Landscape and Identityin Early Modern Rome

Villa Culture at Frascati in the Borghese Era

Tracy L. EhrlichColgate University

In association with The American Academy in Rome

published by the press syndicate of the university of cambridgeThe Pitt Building, Trumpington Street, Cambridge, United Kingdom

cambridge university pressThe Edinburgh Building, Cambridge cb2 2ru, UK

40 West 20th Street, New York, NY 10011-4211, USA10 Stamford Road, Oakleigh, vic 3166, Australia

Ruiz de Alarcón 13, 28014 Madrid, SpainDock House, The Waterfront, Cape Town 8001, South Africa

http://www.cambridge.org

© Cambridge University Press 2002

This book is in copyright. Subject to statutory exceptionand to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements,

no reproduction of any part may take place withoutthe written permission of Cambridge University Press.

First published 2002

Printed in the United Kingdom at the University Press, Cambridge

Typeface Sabon 10.25/13 and Trump Medieval System QuarkXPress® [GH]

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data available

isbn 0 521 59257 7

vii

�Contents

List of Illustrations page xi

Acknowledgments xvii

Introduction 1

PART ONE The Roman Setting

Chapter One Papacy and Aristocracy 15

Chapter Two The Borghese 28

PART TWO Frascati in the Renaissance: Tusculo Restituto

Chapter Three The Revival of Villeggiatura in the Farnese Era 49

Chapter Four The First Papal Villas 68

PART THREE Frascati in Its Heyday: The Borghese at the Villa Mondragone

Chapter Five Architecture and Ceremony 115

Chapter Six Otium cum Negotium 171

PART FOUR Land, Landscape, and Family Lore

Chapter Seven An Agricultural Enterprise 197

Chapter Eight A Dynastic Seat 217

Chapter Nine Land into Landscape 242

A Note on the Archival Citations and Transcriptions 265

Glossary 267

A Partial Chronology of Early Modern Popes 269

Abbreviations 271

Documentary Appendixes

I. Inscriptions in the Garden Portico of the Palazzo Mondragone 273

II. Lelio Guidiccioni, In Tusculanam Amoenitatem, Rome, 1623 274

III. The Tusculan Collection 279

IV. Selected Documents for the Buildings and Groundsof the Villa Mondragone 289

Notes 305

Bibliography 387

Index 409

Contents

vii i

P A R T O N E

The Roman Setting

�

Throughout the early modern period, Frascatiwas the country seat of Rome. Its villasplayed a central role in Roman social and

diplomatic politics. Like many other cities in earlymodern Europe, Rome was a court; yet the court ofRome was unique, “a true papal court,” as Michelde Montaigne observed during his visit of 1580–81.1

“New to him was the sight of so great a court,”wrote Montaigne (who preferred to use the thirdperson), “so thronged with prelates and churchmen,and it seemed to him more populous in rich men,and coaches, and horses, by far, than any other thathe had ever seen.”2 Humanists, prelates, and papalfamilies enriched by the Church were the chiefRoman patrons of the age. During the reign of PaulIII Farnese, Frascati began to attract humanists andchurchmen who built villas on ancient ruins andembraced the ancient ideal of otium, hoping toacquire an aura of virtue and sophistication associ-ated with eminent Romans who had sojourned inthe Tusculan hills in antiquity. By the early seven-teenth century, Frascati had become a fashionablecountry seat for the popes and their families. Duringthe pontificates of Gregory XIII Boncompagni,Clement VIII Aldobrandini, and, especially, Paul VBorghese, papal villeggiatura was marked by theinterweaving of otium and negotium. In this periodthe pope enjoyed international stature both spiritualand political, and these popes carried their responsi-bilities with them to the countryside. They also sawvilla building as a way to attain and maintain social

recognition for their families. In the late sixteenthand seventeenth centuries, papal clans who stood atthe apex of the ecclesiastical hierarchy began to usetheir wealth and power to climb into the highestranks of the Roman secular aristocracy. Once aquiet hillside retreat, Frascati became a center ofRoman public life, its character shaped by the dis-tinctive nature of the papacy and of Roman society.

AN ECCLESIASTICAL COURT ASEUROPEAN CAPITAL

In Rome, unlike a secular court, the reigning princewas the pope, his chief courtiers celibate church-men.3 The institution of the papacy and the poweremanating from it were the organizing principles ofthe Roman court. In the single person of the popethe powers of both priest and prince were vested.Although this union of spiritual and temporalauthority served as a model for the development of absolutist states elsewhere in Europe, no other sovereign could lay claim to the pope’s position as Vicar of Christ, apostolic heir to Peter.4 As Bishop ofRome and of the world, the pope exercised spiritualauthority that was both local and universal. At thesame time, he enjoyed temporal power as ruler ofthe Papal States.

