator (Reg. Cal. XX. 1).

90 See an excerpt from the deposition of Fr. Fedele in the process Lest evidence perish (Reg. Cal. XIV, 62, 4). This excerpt, although declared authentic, does not answer word for word to the respective part found in Reg. Cal. XXXI.

91 See his letters to the Visitator and the four Assistants (Reg. Cal. XX, 1), especially that of November 28, 1643.

92 See the deposition of Fr. Fedele (note 90).

93 Cf. letters P 4291, P 4302.

94 Cf. letter P 4346.

95 Cf. letters 615 (P 4199), 616 (P 4204).

96 See the religious family of 1647 (Cas. Gen. I, 20) and that of 1648 (Cas. Gen. I, 22); cf. also the Minutes of the local chapter of 1649 (Cas. Gen. I, 23).

97 At least in the school year 1653-54, as is proven by the catalog of the pupils made up by him (Cas. Gtn. l, 25).

98 For the catalog of students see note above; the vacation list can be found in Cas. Gen. I, 26.

99 See the patent given to him for this purpose by Fr. Camillo Scassellati (Reg. Rel. 115, f. 458), which has already been published in “Ephem. Cal.” XXX (1961) 105, note 89 bis. Cf. G. Sántha, Fidelity to Calasanz. Fr. Juan García, Ediciones Calasancias, 2024, p. 83-84.

100 Cf. J. C. Caputi, Notizie historiche II, 4, ff. 86-90.

101 On Fr. Fedele’s cooperation with Frs. Conti and Berro, see J. C. Caputi, o. c., II, 4, ff. 21-23, 58, 68-70, 73-74, 82-92, 112. See also the dissertation on the history of the first reintegration of the Piarist order in Fidelity to Calasanz. Fr. Juan García, p. 57-63.

102 See the memorandum composed by Father Pennazzi in this regard, addressed to Cardinal Giacomo Corrado, in Humanist and ambitious, Salamanca, 1982, pp. 45-46.

103 See the dissertation on Fr. Garcia, in Fidelity to Calasanz. Fr. Juan García, p. 98-99. Regarding the intervention that Fr. Fedele had to reach the particular Brief of April 4, see the answer of Fr. Scassellati to the memorandum written against him, about the question of the deliberative vote (Reg. Cal. 69, phase 6, 2), published in Humanist and ambitious. Fr. Camillo Scassellati, nt. 47-48.

104 See Minutes of Gen. Cong. of April 11, 1656 (Reg. Gen. 8).

105 See the Decree of February 27, 1657 on the reduction of classes in the Pious Schools of San Pantaleo (Act. Cong. Gen., Reg. Gen. 8).

106 Both the written memorandum and the response of the Cardinal Protector are found in the Minutes of Gener. Cong. of February 25, 1657.

107 Cf. B. Bartlik. Annals of the Pious Schools, f. 459.

108 Cf. Minutes of the Gen. Cong., March 27, 1656.

109 Cf. Minutes of the Gen. Cong., of May 8, 1656.

110 Cf. Minutes of the Gen. Cong., June 23-27, 1656 and July 27, 1656.

111 Cf. Minutes of the Gen. Cong, at the end of the year 1657.

112 Cf. Minutes of the Gen. Cong., July 11, 1656, where the Orders given to be observed during the time of the plague are found (July 11, 1656).

113 See the Minutes of the Gen. Chap. of the year 1659, in “Arch. Schol. Piar.” I (1936) 12-13.

114 Cf. G. Sántha, Humanist and ambitious. Fr. Camillo Scassellati, p. 23 ss.

115 See the Minutes of the Gen. Chap. of the year 1659, in “Arch. Schol. Piar.” I (1936) 13-14.

116 On all this, see Humanist and ambitious. Fr. Camillo Scassellati, pp. 17-20.

117 See notes 80-108 in Humanist and ambitious. Fr. Camillo Scassellati, pp. 73-74.

118 See Humanist and ambitious. Fr. Camillo Scassellati, pp. 22-23.

119 Cf. J. C. Caputi, o. c. V, ff. 149-153.

120 Cf. Minutes of the General Chapter of the year 1665, in “Arch. Schol. Piar.” 11 (1937) 12-13.

121 Cf. Minutes of the General Chapter of the year 1665, in “Arch. Schol. Piar.” II (1937) 7.

122 Cf. Minutes of the Gen. Cong. (Reg. Gen. 10), f. 2r.

123 Cf. Minutes of the Gen. Cong. (Reg. Gen. 10), f. 23v.

124 From the index of the Inventory drawn up by Fr. Manetti (Chronological Inventory of the General Archives of the Pious Schools, edited by Fr. Picanyol, Rome, 1955) we can deduce that it was not until September 1670 that Fr. Fedele appointed the two assistants to be approved by Fr. General (p. 56, n. 14), and that the Roman Provincial Chapter was held in Narni in October 1670 (p. 56, n. 15).

125 Cf. Patient restorer of the Order. Fr. Cosimo Chiara, pp. 39-40.

126 See note 186, in Patient restorer of the Order. Fr. Cosimo Chiara, pp. 80.

127 See Minutes of the Gen. Chap. of the year 1671, in “Arch. Schol. Piar.” II (1937) 20-21.

128 See J. C. Caputi, o. c., II, 4, f. 87v and ff. 98v. See also at least the title or heading of a certain document, which according to Manetti’s Inventory still existed in 1762: “Offices and merits of Father Joseph of the Visitation from 1631 to the present year 1671, in which he was elected general, and continuation of the same; in his own handwriting up to 1674.” (p. 20, n. 225).

129 See note 187 in Patient restorer of the Order. Fr. Cosimo Chiara, p. 80.

130 Cf. J. C. Caputi, o. c., IV, 8, ff . 97-99.

131 See the Brief among the Minutes of the Gen. Cap. of the year 1671, in “Arch. Schol. Piar.” II (1937) 23-24,

132 Cf. J. C. Caputi, o. c., IV, 8, ff. 96-99.

133 See the circular of May 16, 1671, addressed to the local superiors at the beginning of their term of office (Reg. Gen. 1, p. 1).

134 Cf. L. Picanyol, Lezioni di Storia Scolopica, in “Rassegna di Storia e Bibliografi a Scolopica” XVII (1951) pp. 10-20.

135 See Minutes of Gen. Cong. (Reg. Gen. 10), f. 50, July 7, 1671.

136 Reg. Gen. 128-130. Similar records to these had already been kept by Frs. Scassellati and Chiara - which were called Registers of the General - but only very important official letters were kept in them. A large part of these registers perished in the Napoleonic era; the register of Fr. Scassellati was discovered a few years ago in the Vatican Secret Archives (Bishops and Regulars, Piarists, 2).

137 Cf. Minutes of the Gen. Cong., f. 57v, March 29, 1672.

138 Cf. Minutes of the Gen. Cong., f. 46v, May 22, 1671.

139 Cf. Minutes of the Gen. Cong., f. 48v, May 27, 1671.

140 Cf. J. C. Caputi, o. c., IV, 8, ff . 101ss.

141 Cf. Humanist and ambitious. Fr. Camillo Scassellati, p. 21.

142 This memorandum can be found in the Vatican Secret Archives (Miss, Arm. VIII, 95) and reads: “Joseph of the Visitation, Superior General of the Poor Clerics Regular of the Mother of God of the Pious Schools, humbly exposes to YY.EE. that in the year 1662 Vincent of the Conception, Provincial of the Roman Province of the said religion, begged YY.EE. to visit the three houses that they have in Rome, that is, St. Pantaleon, St. Lawrence in the Borgo, Novitiate, and the Nazarene College. Dissatisfied with this, the General of that time obtained a decree to the contrary, which read as follows: “Since the three houses of the Pious Schools in Rome depend immediately on the General, the Provincial of the Roman Province cannot exercise any jurisdiction over them. Given on May 4, 1662”. Therefore, the orator, now General, begs Your Excellency to moderate this decree, adding: “Do not have any jurisdiction only in regard to the visitation; in the rest, have it as in the other houses of the Roman Province, as prescribed by the Constitutions of the said religion”. And since the said religion suffers a great shortage of subjects, both for the government and for the ministry, he also begs YY.EE. to grant him that one of the assistants or the Roman provincial may be elected rector of the house of St. Pantaleo and of the Novitiate. All this, etc. To whom God”.

On the back: To the Most Reverend and Most Reverend Cardinals of the Sacred Apostolic Visitation. Cardinals of the Sacred Apostolic Visitation.

Second hand, June 23, 1671

Read

Third hand: July 9, 1671

To the Emmo. Ottoboni, to hear and report.

143 It is almost impossible to indicate the precise time of this other memorandum and its contents, as the document is nowhere to be found. There remains only the certain indication of its existence in the Chronological Inventory of Father Manetti (p. 20, n. 229),

144 Cf. Minutes of the Gen. Cong, ff. 62-63, August 24, 1672, where the letter in which he renounces his office and his resignation is accepted is rightly mentioned.

145 In addition to the Minutes of the Gen. Cong., cited above, see also the letter of Fr. Joseph Fedele addressed to the Assistants, behind the letter in which Fr. Simone had presented his resignation (Reg. Prov. 57. n. 20).

146 Cf. Minutes of the Gen, Cong., 10, f. 93v, on August 5, 1675.

147 He was named General Procurator in the session of May 27, 1671 (Min. Gen. Cong., f. 48v). Therefore, Father Archangel Pérez was not the procurator, as Father Picanyol assures us, Brevis conspectus, table of superior generals.

148 Cf. Minutes of the Gen. Cong., f. 81r, September 21, 1675. It was proposed to call to Rome Father Charles John of Jesus, Provincial of Naples, in order to instruct our young men and for the general Procure. The ballot was done and, after the votes were counted, he obtained five votes in favor.

149 See Minutes of the visitation to the house of St. Pantaleo (Cas. Gen. I, n. 84); and also, Minutes of the Gen. Cong., f. 81v, at 6 October 1673.

150 See the Minutes of the Gen. Cong., f. 84v, April 7, 1674.

151 The placement of the minutes of this general visit is as follows: For the house of S. Pantaleo: Cas. Gen. I, n. 84, a. 1673; for the Roman house of probation. Reg, Prov. 34, n. 22, a, 1673; for the house of Frascati: Reg. Prov. 33, Frasc. nn. 48 and 49, years 1671 and 1673; for the house of Narni: Reg. Prov. 42, n. 44, a, 1673; for the house of Ancona: Reg. Prov. 39, n. 25, a, 1673. 1673; for the Neapolitan house of Duchesca: Reg. Prov. 12. Duchesca, n. 40, a. 1674; for the Neapolitan house of Porta Reale: Reg. Prov. 13, Caravaggio, n. 22, a. 1674; for the house of Posillipo: Reg. Prov. 13, n, 19, a. 1674; for the professed house of Florence: Reg. Prov. 20. Prof., n. 26, a. 1673; for the house of Pieve di Cento: Reg. Prov. 22, House of Pieve di Cento, n. 19, a. 1673; for the house of Castiglione Florentino: Reg. Prov. 23, house of Cast. 13, a. 1673.

152 Cf. Minutes of the Gen. Cong., f. 52v, October 8, 1671.

153 Cf. Minutes of the Gen. Cong., f. 56r, February 12, 1672.

154 See note 144.

155 Cf. Minutes of the Gen. Cong. f. 72r, March 1, 1673.

156 Cf Minutes of the Gen. Cong., f. 73r, April 14, 1673.

157 See the Reg. Prov. 4, n. 31: In Praise of Father Gabriel Bianchi.

158 See Minutes of the Gen. Cong., f. 102r, at 4 February 1676, and 115v, at 10 July 1676.

159 See Minutes of the Gen. Cong., f. 82v, on January 5, 1684, when the resignation of Father Onofre Conti from his position as provincial was accepted.

160 See the Minutes of the visitation mentioned above, especially in the houses where the Piarist novices and juniors were located.

161 Cf. J. C. Caputi, o. c., V, 11, ff. 152-153.

162 Cf. Minutes of the Gen. Cong., f. 71r and v, February 13, 1673.

163 Cf. Minutes of the Gen. Cong., f. 121v, October 2, 1676.

164 Cf. Minutes of the General Chapter of the year 1671 (“Arch. Schol. Piar.” II, 1937, 26); on the morning of May 16, the following was decreed regarding the studies of the Piarists:

l. “After this, the Fathers, having considered the importance of promoting studies in our Order, have decided that the decrees of the Chapters of 1659 and 1665, in which their uninterrupted continuation is strictly regulated, should be renewed and reintroduced; but according to what plan and in what manner this should be done in each Province, both with regard to spiritual and secular studies, will be a matter for the Provincial, who will report on this to Father General, from whose mandate he will not dare to deviate”.

165 Cf. Minutes of the Visitation of 1673, Cas, Gen., I, 84.

166 Cf. Minutes of the Visitation of 1673, Reg. Prov. 34, n. 22 and Minutes of the Gen. Cong. (Reg. Gen. 10), f. 59r, May 6, 1672.

167 Cf. Minutes of the Gen. Cong, ff. 85-87, a. 1674. See also the Minutes of the General Visitation to the respective houses; the placement of the same can be found in note 151.

168 Cf. Minutes of the Gen. Cong., f. 59r, May 6, 1672.

169 See note 148.

170 See Minutes of the Gen. Cong., f. 82r and v, at 12 and 18 December 1673.

171 See the Minutes of the Gen. Cong., f. 96r, September 17, 1675: “That with His Eminence Cardinal Carpegna be spoken about the particularity of professions, because we did not receive permission from the Sacred Congregation of Religious to clothe and make profession”. In the same minutes, f. 96v, on September 20, 1675, we find the following: “To write to the Provincials of Italy and the neighboring islands that they suspend the vesting of novices and the admission to profession of those already vested until further notice, since there are doubts about the professions. See later the Minutes of the Gen. Cong, f. 104v, on May 6, 1675: “That a letter be written to the Provincials of Italy enjoining them to admit to profession the novices who have completed the period of the novitiate, and the others when they have finished it, observing what must be observed according to law: the permission received from the Sacred Congregation of Religious is in force with the decree issued on the particularity of professions.” Finally, see folio 105r of the same Acts of the Cong. Gen, March 13, 1676, where the following is noted: “Let it be written to the provincials and rectors, according to the decree of the Sacred Congregation of Religious, that all professed, after the letter of Clement IX of October 23, 1669 about the restoration of the original state of the Order, ratify their profession in order to cure the error of not having asked the said Sacred Congregation for permission to clothe novices, according to the Brief ‘Inter cetera’ of Innocent X; and that they may do so on Easter Day or before or after, with the prescribed formula”.

172 The rescript of the Sacred Congregation of Religious in which this regulation was made is found in the General Archives of the Pious Schools (Reg. Rel. 115, ff. 460-461) and reads as follows:

“Inasmuch as the regular superiors of the Cleric Poors of the Mother of God of the Pious Schools, from the time when the Secular Congregation of the Pious Schools was restored and reinstated to its original state of religious Order with the emission of the three solemn vows by virtue of the Instruction issued by Pope Clement IX of holy memory on October 13, 1669, to the present day, many clerics and laymen have, without the permission of this Sacred Congregation of Religious, contrary to the Constitution beginning with ‘Inter cetera’ of Pope Innocent X of blessed memory, to the probationary period and to the religious profession, the same Sacred Congregation, desiring to provide for the tranquility of the Religion and the safety of consciences, after mature consideration and thorough discussion of the matter, by the present decree grants permission and authorizes the above-mentioned clerics and laity who, before or after the date of the above-mentioned letter of Clement IX emitted their profession, to make a new profession or to confirm the profession previously made, in any religious house, even if it is not intended for the reception of novices, and without a further year of probation; and that the superior general, provincials and local superiors of the said Religion may freely and lawfully receive and approve the profession or ratification of clerics and laity, to be communicated in writing; and that the new profession or ratification shall be considered, as regards seniority and all other effects, as if the profession had been validly made from the beginning and with the due authorization of the Sacred Congregation.

If, however, some of the professed persons mentioned above do not wish to profess again or ratify the profession they have made, but prefer to assert and present the reasons for the nullity of their profession, they can no longer be heard in any way on this nullity after a period of five years from the day of profession, unless they wish to leave the religion within this period or the superiors, for their part, wish to exclude them from it. The Sacred Congregation determines that both the professed and the superiors are obliged to present to the said Sacred Congregation the juridical proofs which appear to them to be in their favor, and the said Congregation will take care of this according to the authority conferred upon it by the Holy Father. Should, however, the professed, without having in any way presented their rights before the Sacred Congregation and without its express permission, dare to leave the Order, or should the superiors of the Order dare to exclude them, the professed shall be punished as apostates, and the superiors who would have excluded them shall be punished ipso facto, without any explanation, with suspension a divinis and deprivation of the active and passive voice. Moreover, the Sacred Congregation allows clerics and lay novices who have hitherto been admitted without the approbation of this Sacred Congregation, who are now passing through the probationary period and have not yet made profession, to continue the novitiate and to have the full time credited and recognized, so that when they have completed it they may be lawfully admitted if they are considered suitable for profession, just as if they had been admitted validly and with the proper approbation from the beginning. All this is not contrary to the Apostolic Constitutions and Ordinations, which the Sacred Congregation, by virtue of the authority delegated to it by His Holiness, expressly suspends in order to achieve the above-mentioned effect (for only in this way do they remain in force). Whatever things remain to the contrary and with the same authority in both jurisdictions, absolves the Superior General, the provincials and local superiors from the censures which they have incurred on account of the above-mentioned things, and thus frees them from the irregularity which those censured have committed in the administration of the orders received. And restore them to the dignities and offices which they formerly held, as well as to the active and passive voice, and restore them to their original state, but in such a way that henceforth they may not admit anyone to the religious habit, nor admit anyone to profession, except with the written permission of this holy Congregation and in the houses designated by it. Otherwise, the admission shall be wholly invalid and void and shall not create any obligation to the Religion in particular or in general or for any other purpose; and those who thus receive or admit shall bear the penalties imposed on them by the said constitution of Innocent X. Given at Rome, February 27, 1676.