Upon the return of the papacy from Avignon inthe early fifteenth century, the pope established theVatican palace, just north of St. Peter’s, as his pri-mary residence and seat of church government.5

15

Chapter One

�Papacy and Aristocracy

Here the pope resided much like any other prince,attended by a household of domestic officials(known as the papal famiglia or papal court).6 TheCollege of Cardinals assisted the pope in his tempo-ral duties. The administration of the Churchrequired a large body of lay and ecclesiastical pro-fessionals, including bankers, notaries, lawyers, andhumanists. Throughout the early modern periodmany organs of the Curia maintained offices in theVatican, though some moved to quarters in theBorgo or in the heart of the city across the Tiber.Nevertheless, affairs of state remained intimatelyassociated with the Vatican. There the pope calledthe College of Cardinals together in the Consistory.The Sala Regia was outfitted for papal reception ofexalted visitors: ambassadors, princes, kings, andimperial royalty. From the state halls of the Vaticanthe pope had access to the church of St. Peter’s, builtover the apostle’s tomb as a permanent symbol ofPetrine succession. There the pope performed can-onizations, inaugurated Jubilee years, and offeredhis annual Easter blessing, urbi et orbi.

From his twin seats of power at the Vatican andSt. Peter’s, the pope worked throughout the earlymodern period to consolidate his authority as anabsolute monarch and to counter Protestant attackson the institutional integrity of the Church. Thepeace and prosperity that impressed Montaigne washard won. During the first half of the sixteenth cen-tury, much of northern Europe was lost to theCatholic faith. War disrupted the Italian peninsulaas the papacy fought to overpower local tyrants andstrengthen its territorial position as a princely state,which had been greatly neglected during the Avi-gnon exile and the Great Schism. By the close of thecentury, papal troops had retaken Bologna, Perugia,Parma, Piacenza, and Ferrara for the Papal States.Church reform gathered momentum during the pon-tificate of Paul III, and the climactic sessions of theCouncil of Trent in the 1560s launched the militantstrategies of the Counter-Reformation, reversing sig-nificant losses to the Protestants.7 Clement VIII andhis nephew, Cardinal Pietro Aldobrandini, returnedHenry IV, king of France, to the Catholic fold, and itwas they who reclaimed the papal fief of Ferrara.8

The achievements of the Aldobrandini pontificateaugured well for a new era.

For a few precious decades in the early seven-teenth century, Rome enjoyed a position as a reli-

gious and political capital unparalleled in moderntimes. The pope’s prestige grew as the TriumphantChurch reclaimed Protestants in France, Germany,Austria, and eastern Europe. Missionaries pressedinto Africa, Asia, and the New World. The Jubileeof 1600 brought over half a million pilgrims toRome, a far greater number than in any Holy Yearof the early Renaissance.9 In the secular sphere, thecity that gave birth to the word “capitol” lived up tothis ancient legacy more fully in the early seven-teenth century than ever before.10 Political indepen-dence had been impossible for the sixteenth-centurypapacy, which was forced to ally itself with eitherFrance or Spain as each in turn assumed a dominantpresence on the peninsula. After the 1559 Treaty ofCâteau Cambrésis, France abandoned its Italianambitions, leaving Spain to consolidate its positionsin the Duchy of Milan and the Kingdom of Naples.The political contours of Italy assumed a fairly sta-ble shape. By the early seventeenth century, thepapacy was able to mediate between these worldpowers, working to forge peaceful relations betweenthem yet depending upon neither for survival. Thepope was accepted as an arbiter of international pol-itics, and Rome’s stature was recognized as equiva-lent rather than subordinate to that of either Paris orMadrid.11

Early modern Rome was the center of CatholicEurope as well as a great school of diplomacy.12 Hereforeign princes, ambassadors, and prelates arrivedseeking audiences with the pope to discuss pressingpolitical or doctrinal matters. With the institutional-ization of diplomacy in the fifteenth century, all ofthe Italian and European powers gradually estab-lished permanent embassies in Rome, in far greaternumbers than in Paris, Madrid, or Vienna. Specialenvoys arrived from throughout the world.13 Paul VBorghese received embassies not only from all of themajor European powers but also from Persia, Japan,Armenia, Ethiopia, and the Congo.14 Rome was acenter for the exchange of political information.Judging from the proliferation of treatises describingceremonial protocols, it was also a training groundin diplomatic etiquette.15 Treatises on diplomacydescribe the desirable attributes of an ambassador:eloquence (including a command of Latin, the lan-guage of diplomacy), prudence, fortitude, and sartor-ial and social decorum.16 Most important, treatisesexplained to foreign ambassadors the complexities of

PART ONE The Roman Setting

16

the Roman court. High-ranking figures in their ownright, ambassadors were treated with all of the honoraccorded to their prince. Special envoys entrustedwith matters of “extraordinary” urgency or delicacymerited state entries to the city.17 The pope stagedstate occasions in the presence of the College of Car-dinals at the Vatican, though during extended peri-ods of villeggiatura it became customary for him towelcome diplomatic emissaries at Frascati, a practiceinstituted by Gregory XIII but only fully developedby Paul V.

Rome’s standing as a cosmopolitan capital ofEurope rested on historical as well as on papal foun-dations, for the city enjoyed a special position as abirthplace of classical culture. Beginning in the fif-teenth century, the ruins of Republican and imperialRome attracted antiquarians and archaeologistsfrom throughout Europe. Renaissance Rome devel-oped its own school of humanism independent ofFlorence; its chief goal was to assert the city’s cul-tural primacy.18 By the mid–sixteenth century, anti-quarians were joined by gentlemen travelers such asMichel de Montaigne and soon by the crowds of theGrand Tour. In 1638 John Milton wrote that he was“detained about two months in this city by its antiq-uities and ancient renown,” which he explored inthe company of the Latinist and antiquarian LucasHolstenius.19

Steeped in humanist culture, wealthy Romanpatrons sought to display their taste, their erudition,and especially their social status by decorating theirpalaces and gardens with valuable antiquitiesunearthed at ancient sites. By the mid–sixteenth cen-tury, antiquarian accounts of Tusculum focusedattention on the hillside of Frascati, which stood justbelow the ruined city with its ancient villas (see Fig.25). In addition to being an abundant source ofantique sculpture, the hillside was ideal for buildingnew villas with refreshing air and panoramic views.There humanists and prelates were pleased to builddirectly on Roman remains while amassing collec-tions of antiquities and emulating rituals of villa lifeall’antica.

Several popes and powerful cardinals of the latesixteenth and seventeenth centuries followedhumanist scholars in turning to Frascati as a ruralretreat. Their presence transformed Tusculan villaculture. The liturgical rather than seasonal calendardetermined the rhythm of villeggiatura. The regular

observance of feast days kept the pope in Romefrom December through April. With the close ofEaster celebrations villeggiatura could begin. Duringthe warm spring months the Roman court dispersedto the hills of northern and eastern Latium but espe-cially to the Alban Hills southeast of Rome. Duringthe summer, sacred occasions such as the feasts ofPeter and Paul (29 June) and the Assumption (15August) brought the pope and cardinals back fromFrascati to Rome, despite its oppressive heat and thethreat of malaria. (Fortunately, “a great beauty ofRome,” as Montaigne recognized, was “the vine-yards and gardens” that covered the hills of the city– the Esquiline, Quirinal, Pincian, and Janiculum –offering ready retreat from summer contagion.)20

Come September, the villas of Frascati could againbe pressed into service. In addition to its singularcyclical character, papal villeggiatura required agrand architectural and human infrastructure tosupport Italian and international visitors, which theBorghese were the first to realize fully at the Mon-dragone. The villa functioned much like a Romanpalace, providing the physical and social frameworkfor an endless round of courtesy calls – the dailydiplomacy that occupied resident ambassadors, car-dinals, and members of the Roman elite – as well asfor special diplomatic missions.21 The Mondragonewas a papal seat in the countryside, the pivot aboutwhich villeggiatura came to revolve.

Papal families brought with them to Frascati notonly international affairs but also Roman social net-works and power relations, which found a ruraloutlet unmatched in earlier times. Particularly fornewcomers to Rome, a villa at Frascati came to beseen as an effective instrument of upward mobilityas well as a visible sign of arrival. Both the Aldo-brandini and the Borghese families were Tuscansrecently settled at the Roman court who achievedsocial position through papal election. The Aldo-brandini created a garden at Frascati where theiconographic program lauded the political achieve-ments of the family pope and his cardinal-nephew.Although they rejected the conventional meansemployed by the Aldobrandini, the Borghese like-wise transformed their villa into a dynastic monu-ment. The Borghese used the Mondragone todemonstrate their papal power and to forge a newidentity as a Roman noble house. In order to under-stand the symbolic function of architecture and

17

Chapter One Papacy and Aristocracy

landscape at Frascati, the main subject of this book,we must first examine the papacy’s role in socialadvancement and, specifically, its role in the chang-ing relationship between the ecclesiastical and secu-lar nobility of early modern Rome.

A SOCIETY IN FLUX

“The city is all court and all nobility,” wrote Mon-taigne; “every man shares in the ecclesiastical idle-ness.” “It is nothing but palaces and gardens,” heconcluded.22 In fact, the nobility were anything butidle; their gardens and palaces were a site of socialintercourse and a sign of tremendous energy pouredinto self-presentation. What Montaigne neglected, incalling Rome a “true papal court,” was the presenceof a secular, baronial aristocracy whose hereditarytitles secured them a place at the top of the socialladder, a position the ecclesiastical nobility, whostood just below, hoped to claim. For both baronsand churchmen in early modern Rome, the displayof elite pretension in palatial buildings, familychapels and funeral monuments, furnishings, collec-tions, portraits, encomiastic literature, banquets,and other amusements was a full-time occupation.Matters of rank and precedence governed upper-class Roman life, from the circulation of carriagetraffic to the reception of guests and management ofceremonial occasions. Skirmishes for ceremonialposition among the nobility were common, for inRome there was something to be gained and muchto be lost. Many cities were closing their nobilities inthe early modern era; Venice, for example, had its“golden book.” Rome maintained no fixed roster ofelite family lines.23 It was a hierarchical, courtlysociety; yet in contrast to many other Italian cities,Roman society was relatively open, even in its upperreaches. There was a keen sense of good order butalso of opportunity. Throughout the Middle Ages,baronial families rose and fell with regularity. Forthe ecclesiastical nobility the early modern era was atime of marked fluidity, when a group of ambitiousprovincial families formed a new papal aristocracyand penetrated the secular baronage.