G. Card. Carpegna

In lieu of the seal

P. Fagnano

Secretary

173 This decree is already printed in the Bulario de las Escuelas Pías, Madrid, 1899, pp. 69-74. The novices who could be admitted according to this decree were six clerics and three laymen in each of the Italian provinces, with the exception of Romana, where seven clerics and three laymen could be admitted. The memorandum which had been presented shortly before by the Piarists on this matter called for eight clerics and four laymen for each province and a single year of probation. Cf. Ach. Secr. Vat, Misc., Arm. 85. The “numerus clausus” laid down above for Italy lasted until February 2, 1709, when exactly twelve clerical novices were granted for the Roman province, ten for the Neapolitan, eight for Liguria, Etruria and Sicily, the number of brothers remaining unchanged (Reg. Rel. 115, f. 462r and v).

174 See Minutes of the Gen. Cong, on April 8, 1676 (f. 106r), April 17, 1676 (f. 106v), May 19, 1676 (f. 111r) and May 29, 1676 (f. 112r).

175 See, for example, the instructions on this matter of April 7, 1680, given by Father Charles John Pirroni only for the novices of the Roman province (Reg. Rel. 115, ff. 447 ff.). A similar instruction had already been given for the other provinces of Italy in February 1678 (Reg. Gen., 131, Decr., ff. 36-41).

176 Cf. L. Picanyol, In antiquos de sancto Iosepho Calasanctio scriptores commentaria, “Ephem. Cal.” II (1933) 55-56

177 See the Minutes of the Gen. Cong. of the year 1665, in “Arch. Schol. Piar.” II (1937) 14.

178 However, Father Carlo Mazzei in his work De arte epigrammatica (Rome, in the printing house of Paul Moneta, 1675, p. 88) wrote of him precisely this: “Using allegory also the most erudite Father Joseph of the Visitation, Superior General of our Order expresses himself with great elegance in the following epigram:

Of St. Agnes, Virgin and Martyr.

Virginis effusus niveae super alba capillus

Membra, quatit gravidas Cypridis igne faces.

Atque ubi forma ligat lascivis corda catenis,

Crinibus Agnetis vincta libido perit.

I, puer, atque artes plorato, Cupido, dolosas!

Nam quo crine ligas corda, ligatus obis.

(The hair of the snowy maiden, loose on her white flesh, shakes the bridal teas of Venus of Cyprus, pregnant with fire. And if beauty is wont to bind hearts with lustful chains, sensuality perishes bound by the hair of Agnes. Go, child, and weep, O Cupid, over your deceitful arts! For you perish by the hair with which you bind hearts).

His sacred poem entitled “Just and Pastor”, dedicated in 1661 to the Illustrious Lord D. Luis de Guzmán Ponce, Count of Villaverde, ambassador of the King of Spain to the Holy See, also deserves special mention. The manuscript of this poem, in Italian, composed in eight-line stanzas and distributed in five canticles, is in the Piarist library of St. Pantaleo. The dedication of the poem reads:

“To the Illustrious and Honorable Sir and Most Respectable Lord, Don Luis de Guzmán Ponce de León, Count of Villaverde; of the Council of War of the Catholic Majesty, Captain of the Spanish Guard and his Ordinary Ambassador before the Holiness of Our Lord.

Having described, Most Illustrious and Excellency, in stanzas of eight rhymed verses, the life and martyrdom of the holy brothers Just and Pastor, the first of whom was seven and the other nine years old, born in the famous city of Alcalá de Henares, city of the kingdom of Castile, and of most noble Christian lineage since the beginnings of the nascent Church, to encourage the imitation of such a generous lineage the young boys who attend our Pious Schools in the house of St. Pantaleo Major in Rome. There the venerable servant of God, Joseph of the Mother of God, a native of Spain and Aragon, erected an altar in their honor. So, I thought that I should dedicate this sacred poem of mine, entitled “Just and Pastor”, to none other than the great name of Your Excellency, who, for a long series of centuries in Spain, has not only come from the oldest and noblest lineage of the Guzmán Ponce de León, protector of so many illustrious heroes on earth and in heaven, but also for the outstanding piety, goodness and virtue that shine in your person with illustrious fame in Spain and throughout the world. I come therefore with the greatest submissiveness to dedicate to Your Excellency this work, which, even if it appears before you simple and pure, without any adornment, I beg you to accept it as something sacred, born in the happiest kingdoms of Spain. And if it lacks vivacity and splendor, the vivacity and zeal of the holy martyrs will compensate for this. Martyrs who have suffered such cruel torments and hard deaths for Christ. I ask you to keep them under the wing of your most powerful protection against anyone who would dare to tear them apart in any way with his pale teeth. So, receive it with a joyful and benevolent gaze as it passes into your hands, like something so precious that has emerged in Spain from the tenderest shoots of a most noble plant, from the roots of the nascent Christian religion. And here, humbly bowing, I ask Heaven for Your Excellency the height of true and fulfilled happiness.

Rome, February 10, 1661

From Your Exc.

Your Most humble and most devoted servant, Joseph of the Visitation,

General Assistant of the Pious Schools”.

179 See the commentary to letter 39, which also includes Fr. Fedele’s letter of dedication; the Grand Duke’s reply is found in Reg. Prov. XVIII, n. 20. Father Fedele assures us that the author of the book was a certain Alò Giovannoli, a Piarist; but this name has not yet been found in the catalogues.

180 See L. Picanyol, Rerum Latinarum Scriptores, Rome, 1956, p. 215. The same Father edited in 1675 the booklet entitled Mysta regius. Panegyris sive Seren. Leopoldus ab Etruria S. R. E. Card. sacerdotio initiatus, Florence, Stella, 1675, in 8.º, 12 pp.; cf. L. Picanyol, o. c., p. 215. The recommendation of Fr. Fedele is deduced to have been made from the answers of D. Antonio Magliabechi given on February 24, 1673 and July 4, 1674.

181 Lyon, at the press of Matthew Liberai, 1673, 23 ff. in 12°.

182 See the letter of D. Antonio Magliabechi to Fr. Fedele dated November 6, 1674 (Reg. Prov. XVlII, 21).

183 See the letters of D. Antonio Magliabechi to Fr. Fedele dated May 5th and November 20, 1674.

184 See L. Picanyol, Rerum Latinarum Scriptores, pp. 195-196. As a precious appendix we translate here five letters of D. Antonio Magliabechi, addressed to Fr. Fedele in the years 1673-1674, which are now preserved in the General Archives (Reg. Prov. XVIII, 21).

The first of these, dated February 24, 1673 in Florence, reads:

“Rev. Father General, Most Venerable Lord and Master:

There is not the slightest doubt that this Doctor has no idea of the fine arts or other studies, for as he was always burdened by his family and lived in misery, he was unable to devote himself to study. In spite of everything, he recognized that Mr. Minozzi’s poems were not good. So, Y. Rev. P. will remember that in his letter to the excellent and most virtuous Father Charles of St. Anthony of Padua, he wrote that he had had them printed because the author was a friend of his, although they were heavy, not very Latin, and full of verbiage.

You can be sure that as soon as the copies arrive here from Lyon, I will send one of them to Father Charles, to whom I am very grateful for the honor he has done me. It pains my soul that I do not even have a single copy in my possession, because if I had, I would have sent it postage paid to Y. Rev. P. with the letter carrier this very afternoon. As Father Sigismund knows, two copies were sent to me from Lyon, in one lette;, one of which I took the liberty of sending to you, and the other, to please Father Sigismund, to Father Angelico Aprosio Vintimiglia, so that he might mention Father Segismundo’s little book in the second volume of his library, as he later wrote to me that he had done. This gentleman, who had them printed, is sending me forty copies; but these said wars are the reason why they have not yet arrived here, and it may be some time before they arrive, for fear of the ships being seized by the Turks or the Spaniards or the Dutch. In the present circumstances, they often detain the goods in Marseilles for months. But rest assured that the first copy that arrives here will be sent to you. In my small library, I will have about twelve thousand volumes, of which, if you wish to have one, I will gladly send it to you, for I declare myself under obligation to you and recognize that the greater part of the tributes paid to me in his book by Father Charles, whom I greet with the greatest affection, are due to you.