This chapter reveals the strategies by which noblefamilies achieved status, first tracing the developmentof the Roman baronage in the Middle Ages, thenturning to the operation of papal nepotism in theformation of an ecclesiastical nobility in the early

modern era, and finally exploring the rise of papalclans who intermarried and intermingled with theRoman barons. Throughout the Middle Ages andinto the early modern era, the acquisition of landand titles, the arrangement of marriage alliances, theassertion of antique genealogy, and the display ofstatus in artistic and architectural patronage wereweapons in skirmishes for social position. Older,aristocratic families derived their wealth and rankfrom rural land and feudal titles; newer familiesrelied on papal nepotism for the means to acquirethe trappings of aristocracy. This chapter closes bylooking at the transformation of the urban and rurallandscape, which testifies both to the nature of thesefamily strategies and to their success.

The Development of the Roman Baronagein the Middle Ages

The original Roman baronage achieved its powerand prestige through the accumulation of ruralcastelli (fiefs) and casali (large farm estates). Afterthe fall of the Roman Empire and the decay ofancient clans, the first signs of a new local nobilityappeared during the High Middle Ages. In thetwelfth and thirteenth centuries, many familiesimmigrating to Rome from elsewhere in Italy andEurope acquired feudal holdings in the Romancountryside and throughout the papal domains ofcentral Italy. These families – among them theColonna, Orsini, Conti, Savelli, Annibaldi, and Cae-tani – constituted the Roman baronage. Control of acastello or stato (an aggregation of fiefs) broughtfeudal rights and honors, most notably the title ofprince, duke, marquis, or count (in descending orderof rank). The most desirable feudal honors wereattached to rural estates, never to individuals. Oncegranted by the pope, aristocratic titles were passeddown from one generation of landowners to thenext. In addition to the juridical rights that camewith titled fiefs, the lasting power of the baronsrested on their ability to raise tenant militias and todraw immense land-based incomes.24

The Roman baronage was a fluid class thatremained open to new arrivals throughout the Mid-dle Ages. As a source of seignorial prerogatives andof ready cash for their relatives to invest in land, thepopes deeply affected the formation of the aristoc-racy. By the early twelfth century the Colonna had

PART ONE The Roman Setting

18

assumed their position as “first family” of Rome,having brought extensive rural properties as well assome urban holdings under their control. Althoughthe Colonna did not require the help of a familymember on St. Peter’s throne, slightly newer arrivals,such as the Orsini, depended for their success on thelargesse of a family pope and on marriage alliance(indeed, with the Colonna). The unbridled nepotismof Nicolas III (1277–80) allowed the Orsini to con-solidate a set of fortified properties in Rome andelsewhere, particularly at Lake Bracciano, whichbecame the seat of the principal family branch. (Hisnepotism earned Nicolas a place in the eighth circleof Dante’s Inferno.) The Caetani in turn married theOrsini, and Boniface VIII (1294–1303) promoted hisown family’s landed patrimony. (He, too, was des-tined for the eighth circle.) Nepotism was a potentweapon, for the pope had the authority to invest hisown family with titled fiefs and thereby counterbal-ance rival clans. With papal aid, new familiesinvested their wealth in farms and fiefs that promisedlong-term income as well as aristocratic rank.25

During the thirteenth century, the draw of thecenter for the periphery became irresistible for anaristocracy that was increasingly tied to the papacy.Having secured their military and political assets atrural castelli, the barons turned their energy to forti-fying residential complexes in the city, impressingtheir claims on urban ground. By the end of the cen-tury the Roman skyline was marked by a profusionof towers rising from clan compounds. A privilegeof nobility, towers testified to the rank of their own-ers and signaled control of neighborhoods based onkinship. Towers also challenged papal sovereignty.Nominally subject to the pope as their feudal lord,the barons engaged the papacy in a constant strug-gle for power. The contest between the papacy andthe barons pitted the temporal authority of theChurch against the powers of the local aristocracy.At the same time, it also expressed internal struggleswithin the aristocracy, for in this period the popesgenerally rose from baronial circles.26

If power rested on military might and capitalresources, noble status could not be assured withoutfine lineage. Whether long settled in Rome orrecently arrived, noble families were acutely awareof their foreign origins and anxious to claim Romanpedigrees. For the baronial elite, asserting dynasticantiquity was a primary goal, leading to a competi-

tion between the Colonna and Orsini, the two oldestand most powerful clans. Genealogical myths werecommon social currency. Hoping to establish afoundation in Roman antiquity, the Colonna tracedtheir origins to the imperial gens Julia. The Orsiniclaimed descent from the Roman Republican aris-tocracy.27 Each sought “to demonstrate that theirgreatness did not depend on the papacy” but onancient ancestry. Hence, the Orsini displayed noportraits of Nicolas III in their city residence.28 Toestablish more tangible foundations the baronsrelied on ancient sites, absorbing ruins into thegroundwork of fortified strongholds and therebyassociating themselves physically and symbolicallywith early Rome. At the beginning of the twelfthcentury, the Colonna had chosen Palestrina, with itsremains of Roman villas and an impressive religioussanctuary, as their first rural seat. Throughout theMiddle Ages, baronial clans valued their fiefs, inlarge part, for their antique roots. In the city itselfthe Colonna occupied the mausoleum of Augustus,the Orsini the mausoleum of Hadrian (later the Cas-tel Sant’Angelo), and the Savelli the theater of Mar-cellus.29 Describing the Savelli stronghold as he sawit in the late sixteenth century, Montaigne exclaimedthat the barons never sought “any other foundationsfor their houses than old ruined buildings or vaults. . . but on the very broken pieces of the old build-ings, however fortune has located them, they haveplanted the feet of their new palaces, as on greatchunks of rocks, firm and assured.”30

Up until the fifteenth century, the position of thebaronial aristocracy in Rome was secure, even if theconstituent families changed from time to time.From their ranks the popes of the thirteenth centurywere repeatedly selected. During the Avignon exileand the Great Schism of the fourteenth century, thecity was left to their dominion. Martin V Colonna(1417–31) led a united papacy back to Rome in1420. He was, however, the last pope of baroniallineage for three centuries.31 With his demise, thesocial and political landscape began to change.From this period onward increasing numbers ofprovincial Italians sought their fortunes in Rome,moving into church office, the cardinalate, andeventually, the papacy. The popes gained strength inthe face of the medieval aristocracy, using baronialstrife to their advantage. At the opening of the six-teenth century, Pope Julius II confronted tyrants

19

Chapter One Papacy and Aristocracy

throughout the Papal States as well as in Rome,playing the Colonna and the Orsini against oneanother to ensure political equilibrium.32

The Papacy and the Politics of Power inEarly Modern Roman Society

Papal nepotism, which had matured in the MiddleAges, reached its apogee in early modern Rome.33

Nepotism supported cardinals in their status asprinces of the Church, affected the composition ofthe College of Cardinals as a corporate body, andultimately encouraged the rise of new families.Despite periodic reform efforts, particularly duringthe era of the Church Militant, nepotistic practicesremained commonplace. In the sixteenth and seven-teenth centuries, nepotism was the subject of apolo-getic literature that portrayed loyalty to family as avirtue.34 Since each new pope was obliged to supplythe church bureaucracy with officials, nepotism alsoensured faithful supporters and advisors essential toeffective administration. By filling the College ofCardinals with relatives and intimates (known as thepope’s “creatures”), the pope was able to balancepowerful blocks of foreign cardinals or rival clans.35

Nepotism, it was argued, served the political ends ofthe Church.36

Nepotism also supported the princely virtue ofmagnificence. Beginning in the mid–fifteenth cen-tury, Franciscan ascetic ideals for churchmen gaveway to Aristotelian arguments favoring affluence.Humanist apologists defended magnificence and lib-erality as a moral duty. By the early modern periodit was customary to accord cardinals all of thehonor and privileges of secular princes. Like thepope, each cardinal lived at the center of his owncourt, attended by a large household of personal ser-vants and gentlemen courtiers. Rome comprised itsown universe of princely courts, each revolvingabout the figure of a cardinal and his power tobestow favors, the cardinals’ courts in turn revolv-ing about the pope. The wealth generated by papallargesse allowed members of the pope’s circle, inparticular those he raised to the cardinalate, to livein a style that had come to be expected from thehigh-ranking. Patronage of churches or chapels aswell as private palaces was considered a gift to thecity and a sign of virtue. As Rome developed into aEuropean capital, cardinals became public figures

courted by foreign envoys as “princes of theChurch.” The splendor of the cardinal’s court andits palatial setting were thought to benefit all ofRome.37

Papal nepotism enhanced Rome’s cosmopolitanstature; first and foremost, however, it benefitedfamily members. The special nature of the papacy asan elective monarchy opened greater possibilities forsocial mobility than at most other courts. The popewas a celibate, nonhereditary ruler, elected by theCollege of Cardinals from among its own ranks.38

Each pope could influence future elections throughhis nominations to the cardinalate. However, no sin-gle dynasty could continuously control the monar-chy, as was so often true elsewhere in Europe. Onthe contrary, each new pope brought his own familyto the fore. The bitter politics of the conclave meantthat papal succession was unpredictable; a cardinalborn to one of the leading dynasties of Italy orRome was no more likely to be selected than oneborn to a family of humble beginnings. In 1471 theelection of Sixtus IV della Rovere launched a modestNorth Italian mercantile family. Sixtus IV grantedthe red hat to six relatives, one of whom achievedthe papal tiara as Julius II (1503–13). In the late fif-teenth and early sixteenth centuries the papal thronewas frequently occupied by relatives of past popes.Leo X de’ Medici (1513–21) was quickly followedby his cousin Clement VII (1523–34). Unlike thedella Rovere, however, the Medici were already apowerful dynasty; they used their family popes toenhance their status in Florence.39

Ambitious families recognized the pope’s mag-netic position as a source of power. They also real-ized that this position was temporary, requiringquick decisions that would yield long-term returns.Most popes were elected at an advanced age, andfew families achieved the repeated successes of thedella Rovere or Medici in the conclave. The popetypically granted Curial offices and benefices (sacredoffices with incomes attached) to kinsmen and mem-bers of his family circle. Although he might raiseseveral relatives to the cardinalate, he invested onerelative in particular with special prerogatives. The“cardinal-nephew” was meant to aid the pope inruling the Church but also in promoting the family.The ideal candidate was a blood nephew; lackingthat, the pope might adopt another close relation.The second-in-command had to be a family member