When I return to Court, I shall intercede warmly with His Royal Highness for this Father, as I must with all you tell me. You confuse me when, out of incomparable courtesy, you deign to thank me for these two books. I have ventured to send them to you, not without great embarrassment, for one is creature of one of your subjects, and the other about matters concerning the Most Serene House, which is so dear to you for its goodness. I do not understand why it reaches you so late, for I delivered it here to Father Sigismund before Christmas.

As I do not wish to abuse the courtesy of Your Rev. Paternity by dragging on any longer, I will make one last point, and ask you to do me the honor of your orders, which I very much wish to do by bowing to you and repeating myself.

From Your Reverend Paternity

Florence, February 24, 1673

Most humble and most grateful servant

Antonio Magliabechi.”

The second letter, dated May 5, 1674, contains the following text:

“Rev. Father, Lord and Most Venerable Master:

Although your Reverence sees me bothering you with this letter, believe that I am compelled to do so, for there is no one who hates writing more than I do, so that I become ill when I have to answer the letters of my masters and friends with only two lines. Hundreds and hundreds of friends and gentlemen have therefore asked me to beg Your Paternity to persuade Father Charles of St. Anthony of Padua to begin printing his Anagrams and Enigmas without delay. I am urged to do so not only by various distinguished gentlemen and other great men of letters, but also by illustrious personages. And I could never express to him the great applause with which the book of Epigrams has been universally received here. To the prayers of others, I add my fervent entreaties, and that with the greatest fervor possible to me, for more than anything else I desire the publication of the Anagrams and Enigmas mentioned. Through the incomparable kindness and courtesy of V. P. Revma. I hope to obtain the favor.

Through various channels I have learned that this most virtuous father is really impossible to please in his things, as he is always revising and filing them away. Therefore, if he wishes to do me this favor, I must instruct him to send his book to the printer immediately and without further delay. I ask this favor of you all the more eagerly for I am convinced that it will contribute to the greater honor and glory of your Religion, which I love and revere so much. On the other hand, Y. Rev. P. is almost obliged to order the Father to put his book into print at once, in order not to abuse the kindness and courtesy of His Eminence, Reverend Cardinal Chigi, whom, I have it on good authority, has been waiting a very long time for its publication. For this reason, and in order not to abuse the courtesy of Your Reverend Paternity, and because it seemed to me that to continue too long would do no small harm to your infinite goodness, which favors your servants even without their request, I will make a final point, imploring you to grant me the honor of your orders, which I so much desire, reverencing you and repeating myself.

From Your Rev. Paternity.

Florence, May 5, 1674

Most humble, most devoted and most grateful servant

Antonio Magliabechi”.

The third letter, dated September 4, 1674, reads as follows:

“Rev. Father, Lord and Most Venerable Master:

It has been a century since I wrote to Your Rev. Paternity. I know that you are very busy and therefore have other things to do than waste your time reading my nonsense. I have no shortage of things to do either, so I did not want to bore you. However, I would like to make it clear that I have always kept and will forever keep alive the memory of your favor and my obligations. Now I am forced to trouble you by informing you that I have given three copies of our kind and virtuous Father Sigismund’s booklet, very elegantly bound in marbled leather, to Father Sigismund himself, to do me the favor of delivering them to Y. Rev. P. on my behalf. In a few days I had the opportunity to send it to you through a priest who is coming here. But when he told me that he had the opportunity to send it to you first, I gave it to him. Trusting in the incomparable kindness of your Reverend Paternity, I have ventured to put another copy in the same package for Father Charles of St. Anthony of Padua. I swear to you that I am deeply ashamed to send you so few copies; but I assure you that of the fifty bound copies I received, only one remains, because I have sent the others as presents to various literary men in different cities, in order that the name of the said Father Segismundo, who is at present the worthiest rector, may spread as widely as possible. Even he, the author, has only received four copies, one of which he is sending to the General Attorney, and two to two literary friends of his and mine in Bologna. The paperback editions will arrive shortly and then I will send to you as many copies as you want. As I do not wish to bore you any longer, I close and ask you to forgive my audacity and to honor me with your long-awaited orders by honoring you and acknowledging to be

From Y. Rev. P.

Florence, September 4, 1674.

Most humble and most grateful servant

Antonio Magliabechi”.

The fourth letter, dated October 20, 1674, is dated in Florence and is of the following tenor:

“Rev. Father, Lord and Most Venerable Master:

God knows how ashamed I am to bother you so often with my letters and to ask you for favors, since I have not earned any merits with Your Reverend Paternity, but on the contrary owe you infinite gratitude for a thousand favors that you have shown me with your incomparable kindness. But it is precisely your incomparable kindness and goodness that make me dare to ask your favors again, which I do all the more willingly because what I am going to ask of you must contribute to the greater glory of your Religion, which I revere so much. I have heard with great pleasure that the excellent and learned Father Charles of St. Anthony of Padua has at this moment printed his Anagrams and Enigmas, which, from some I have seen, are certainly very beautiful.

Knowing, therefore, the devotion required to make the works come out right, and having learned that the Father also holds the most honorable position of Master of Lord Prince Chigi, with these four letters I humbly request, with the greatest affection I know and can express, that when you change offices, as happens every year before the beginning of the school year, to leave him as he is, without other occupations; because in reality the above-mentioned occupations of correcting the book and teaching the little prince are neither few nor small. I am also induced to ask this favor of Your Reverend Paternity, as I have heard from several, and also from our Father Sigismund, that the said Father Charles is scrupulous in the highest degree, and that by his seclusion and constant occupation with studies he has become almost incapable of being a superior, as well as of confessing, etc. I realize that I am too bold, and I beg you, Most Rev. Father to forgive me; but, as I have already told you, your kindness has given me the courage to do so. I have not forgotten the service of this good Father, but one cannot talk business with H.R.H. because he gets angry. Therefore, and because of the hurry, I will conclude by asking you to do me the honor of your orders, which I desire very much by honoring you and acknowledging to be

From Y. Rev. P.

Florence, October 20, 1674.

Most humble, most devoted and most grateful servant

Antonio Magliabechi’’.

The fifth letter of November 6, 1674, is as follows:

“Rev. Father, Lord and Most Venerable Master:

Of the infinite kindness and incomparable courtesy of Y. Rev. P. I could, as always, expect only graces and favors, as I can rightly infer from your most kind letter of the 27th of the past. I therefore humbly thank you for what you have deigned to write to me about the excellent and learned Father Charles of St. Anthony of Padua, which increases my obligations to you. A catarrhal affection, from which, however, thank God, I am now completely cured, has kept me at home for several days, which has caused me, to my great regret, to be unable until now to visit Father Rudolph of St. Jerome, and at the same time to offer him my services, which I shall do without any delay, and I intend to do so with all others who depend on Your Rev. Paternity, to the infinite merits, goodness, gentleness, teaching, etc., which I acknowledge and to which I feel so much indebted.

Whereupon I again express to you my most humble thanks for the favor, and begging the honor of your orders so dear to me, I venerate you and entrust myself to you.

From V. Rev. P.

Florence, November 6, 1674.

Most humble, most devoted and most grateful servant

Antonio Magliabechi”.

N.B. Unfortunately we do not have the letters written by Fr. Fedele to D. Antonio Magliabechi; some very brief annotations of them are found in the drafts of some letters of Fr. Fedele, which are preserved in the General Archives (Reg. Gen., 128). Here we find traces of the letters written by Fr. Fedele to D. Antonio Magliabechi on February 17th, March 8th and 31st and May 19, 1674.

185 Cf. L. Picanyol, La Biblioteca Scolopica di S. Pantaleo di Roma, I, Roma, 1952, p. 62.

186 See L. Picanyol, Rerum Latinarum Scriptores, p. 192.

187 Cf. Minutes of the Gen. Cong. (Reg. Gen. 10), f. 87v, on July 5, 1674; see also the letter of Fr. Fedele of July 7, 1674 to the Provincial of Etruria (Reg. Gen. 130, f. 39r).

188 On his life and works see L. Picanyol, In antiquos de Sancto Iosepho Calasanctio scriptores commentaria, in “Eph. Cal.” III (1934) 168-171.

189 They are: Sacri riti e cerimonie, che si devano usare da’Ministri nelle Messe basse, cantate et Episcopali et anco nella Settimana Santa, Genova, Cele, 1671, en 24º, pp. 260; Instruttione per il giovinetto che dedidera comunicarsi per la prima volta con un compedio della vita e passione di Cristo S. Nostro, Genova, Tiboldi, 1675, en 24°, pp. 80; Salterio di 150 laudi spirituali, Genova, Calenzani, 1675, en 16°, pp. 280.