PART ONE The Roman Setting

20

(or nipote), for only kinship ensured absolute loy-alty. In this extremely clannish era, members of theCollege of Cardinals had their own allegiances tofamily and foreign powers. Paul III Farnese estab-lished the institutional position of the cardinal-nephew, raising his grandson Alessandro to the car-dinalate in 1534 and placing him in charge ofdiplomacy and state affairs. Henceforth the cardi-nal-nephew served as a de facto prime minister. Hewas entrusted with key offices in the temporaladministration of the Church, among them thesuperintendence of the Papal States. He directedmany of the powerful cardinalate congregations,including the Consulta and, eventually, the BuonGoverno. Beginning in 1585 with Alessandro Peretti(a nipote of Sixtus V), it was common for the cardi-nal-nephew to head the State Secretariat.40 The car-dinal-nephew assisted the pope in governing, but hisoffices were a source of personal wealth as well. Hereceived multiple pensions and benefices (connectedwith bishoprics and abbeys), whose income was athis disposal for life. Most benefices could not bebequeathed to heirs; by convention, however, cardi-nals were permitted to will their personal estates torelatives. A secular heir, destined to perpetuate thedynasty, became the recipient of the cardinal’s estate.In this manner, enormous funds were channeledfrom the Church to private hands.41

Although papal nepotism was a mechanism offamily advancement throughout the early modernera, a distinct change occurred in the type of familieswho were elected to the papacy in the later sixteenthand seventeenth centuries, particularly from the timeof Pius V Ghislieri (1566–72) onward. For much ofthe sixteenth century the Italian elite dominated theCollege of Cardinals and Curia. In 1580 Montaignecould remark on the international makeup of theCollege, calling Rome “the most universal city in theworld . . . for by its nature it is a city pieced togetherout of foreigners.”42 However, by Montaigne’s timeprovincial families of modest resources had begun tojoin the provincial elite in the cardinalate. Well intothe seventeenth century these families – includingthe Boncompagni, Peretti Montalto, Aldobrandini,Borghese, Ludovisi, Barberini, and Pamphilj – domi-nated the papacy. The accumulation of large for-tunes enabled them to live in a fashion befitting theirecclesiastical rank, but these families sought more.Unlike princely Italian dynasties such as the Medici,

these papal clans had no independent power bases.Each pope sought to found a Roman dynastic casata(family house) and, in particular, to achieve positionin the titled aristocratic establishment.

The Papal Aristocracy

The Roman nobility was a popular subject amongearly modern writers, reflecting a broader Europeaninterest in the nature of nobility.43 One of the mosttrustworthy observers of the Roman social milieuwas the Flemish lawyer Teodoro Ameyden (1586–1656), who earned his renown as a Curial jurist andbefriended a series of popes, including Paul VBorghese, Gregory XV Ludovisi, Urban VIII Bar-berini, and Innocent X Pamphilj. Ameyden wroteseveral Roman chronicles, including his “Relationeseu Raguaglio compitissimo di tutte le Nobiltà delleFamiglie Antiche, e moderne di Roma” and his“Delle famiglie Romane nobili.” Encyclopedic innature, these manuscripts benefit from Ameyden’sown transformation from immigrant to Curialinsider. They offer invaluable insight into the struc-ture of Roman society and, in particular, the strate-gies church families employed to join the local aris-tocracy.44 For families of modest background, papalwealth offered the only hope of acceptance. St.Peter’s throne was a mere stepping-stone on theroad to higher rank and privilege. By forging mar-riage alliances with baronial families and by acquir-ing their titled fiefs, once modest clans rose into thehighest ranks of Roman society, forming a papalaristocracy over the course of the century prior toAmeyden’s death.

Ameyden describes the Roman hierarchy as heunderstood it in the mid–seventeenth century. At thetop he locates the baronial aristocracy, a group oftitled families of high social reputation with Romanroots in the Middle Ages. Ameyden recognizes theOrsini, Colonna, Conti, and Savelli as the oldestbaronial casate, giving the first two families pride ofplace, for each “professes an ancient nobility ofmany centuries.”45 Just below the top group Amey-den positions the Caetani, Cesarini, Cesi, andAltemps, four slightly newer baronial families. In hisanalysis Ameyden moves directly from the baronialclans to a set of families recognized as Roman bypapal election but distinguished by their recentarrival in the city. In placing the “famiglie da papi”

21

Chapter One Papacy and Aristocracy

(as he calls them) just below the Roman barons,Ameyden acknowledges changes effected in thesocial structure since the 1560s. In the Roman hier-archy, papal clans of the late sixteenth and seven-teenth centuries ranked second only to the barons.As a result of their titled status, they had become anintegral part of the aristocracy. Below this mixedaristocracy of baronial and papal nobles, Ameydenpositions the local patriciate or untitled gentilhuo-mini romani.46 This lesser nobility comprised long-term Roman residents of gentle breeding. Romangentlemen were entitled to hold municipal office andenjoyed civic honor. Their modest family fortuneswere founded on banking or commerce, such as theleasing of land and trade in agricultural products inwhich the bovattieri (ranchers) specialized. The bar-rier between the untitled patriciate and titled aristoc-racy was almost impermeable.47