190 Cf. L. Picanyol, Rerum Latinarum Scriptores, p. 197

191 Cf. L. Picanyol, Rerum Latinarum Scriptores, pp. 195-196.

192 Cf. L. Picanyol, o. c., p. 210.

193 Cf. L. Picanyol, La Biblioteca Scolopica di S. Pantaleo, I, 84.

194 Cf. L. Picanyol, o. c., p. 193.

195 L. Picanyol, Rerum Latinarum Scriptores, 184, 226.

N.B. To the writers mentioned here we can also add Fr. Stanislao Papczynski of Jesus Mary, who in 1675 republished the work entitled Templum Dei Mysticum, but who had already left the order in 1671 (cf. Picanyol, Rerum Latinarum Scriptores, p. 187; G. A. Navikevicius, Mic, Stanislao di Gesù Maria Papczynski, Rome, 1960, p. XIV) and Fr. Efisio Sotorreal, whose biographical work on the Holy Founder, written in Spanish, was published in Madrid in 1675 (cf. L. Picanyol, La Biblioteca Scolopica di S. Pantaleo, I, 197). The latter, however, having been dispensed from simple vows, was no longer a member of the Order (cf. Minutes of the Gen. Cong., Reg. Gen. 10, f. 61r, on June 23, 1672).

196 See the transcribed Minutes of this process in the General Archive (Reg. Cal. 31º).

197 Cf. Minutes of the Gen. Cong., f. 88r, on July 20, 1674.

198 Cf. Minutes of the Gen. Cong., f. 98v, on November 5, 1675,

199 Cf. Minutes of the Gen. Cong. f. 84r, on February 22, 1674.

200 Cf. L. Picanyol, Brevis conspectus, p. 268; Minutes of the Gen. Cong., f. 48v, on May 27, 1671, and f. 77r, on July 11, 1673.

201 Cf. L. Picanyol, Brevis conspectus, p. 180.

202 Cf. L. Picanyol, Brevis conspectus, p. 91; Minutes of the Gen. Cong., f. 78v, on August 22, 1673, and f. 97v, on October 15, 1675.

203 Cf. L. Picanyol, Brevis conspectus, p. 165; Minutes of the Gen. Cong., f. l00r, on November 26, 1675.

204 Cf. L. Picanyol, Brevis conspectus, p. 166; Minutes of the Gen. Cong., f. 95r, on September 3, 1675.

205 Cf. L. Picanyol, Brevis conspectus, p. 109; Minutes of the Gen. Cong., f. 103v, on February 28, 1676.

206 Cf. L. Picanyol, Brevis conspectus, p. 180.

207 Cf. L. Picanyol, Brevis conspectus, p. 123; Minutes of the Gen. Cong., f. 51r, on July 31, 1671.

208 See Minutes of the Gen. Cong. (Reg. Gen. 8) at the end of 1657.

209 This number for the provinces of Italy is taken from a memorandum written in 1676 (Arch. Secr. Vat., Misc. Arm. VII, 95), where the following annotations are found:

In the province of Rome 11 houses and 151 religious

In the province of Liguria 4 houses and 60 religious

In the province of Naples 9 houses and 103 religious

In the province of Tuscany 5 houses and 78 religious

In the province of Sicily 2 houses and 50 religious

Total: 442

To this number must be added the number of religious of Sardinia, which were 69 according to the catalogue made in the year 1677 (Reg. Prov., 29, n. 13), that of the religious of the province of Germania, who were 105 according to the catalogue made the same year (Reg. Prov. 51, n. 73) and finally that of the religious of Poland, who were 110 according to the catalogue of the year 1675 (Reg. Prov. 56, n. 25).

210 Cf. Patient restorer of the Order. Fr. Cosimo Chiara, pp. 35-36.

211 See The Olaszinse sacrilege, narrated at some length by Fr. Hanacius himself and transmitted also to the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda Fide, and even to Clement X (Archives Sag. Cong. Propag. Fide, Scriptures referred to in the Cong. Gen., vol. 436, ff , 450 ff); a transcribed copy is also in the General Archives of the Pious Schools (Reg. Prov. 56, n. 18).

212 As for the life of Fr. Hanacius, cf. Fr. A. Friedreich, Sch. P., Hanacius Ferencz élete, Veszprém, 1906, pp. 1-124. To the sources cited by Fr. Friedreich must be added those kept in the General Archives of the Pious Schools (Reg. Prov. 56, n. 18) and in the archives of the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda Fide. From the various documents kept in the archives of the aforementioned Congregation, we will adduce three reports made respectively in the General Congregations of the years 1672 and 1674 by Cardinals Borromeo and Vidono and by the Secretary of the Sacred Congregation.

The report of Cardinal Borromeo in the General Congregation of November 21, 1672 is found in volume 42 of the Minutes (a. 1672) ff, 285-286 and reads as follows:

“43. Hungary

Father Francis of Olasz, of the Order of the Pious Schools, writes to the Holiness of Our Lord and to Your Eminences, reporting that the King of Poland himself has permitted by special privilege that in the thirteen lands of the Captaincy of Szepesbéla the Catholic religion be openly professed, and that some churches which had been confiscated by the Lutherans under senseless pretexts be at the same time restored to the Catholics.

Having devoted himself in those regions to preaching, catechizing, and everything else that was useful and necessary for the propagation of the holy faith, he, together with other Catholics, was so badly treated by the Lutherans that he felt compelled to appeal to the King of Poland, reffering to Lubomirski himself and other of his principal ministers the excesses, insults, sacrileges, and blasphemies which the heretics were using against religion and against the images of our Lord Christ. And he succeeded in sending some royal commissioners to this region to put a stop to such excesses. However, as the Diet was dissolved at the same time, the resolution immediately stalled and was adjourned to a new assembly.

He asks that a letter be written commending him to the king, as well as to the nuncio and other important ministers, so that he may deal openly and unhindered with the causes of the oppressed Catholics in the places named, and obtain possession of the churches in the thirteen places named. He also asks that the faculties of a missionary be sent to him so that he may use them for the benefit of these towns; they are to be handed over to the nuncio. He then proceeds to give a detailed account of the impious acts of these heretics and of what the king has decided by decrees in favor of the Catholic religion, distinguishing cases and times. The speaker may refer to these if he deems it appropriate.

The mission of Szepesbéla was entrusted to the Fathers of St. Paul, the first hermit, in the assembly of September 12, 1667.

At the meeting of November 5, 1668, the letter of the Nuncio of Poland was then reported that he had recommended to Lubomirski the mission of the said Fathers, newly founded in Szepesbéla, and that it would have been more advantageous to entrust such a mission to the Fathers of the Pious Schools; and after discussing this with the Provincial, he considered it difficult to take over the entire mission because of the lack of subjects. Thereupon the Sacred Congregation decided to write to the Nuncio that his advice had not been accepted for two reasons:

1. because it did not seem expedient to remove the Fathers of St. Paul, the first hermit, as we had good relations with them;

2. because of the lack of subjects among the Fathers of the Pious Schools, who were necessary for the exercise of this mission and who would have to be assisted by religious of the other Order, a measure which experience has shown usually leads to scandal among the people, to the detriment of the progress of religion, considering private disputes.

Rescript: Write to the king and the nuncio in accordance with what is requested. But as for the faculties and the patent of missionary, nothing.

The second report in this matter, given by Cardinal Pietro Vidono in the General Congregation of February 26, 1674, is found in vol. 44 of the Minutes of the Gen. Cong. (ff. 67-69, a. 1674) and reads as follows:

“30 Hungary

The Majesty of the King of Poland has already granted by a special privilege that in the thirteen territories of the Captaincy of Szepesbéla the public profession of the Catholic religion be made, and that the heretics return to the Catholics some churches which they have snatched from them under frivolous pretexts.

Father Francis de Olaz of the Order of the Pious Schools was one of those who, encouraged by such a concession, went to this area to devote himself to the propagation of the faith. But he received so many complaints from the heretics that he thought it necessary to go to the Polish court to render an account to the king and obtain from His Majesty the proper means. And to facilitate the attainment of what he justly desired, he asked in the congregation of November 21, 1672, that this cause might be recommended by the holiness of Our Lord with a special Brief to the king himself, and that he might also write to the nuncio to recommend it.

All is accomplished, and now the above-mentioned Father Francis, with his letters makes known to the Holiness of Our Lord and YY.EE. that he will easily be able to recover the churches of the thirteen lands mentioned, since the king has entrusted the execution of the privileges and royal mandates to Prince Stanislaus Lubomirski, the present marshal of the court, in whose house the father resided with the title of chaplain; but to encourage him to recover the churches, he asks that letters be written to the same Lubomirski also in his favor.

He also asks for the patent and faculty of missionary in Hungary and to write to the emperor and the local ordinaries of the said kingdom to recommend him.

In another letter dated May 20, he reports that he had returned to Szepesbéla to assist these souls, but that he doubted that he should leave them on the orders of his father provincial, who called him to another place.

For their part, the Catholics of Szepesbéla wrote to the Holiness of Our Lord and to YY.EE. and having given a detailed account of the activities carried out by the said Father Francis and of the zeal he had and has for the salvation of their souls, at the expense of the constant insults he has received from these heretics, they ask that under no circumstances should they allow this religious to leave their side because they were grieved by it; on the contrary, they must confirm him with the special command of Your Eminences.

When this religious made the above requests in the aforementioned assembly, he asked to be appointed missionary there, and YY.EE. denied him the requested grace, because the mission of Szepesbéla in Hungary was entrusted to the care of the Fathers of St. Paul, the first hermit.

After this summary had been drawn up, a letter from Sylvester Giovanelli, dated September 16, 1673, arrived from Szomolnok, in which he praised the said Father Francis as a good worker, and he sent to deliver three letters from the latter, dated November 20 of the same year, addressed to Our Lord, to YY.EE. and to Mons. Secretary, with which he begs you to request a Brief from Our Lord addressed to Lord Lubomirski, Marshal of Poland, to induce him to fulfill the privileges and decrees of the late king in favor of the Catholics and the exclusion of heretics from the churches of the thirteen lands of Szepesbéla.

Finally, he asked for the confirmation of the missionary and apostolic penitentiary and for the possibility of choosing twelve missionaries, for the lands of Szepesbéla and Hungary, under the protection of the nuncio.

Fathers Antonio de Gramelis and Thomas Feirtag of the Dominicans, in a memorial signed by them with the hand of the said Father Francis, in which they claim to have converted very many to the faith in Hungary, ask for the faculty or confirmation of missionaries for that kingdom. Msgr. Secretary says that there is no record in the archives of the said Father Francis, nor of the said religious; and in the meantime this mission has already been entrusted to the care of the fathers of St. Paul, the first hermit, as has already been said.

Today, February 24, four letters arrived from the above-mentioned Father Francis, from Olasz, addressed to Our Lord, to the Sacred Congregation, to the Cardinal Prefect and to the Father General of the Pious Schools. In the letter addressed to the Sacred Congregation, he informs that Lord Lubomirski, Marshal of Poland, has decided to expel the Lutherans from the said thirteen lands of Szepesbéla and to order the opening of the churches, and has therefore sent letters of recommendation for workers to the Ordinaries. He will report what will follow, and in the meantime will not fail to convert these heretics.

In the others, he asks for the faculties of missionary, specifying exactly which ones he wants, and he asks not to be removed from that area, even if father provincial would ask for him to be placed elsewhere.

He also sends a description of the outrages committed against him by the heretics when he went to these lands to spread the faith.

Rescript: Write it to the Nuncio, to whom all appropriate letters and information must be transmitted. However, nothing should be written to him about Father Francis”.

The third report written by the Secretary of the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda Fide during the General Congregation of May 8, 1674, is found in the same volume 44 (a, 1674, f. 138) and reads as follows

“7. Hungary

In a letter dated February 2nd, Father Francis of St. Wenceslaus, of the Pious Schools, warns that the apostolic Brief and recommendation of this Sacred Congregation have had no effect in the lands of Szepesbéla, where heretics are hiding. In order to ensure the health of souls, he asks that apostolic Briefs be written to the Republic of Poland, as Lubomirski’s promises to exclude the heretics in question cannot be trusted. He also asked that four parish priests and a Dominican friar, who had committed himself, be commissioned or declared missionaries, praising them for their great zeal so that they could act together with him, who was already considered an apostolic missionary. He also requests letters of recommendation to the emperor, the nuncio of Vienna and the ordinaries,

In the congregation of February 26 of this year, Father Francis said the same thing about the events of Szepesbéla and YY.EE. ordered that a full report be made to the Nuncio (which has been done) so that he might see to it that the orders issued by the late King for the public profession of the Catholic faith in the said thirteen countries be fulfilled and that the return of the churches occupied by the heretics be ordered.

And as to the person of Father Francis, who desired the office of missionary for himself and two Dominican Fathers, and that he should not be removed from that place, as was the intention of his provincial, YY.EE. did not think it proper to make a decision, since on other occasions he had been refused the grace of missionary at Szepesbéla, which had already been entrusted to the care of the Fathers of St. Paul, the first hermit.

At present, the answer of the Nuncio of Poland is awaited.

Rescript: Awaiting the reply of the Nuncio of Poland.

213 Cf. Patient restorer of the Order. Fr. Cosimo Chiara, p. 35.

214 See A. Friedreich, o. c., passim.

215 This memorandum is found in the Vatican secret archives (Misc..., Cabinet VIII, 95) and reads as follows: “The poor little Religion of the Cleric Regulars of the Pious Schools, which the heavenly Father has planted in his vineyard, i.e. the Church, so that the religious who labor in it, as nurses, may break the bread of Christian education to the little ones who hunger for justice, and give the milk of piety to the thirsty, in order to prevent its ruin, being deprived of the internal help of a government, implores to this Sacred Congregation that it be made worthy of an apostolic visitation, since various abuses have been introduced, for the removal of which it seems necessary that:

1) A greater number of priests of advanced age shall be appointed in the novitiates, and they shall not wrest from them by threats, insults, or otherwise, unduly favorable vows to admit novices to profession. Let none of them who deliberately wish to return to the world be held back under the guise of charity; for these, after having taken solemn vows, live irreligiously and seek the onions again and again.

2) The young men who have already made profession are to be transferred from the novitiate to another house, to the so-called professorate, where they are to devote themselves to the study of the sciences; they are not to be scattered over the houses under any circumstances, nor are they to be sent to make the search in the towns or villages.

3) Do not accept such a large number of novices for lay brothers, and see to their careful formation. At present they are judged more or less worthy to be admitted to profession according to whether they are more or less skillful in undertaking the search and not weighing the merits of their virtue.

4) The houses in which, according to the decrees of the popes and the Constitutions of the Order, at least twelve religious cannot live, are to be abandoned because they lack what is necessary; for there is hardly a trace of religious life to be discovered in them.

5) The teaching of children in schools should, according to the apostolic decree, be entrusted only to priests, and a fixed and adequate number of pupils per school should be established, since they are enrolled en masse and in most of them we do not have the expected effect.

6) The use of surplices should not be permitted in any way to lay brothers, contrary to the provisions of our Constitutions,

7) The general assistants are to reside in the house of St. Pantaleo in Rome, as the Bulls of the popes, the Decrees of the Sacred Congregation of the Apostolic Visitation and the Constitutions of the Order expressly command; and on this point the assistants are not to dispense themselves arbitrarily, since one of the four has his ordinary residence in Collegio Nazareno and the other in the novitiate.

8) Neither the General Assistants (as already provided by the Sacred Congregation of the Apostolic Visitation) nor the provincials in their provinces receive the dignity of assistant or provincialate together with the office of local superior, as is now the case; for two of the general assistants are local superiors, one in Collegio Nazareno and the other in the novitiate, where he is also master of novices.

9) In each novitiate, a master of novices, distinct from the rector of the house, is to be appointed, as the Constitutions of the Order require.

10) The Roman provincial is to reside outside Rome (where, according to the decree of the Sacred Congregation, he has no jurisdiction) in a suitable school of the province, and the free administration of his office is to be left to the provincial himself.

11) The money of the house is to be kept and spent by the treasurer alone, as provided by the Bulls of the Popes and the Constitutions of the Order; not even the rector of the house is to dispose of or keep in his possession alone sums of money under the title of alms.

12) An account of the administration of the House of St. Pantaleon from 1659 to the present day shall be demanded.

13) Let an account also be demanded of the administration of the houses in which the following rectors were active: in the house of Frascati and of Narni Father Joseph Mary of Jesus, in the house of Ancona Father Anthony Joseph of St. Joachim, in the house of Carcare Father John Anthony, and in the house of Poli Father Sylvester of St. Mary Magdalene, all of whom have squandered the Lord’s patrimony, and there is no one to demand an account, for the gifts have blinded those who should have been judges.

14) Let Father Anthony of St. Philip Neri be restored to the office of rector of Narni, who was forced by them to resign since he would not bow to the envious.

15) Let note the decree of Clement VIII, of blessed memory, which forbids religious superiors to hear the confessions of their subjects; for the latter are artificially compelled to turn to them, since there are not enough confessors assigned to the community.

16) According to the above-mentioned decree of Clement VIII, a public lesson in moral theology or Sacred Scripture is to take place every week.

17) The abuse by which one or another is perpetuated in the same degree of dignity, especially of the local rectorate, is to be eliminated. Some of them remain in the same house for many years, to the detriment of the community and of individuals; for they forget the common good, rule like masters, and dispose of everything.

18) Let efforts be made to remedy the great discord that exists between Father General and his Assistants, not without great harm and scandal to the subjects, since each one favors his own followers against the others.