Although Ameyden traces the beginning of thenew papal aristocracy to the family of Pius V Ghis-lieri, changes in the Roman aristocracy were alreadyvisible with the Farnese of Paul III, who used thepapal tiara skillfully to acquire titled fiefs and noblemates for his relatives.48 The Farnese were in someways insiders to feudal Rome, having originatedduring the High Middle Ages as petty lords innorthern Latium. Paul III was born from a marriagewith the Caetani. In the more distant past the Far-nese had intermarried with the Orsini, Savelli, andConti and had benefited from Colonna friendship.Nonetheless, the Roman and the Italian aristocracyconsidered the Farnese parvenus. Their small fiefscould not compare to those of the Colonna orOrsini. To alter this perception Paul III showered hisrelations with greater fiefs and titles and negotiatedadvantageous marriages. In 1537 he established theDuchy of Castro from a cluster of Farnese holdingsnear Lake Bolsena, awarding the ducal title to hisson, Pier Luigi, as secular head of the family (Map1). In 1545 Paul III granted Pier Luigi the Duchy ofParma and Piacenza. Wrested from the patrimony ofSt. Peter, Parma/Piacenza became an independentprincipality no longer subject to papal authority.The pope was sovereign throughout the patrimonyof St. Peter, but had no power to intervene in thematters of an independent state. The Holy RomanEmperor invested the new ducal ruler with feudalprerogatives, raising the Farnese to the rank of aprincely Italian dynasty.49

During the early modern period those not born toone of the ruling houses of Italy observed with envythe Este of Modena or the Gonzaga of Mantua, whogoverned their states with all of the prerogatives ofsovereign princes, and hoped to join their privilegedranks. This preoccupation with temporal autonomyis expressed by Giovanni Pietro de Crescenzj in hisseventeenth-century treatise on nobility, where hedescribes a sovereign ruler as one who enjoys the freeexercise of jurisdiction, unencumbered by any higherauthority.50 The Medici are a stunning example of afamily of merchants, bankers, and ecclesiastics whoascended into the ranks of sovereign princes, formingin the early sixteenth century a hereditary rulingdynasty. Within the Grand Duchy of Tuscany, theMedici enjoyed legal jurisdiction, the power to coinmoney, and the right to maintain a standing army(though, like the Este and Gonzaga, they were nomi-nally Imperial vassals).51

The Medici relied on ties with the Holy RomanEmperor for their elevation to the rank of rulingprinces over sovereign territory, whereas papal clansmore commonly relied on the authority of their fam-ily pope over valuable church lands. In the fifteenthcentury Sixtus IV had first transformed church landinto a state for his family by granting the smalldominion of Imola and Forli, together with a heredi-tary title, to a secular nephew. Julius II boldly expro-priated the papal Duchy of Urbino for the dellaRovere. Paul III was bolder still, seizing papal landand transforming it into an Imperial fief.52 Like hispredecessors, Paul III used territorial nepotism toobtain temporal sovereignty for his family thatwould survive his pontificate, especially the threat ofhostile papal successors. At the same time he mar-ried his grandsons into the French royal and Habs-burg imperial dynasties. He channeled enormoussums to his family via the offices and pensions heawarded to three cardinal nipoti, particularly hiscardinal-nephew Alessandro. The construction ofmultiple residences in Rome and Latium proceededapace as a way to display noble status.

The Farnese were recognized as brilliant and dar-ing nepotists, and for more than a century theirexample inspired ambitious families. The Farnesewere the first provincial house to achieve footing inthe Roman nobility and then, with the help of thepapacy, in the Italian aristocracy. The Farnese werethe last to secure a sovereign principality at the level

PART ONE The Roman Setting

22

of Parma and Piacenza, for in 1567 Pius V outlawedthe expropriation of papal land, seeking to preservethe territorial integrity of the Papal States. The elec-tive nature of the papacy nevertheless meant thateven commoners and foreigners could climb to theupper rungs of the Roman aristocracy, as was thecase in the late sixteenth century for Gregory XIIIBoncompagni and Sixtus V Peretti Montalto. Bothcame from humble North Italian backgrounds yetsucceeded in raising their relations to the status ofdukes and princes.53 In the first half of the seven-teenth century not one of the papal houses wasRoman, but all extended roots into Roman soil. TheAldobrandini, Borghese, Ludovisi, Barberini, Pam-philj, and Chigi (in pontifical order) came fromrespected commercial or professional backgrounds inthe provincial patriciates of Siena, Florence, Bologna,and Gubbio. Though some had resided in Romelonger than others (the Pamphilj arrived earliest, inthe 1460s), all started out among the lesser nobilityand quickly found fortune through connection withthe Church.54 The election, one after the next, of aseries of modest foreign popes with lofty Roman aspi-rations led to the rapid ascendance of a new class.

Like earlier church families, the papal clans of theseicento worked ecclesiastical networks to their fulladvantage. In so doing they became intertwined. Aseach house in succession rose to eclipse its predeces-sor, the papal clans forged a pattern of politicalalliances and rivalries. Clement VIII Aldobrandini(1592–1605) named Camillo Borghese to the cardi-nalate, but after Camillo’s election as Paul V(1605–21), the relationship between the familiessoured. Scipione Borghese used his new position ascardinal-nephew to force his predecessor, CardinalPietro Aldobrandini, into temporary exile. GregoryXV Ludovisi (1621–23) and his cardinal-nephew, inturn, persecuted the Borghese, whose pontificatehad been unfavorable to their interests. TheLudovisi formed a political bloc with the disgruntledAldobrandini, with whom they also intermarried.Humiliated by the Ludovisi, Scipione Borghese wasloyal to Gregory XV’s successor, Urban VIII Bar-berini (1623–44), who had been close to the Borgh-ese ever since Paul V had raised him to the cardi-nalate. The Pamphilj of Innocent X (1644–55), inturn, became affiliated with the Ludovisi-Aldobran-dini faction, with whom they, too, intermarried.55