19) Those who live scandalously are to be punished because they rely on the tutelage of their patrons, who come from the same superiors. And those who have renounced factions and love peace shall not be tormented without cause, for with them they seek any opportunity to persecute and punish the most insignificant matter, and even offer them the chance to fail; but they neglect the greater things of those who sin in truth, and conceal what they should punish, by promoting to positions the same defendants.

20) Let Father General be admonished to deal more prudently, modestly, and justly with his subjects, and not to dishonor, slander, or reject them as if they were common slaves; let him hear the subjects who appeal or object in various matters; and let him not take sides with his assistants, nor judge in favor of the party who first informs him or offers him gifts.

To remove these and other abuses in the Religion, the authority of this Sacred Congregation seems necessary, and is needed to support religious observance with new decrees, and to moderate the major superiors of the Religion, who interpret or gloss over the apostolic decrees in those things which do not please or favor them.

To whom God, etc.

On the back: Pious Schools

30-5-1676

Let the General Procurator report”.

216 The reply of the Procurator General is to be found in the same volume of the Vatican Secret Archives and is worded as follows:

“Your Eminences and Most Reverend Gentlemen:

Your Eminences have deigned to send me the lampoon of petition which an anonymous hand has sent to this Sacred Congregation to present to the eyes of Apostolic compassion my Order of the Clerics of the Pious Schools, which is greatly disrupted by abuses and in danger of collapse. In order to allay this fear, I beg permission to go through the various chapters of the lampoon in question with the modesty that befits a truthful report. But before proceeding to each of the points, let you be assured that the Religion is by no means destitute of internal government, owing to the strict observance of the Constitutions, to which both superiors and inferiors are strenuously committed. Twice a week the Superior General and his Assistants hold a general congregation, and he himself visits some provinces, others through his provincials and visitators, and all endeavor to promote the common good of the Religion.

As to the first point, the answer is. Although the sons of our Order, being the young mother that it is, cannot all be elderly, yet an endeavor is made to place in every house, and with greater care in the novitiates, a suitable number of priests of advanced age, or at least mature and virtuous, since the Sacred Congregation, in the last decrees on the admission of novices into the Order, published on March 18th of the current year 1676, asked the Superior General, with the advice of his assistants, the Procurator General and the Provincial of each Province, to determine the communities of the novitiate and the professorate. As for the extortion in the ballots and the deliberate delay of those who wish to resign, there is no record of this; moreover, some actually resign, others are dismissed as soon as the duties of charity are fulfilled.

To the second. It has already been resolved in accordance with the Constitutions of the Order and will be much more precisely regulated in the future, when the above-mentioned decrees of the Sacred Congregation are available.

To the third. This is already provided for in the same Decrees, which grant three lay brothers to each province for every two years; on the other hand, the religion needs them, because it feeds more on the quest than on fixed income; besides, their scarcity (apart from the exercise of humility) sometimes compels superiors to send clerics to the quest, which was called an inconvenience in the previous chapter. In the admission as well as in the formation of lay brothers, both natural and spiritual qualities are taken into account.

To the fourth. In these houses, if there are any, the Ordinaries tacitly testify that the regular observance is in force, since they make no complaints to the Sacred Congregations. Their Excellencies, the Cardinals, affirm that it is edifying for them not to hear anything bad about our religious in the Congregations, thank God. However, if deficiencies are found during the visitations, they will be remedied by corrections, removal of the culprits or other appropriate measures.

To the fifth. As far as the scarcity of religious permits, she is compelled to reject the vehement proposals of many, as she would not be able to maintain them decently on account of the scarcity of workers. As for the fixed number of students, this is not feasible as many ask for schools and it would be a scandal if they were rejected. But if the number of students in a class increases, an assistant will be assigned to the teacher.

To the sixth. The Constitutions do not provide for this, and it seems that the decorum of the Holy Altar requires it. This seems to be observed by other religions, especially the clerical religions.

To the seventh. The assistants live, or almost live, in the house of St. Pantaleon; for two live there entirely; the one who is in the novitiate goes twice a week and as often as necessary to the house of St. Pantaleon to participate in the general work. And as for Father Camillus, it is added that, having exercised the office of Generalate in a praiseworthy manner, he has by virtue of it the privilege of choosing any house; also that the Most Reverend Auditors of the Holy Roman Rota have appointed him Rector of Collegio Nazareno by the word of Innocent X since 1647. And although he is afflicted with podagra, he is frequently present in serious matters and is of great use with his advice, wisdom and great experience in the Religion. For this reason, the decree of the Holy Visitation was not frustrated in its aim, as I have also heard him answer when Cardinal Ginetti of good memory, then Vicar and Protector of the Order, was consulted.

To the eighth. The decree of the Sacred Visitation provides only for the house of St. Pantaleon; and the study, in order that the school and the novitiate be in charge of persons of advanced age (as desired in the first chapter), maintains in its regimen these two assistants mature in age and virtue, as is said in the answer to the seventh point. This is also considered to have been done several times by the Venerable Founder. For the rest, in the other provinces there is a different superior for each office.

To the ninth. Such a prohibition is not found in the Constitutions; and in certain provinces, taking into account the shortage of suitable subjects, it is considered preferable than to entrusting the care of the novices to less suitable persons, as has been said above.

To the tenth. Both things are left to the discretion of the provincial, since there is nothing to the contrary in the Constitutions.

To the eleventh. It is observed. If in any house the rector usurps this function, it is corrected during the visitation.

To the twelfth. Such accounts have been rendered in the general visitations and likewise in the General Chapters the financial situation of each house has been presented.

To the thirteenth. The aforementioned rectors have already given an account and there is no record of the dissipation of goods. In any case, if any fault has been discovered, it has already been corrected, and none of them continues to be rector. As for the gifts, there is no record.

To the fourteenth. The said rector was not removed for the cause adduced, but to silence certain pernicious rumors in the house of Narni; and having already remained for four years in that rectorate, he has been transferred to that of Nursia, which does not involve any injury.

To the fifteenth. New and unprecedented, not lacking the necessary confessors.

To the sixteenth. In Rome it is held, and in other places it has been commanded to be held.

To the seventeenth. The rectors are chosen by the Superior General and the Assistants, who have the omnipotent power to appoint the worthy ones or to replace them with others.

To the eighteenth. There are no such discords or protection of factious persons.

To the nineteenth. The name of faction is unknown in an Order that lives in great harmony and charity. If there are offenders, they are punished; the good are promoted; and distributive justice is attended to.

To the twentieth. No record.

Since the alleged abuses either do not exist at all, or, if in certain cases they occur because of human weakness, they are corrected; and finally, the decrees of the Sacred Congregation mentioned above have already been issued, by which all and everything is more firmly confirmed; these decrees, which we accept with due reverence, we endeavor to put into full effect, as far as the condition and situation of an Order almost in the making, which, with the help of God, promises the most perfect, will permit.

From Your Eminences

Most Humble Servant

Charles John of Jesus, Proc. Gen. of the Clerics Regular Poor of the Mother of God of the Pious Schools”.

217 Cf. Minutes of the General Chapter of the year 1677, in “Arch, Schol. Piar.” III (1938) 3-4.

218 See the index of the archives of the Ambassador of the King of Spain to the Holy See, according to which we find this document among the documents of the XVI-XVII centuries under the word Piarists: The King approves the steps taken by the Ambassador so that Father Carlos, born in the Province of Lecce 5 iul, 1677, can be elected in the General Chapter of the Piarists.

219 Cf. the Minutes of the General Chapter of the year 1677, in “Arch. Schol. Piar”,” III (1938), 7-8. See also the private minutes of this Chapter, i.e. of this election, in particular the private notes of Cardinal Carpegna, the president of the Chapter, in the archives of the Vicariate of the Urbe (Secretariat, vol. 17, ff. 39-44). They show that Father Pirroni’s opponent in this election was Father Simon Bondi of St. Bartholomew, who received 10 votes in the first ballot and 9 in the second. Father Fedele did not receive a single vote.

220 See the above-mentioned minutes.

221 The assistants Fathers Benedict Quarantotto and Paul Horváth, also on behalf of Father Fedele, appeared before Innocent XI on April 16, 1682 (cf. Memoirs of the house of St. Pantaleo, Gen. 16, f. 61v), and Father Pirroni on June 1, 1682 (ibidem, f. 64r). The seriousness of the matter is also made clear by Fr. Pirroni’s circular letter of June 12, 1682 to the provincials (Reg. Gen. 132, ff. 573-575), which reads as follows:

“P. Ch!

Our domestic concerns have reached such a point that we must rid the poor Religion of any sinister impression made by the three assistant Fathers Joseph, Benedict and Paul with their visit to the feet of His Holiness on last April 14th, and in the Sacred Congregation with the writings they circulated, proclaiming that our Religion is full of scandals and disturbances on account of the carelessness of the subjects and the unworthiness of the superiors. I was compelled, also by the advice of prudent and affectionate persons, to go myself to the feet of His Beatitude, which I had the honor to do on Monday, the first day of the current month. And I have endeavored to present the Religion perfectly calm, united, and attentive in the service of the blessed God and in the exercise of the ministry, as can be inferred from the fact that, thanks to His Divine Majesty, there has never been a complaint from our religious in the Sacred Congregations, nor has it reached the ear of our Reverend Protector, but, on the contrary, there are constant petitions from different towns for the introduction of the Institute.

The unrest came only from us, the five superiors, who do not know how to find a way to calm down, for which we alone are to blame and must be punished, and not the unhappy Religion, which weeps over these divisions and constantly prays to God for our peace. His Holiness condescended to listen kindly to me, and it was a special comfort to me to see his holy mind reassured in regard to the Order. However, he did not fail to remind me in a fatherly way that in the past, our Religion had suffered a great shock because of such disagreements and that he did not want to start all over again. I humbly thanked him for the tender zeal he had shown for our Religion, and I begged him once more to believe that the evil did not come from the whole of the Religion, but from our imprudence and our particular inclinations.

In my extreme regret at seeing the religion in this deplorable state, I feel particular consolation, not only because of the testimony of my good conscience and good intentions, which I seem to have, but also, if I am mistaken, because of the general sentiment in this province, and even in the Religion, when I hear from good and prudent religious that the actions of these Fathers Assistants are generally disapproved of. But although there was no lack of some who, moved by an excellent zeal for the general tranquility, wanted to intervene in their favor, all their efforts were unsuccessful because they were immediately viewed with suspicion. Not only those at home, but also Bishop Vallati, Vice Protector, is passionately condemned by them; the Most Reverend Protector, partial; the Sacred Congregation, which has always ruled unjustly against them; and the whole world, which openly deprives them of reason, blind, and uninformed. So that justice, truth, and zeal remain confined to their heads alone, whereby they do not fail to incite those who are discontented to resort either to external means or to various tribunals. So that I am compelled to tolerate a certain disorder with a loss of discipline, or to be unable to remedy it without clamor and litigation.

Among other presumptions, now that we are at the gates of the chapters, they wish to exchange superiors whom they do not trust, relying on the words of the patents “with our consent,” which they believe refer to them. Consequently, since there are three of them, they could revoke them as they see fit and force me to have a new election to exclude all those I propose, as they have not only done in the past, but have boasted of wanting to do, and then apologized to those excluded, saying they did not do it for them, but for me.

I could not agree with this resolution, both for the charity and justice due to the present superiors, who have worked meritoriously for many years, so that it does not seem normal that they should be deposed now that the chapters are approaching, and for the good management of the houses, since the situation in which they find themselves does not make it advisable to place inexperienced superiors at their side, apart from the difficulty of providing for the classes if all the young teachers should be promoted to the superiorate. They could wait a few months until the General Chapter, when the new government would decide what seemed most opportune; but there was no way of convincing them. And this is the main point currently being discussed in the Sacred Congregation, which is of the opinion that they should await the return of our Em. Protector, which, God willing, will take place before the feast of St. Peter. These Fathers have not been ashamed in their writings to complain of His Eminence, stating that they have been forced to appeal to Our Lord because of the offenses received from him and because of the constant scandals in the Religion due to my negligence.

I write all this to Your Reverences, very briefly, so that you may form a better judgment, knowing the truth of what has happened, and also so that you may not be surprised if you do not see the chapters intimated. For since the confirmation of the superiors is uncertain until the permanence of these or the choice of others is decided, it is not known to whom to address the intimations.

For the rest, let ask blessed God and the Blessed Virgin, Our Mother, to deign to protect the Religion with special assistance, as I hope you will do by your infinite mercy, so long as the assistance of Divine Providence is so evident, which especially discredits the three who so shamelessly spread calumnies against the whole Religion. In the meantime, let us not lose the merit of patience and total resignation in his most holy will, which wants to use these scourges to purify us more in charity and make us live more cautiously and fearfully in his divine service. May the Lord bless you.

Rome, June 12, 1682.”

222 See the Memoirs of the house of S. Pantaleo (Cas. Gen. 16), f. 63v, on April 26, 1682.

223 See the booklet entitled Memoirs for the General, May 16, 1682 (State Archives, Rome, Cong. Rel., S. Pantaleon Fonds, 200

224 See previous note.

225 See the Memoirs of the house of S. Pantaleo (Cas. Gen. 16), where on June 26, 1682, the following is noted: “On the 26th, the cause regarding the confirmation or mutation of superiors who had completed their three-year term was proposed in the Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars; and the following rescript resulted: In the case in question, Father General can allow the continuation without the consent and vote of the Assistants.

226 Cf. note 173.

227 See the Memoirs of the house of S. Pantaleo (Cas. Gen.16), f. 65r, where the following is recorded: “On the 31st. The following decree was received from the Sacred Congregation: Pious Schools. San Pantaleo. General Assistants. Regarding the constitution and the change of the superior, of the master of novices and of the community, in the houses of the first and second novitiates the Assistant Fathers only have a consultative vote and the same vote corresponds also to the General Procurator”.

228 See the Memoirs of the house of S. Pantaleo (Cas. Gen.16), f. 65r, where on that day the following is noted: “On the same day, the 26th, by order given by word of mouth of the Lord Auditor of our Cardinal Protector, the guarantee was given to the Procurator of our house of St. Pantaleo to collect, as it was collected, two hundred escudos left by Mrs. Olimpia Longhi to Father Joseph Assistant”. Cf. also f. 64v, on July 18, of the same Memoirs.

229 See the aforementioned Memoirs (f. 57v, February 20, 1682): “On the afternoon of the 20th in the congregation of the Cardinals appointed to deal with the causes of Bishops and Regulars, the cause of Father Provincial having been aired, a decree was drawn up in favor of Father General, to whom the summary was sent the same afternoon, which read as follows: The Provincial is to obey by leaving Rome and it is not licit for him to reside in the houses of the city against the will of Father General. Cf. also f. 58r, on February 27th, where it is recorded: Without delaying the departure from Rome, let him be heard”.

230 See the register of letters of Fr. Pirroni (Reg. Gen. 133), v. III, ff. 58 y 60.

231 See the Minutes of the Gen. Chap. of the year 1683, in “Arch. Schol. Piar.” III (1938) 19.

232 Ibidem, pp. 21-22.

233 See note 1.

234 See the Minutes of the General Chapter of the year 1754, in “Arch. Schol. X (1951) 27

CHAPTER I. BIRTH. ENTRY INTO THE ORDER. FIRST POSITIONS (1605-1637)

CHAPTER II. PROVINCIAL IN GENOA (1637) GENERAL CHAPTER OF the YEAR 1637 PROVINCIAL IN NAPLES (1638-1641) AND IN ROME (1642-1646)

CHAPTER III. POSITIONS OR OFFICES OF FR. FEDELE DURING THE INNOCENTIAN REDUCTION. DILIGENT COOPERATION TO OBTAIN AT LEAST PARTIAL REINTEGRATION OF THE INSTITUTE (1646-1656)

CHAPTER IV. FATHER FEDELE’S ACTIVITY DURING FATHER GARCÍA’S GENERALATE. HE HOLDS THE OFFICE OF General Vicar (1656-1659)

CHAPTER V. FATHER FEDELE’S OBSTACLES TO THE GOVERNMENT OF FR. SCASSELLATI. THE APOSTOLIC BRIEF “CUM SICUT ACCEPIMUS” (APRIL 28, 1660). THE APOSTOLIC VISITATION (OCTOBER 10, 1661). FATHER FEDELE’S UNSUCCESSFUL ATTEMPTS TO OBTAIN THE GENERALATE (1659-1665)

CHAPTER VI. SECOND ROMAN PROVINCIALATE OF FR. FEDELE. HIS APPOINTMENT AS SUPERIOR GENERAL

CHAPTER VII. GENERALATE OF FR. FEDELE (1671-1677)

SPEEDING UP THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

SEPARATION OF FRS. CAPUTI, CHIARA AND CONTI

THE QUESTION OF THE COMPETENCE OF THE ROMAN PROVINCIAL AND THE GENERAL CONGREGATION

LIFE AND INTERNAL CONDITION OF THE GENERAL CURIA

GENERAL VISITATION

CONCERN FOR THE STUDIES AND THE PROPER FORMATION OF NOVICES AND PIARIST CLERICS

LITERARY ACTIVITY

PROCESS OF BEATIFICATION OF THE VENERABLE FOUNDER

EXPANSION OR DEVELOPMENT OF THE ORDER

CONVERSION OF HERETICS

LAST YEARS OF HIS GENERALATE

INTIMATION AND CELEBRATION OF THE GENERAL CHAPTER OF THE YEAR 1677

CHAPTER VIII. THE LAST SIX YEARS OF FATHER FEDELE’S LIFE

NOTES

Table of Contents

GENERALATE OF FR. FEDELE (1671-1677)