Investment in ecclesiastical relationships promised

political returns, but these alliances had to be renego-tiated with each new pontificate. To establish endur-ing power bases, papal clans turned to the baronialaristocracy and to their titled holdings in the RomanCampagna. In the sixteenth century, papal familieshad acquired land in distant territories of the PapalStates; they now focused on Latium, and in particularon Rome, where they acquired properties throughpurchase rather than expropriation. This geographicshift encouraged assimilation into Roman society.Knowing that a sovereign state of internationalstature was no longer within reach, papal clansacquired Roman casali and castelli, seeking long-term financial security and especially seignorial pres-tige.56 Newcomers to Rome faced an extremely hier-archical and status-conscious society much like thatof the thirteenth century. The more humble a fam-ily’s background, the greater the resistance to accep-tance, yet in both eras papal nepotism surmountedsuch barriers. Over the course of several genera-tions, a new immigrant nobility whose fortuneswere based in the Church intermixed with an oldRoman aristocracy based on the land. Abandoningtheir former professions, the pontifical houses of theseicento redefined their identity in the prevailing lan-guage of baronial Rome.57 Tracts of land held by thebarons for hundreds of years passed to the ecclesias-tical elite. Over the course of their respective pontifi-cates, the Aldobrandini procured twenty-eight suchproperties, the Borghese ninety-eight, the Ludovisieight, the Barberini fifty-six, the Pamphilj thirty-one,and the Chigi eight. To take the most prominentexamples, twenty-eight of the Borghese propertieswere fiefs, as were fifteen of those belonging to theBarberini.58

Papal clans sought all kinds of hereditary titles,from the highest rank of prince or duke to the lowerrank of marquis or count. As they had in the MiddleAges, the popes rewarded loyal supporters (primar-ily papal families but also some members of thehereditary baronage) with new feudal honors. Thepopes elevated extant titles on fiefs and evenattached titles to casali in the Roman countryside(most often, the relatively lowly title of marquis).During their family pontificate the Borgheseadvanced several times to marquis, duke, andprince. Given the general inflation of honors, thehighest titles were especially coveted. The Barberinisecured six titles at the rank of duke and prince dur-

23

Chapter One Papacy and Aristocracy

ing the pontificate of Urban VIII. The papal aristoc-racy sought titles not only from the pope but alsofrom the Holy Roman Emperor and the kings ofFrance and Spain. Many Roman families thusobtained fiefs in the nearby Kingdom of Naples. Thefashion for titles derived in large part from the Span-ish court, whose aristocratic behavior and attentionto status and precedence were imitated in Italy.59

The barons’ financial and political difficultiesfacilitated the formation of the papal aristocracy. Inhis analysis of Roman society, Ameyden notes thatfamilies such as the Orsini and Colonna were ableto survive only through dealings with the churcharistocracy. Baronial military might mattered littleafter France and Spain settled their territorial dis-putes, bringing relative peace to the Italian peninsulain the later sixteenth century. Both countries ceasedto support the long-running baronial war on thepapacy. The barons became increasingly indebted asthey tried to match the princely behavior of cardi-nals and churchmen endowed by large ecclesiasticalincomes. From the 1560s onward, land and aristo-cratic titles were transferred from the baronial to thechurch aristocracy, who were willing and able topay exorbitant prices for fiefs. At the same time, thepopes of the late sixteenth and seventeenth centuriesfollowed their predecessors in striving to solidifyabsolute rule over the papal domain. The Congrega-tion of Barons, a new institutional arm of the cardi-nalate, was formed in 1596 to seize the fiefs of baro-nial lords who defaulted on their loans.60

Ameyden continues to grant the oldest baronialcasate, in particular the Colonna, Orsini, Conti, andSavelli, their historical position at the apex of Romansociety, although he reports that they had lost someprestige by alienating their landholdings. Mostpainful was the sale of fiefs long associated with theself-image of certain casate, as when the Colonna of Zagarolo sold their holdings to the Ludovisi andthe Colonna of Palestrina sold their ancient seat tothe Barberini.61 The Colonna nonetheless retainedhereditary claim to princely status even after theysold Palestrina and with it the title Principe di Palest-rina. The princely title was transferred to anotherColonna fief.62 The Roman lords maintained theirsocial cachet, but their military and juridical powerwaned. From the era of Paul V Borghese onward, thepopes granted fiefs and feudal powers almost exclu-

sively to their own families.63 Papal clans assertedtheir authority in the countryside, supplanting muchof the old guard while offsetting the power of thosebarons who remained.

Intermarriage completed the assimilation ofRome’s two elite groups. The barons were willing totrade not only their land but also the antiquity oftheir houses for papal riches, an extreme step for aclass hitherto perpetuated through endogamousmarriage. The Peretti Montalto forged alliances withboth the Orsini and Colonna, the Aldobrandini withthe Savelli, the Borghese with the Orsini, and theBarberini with the Colonna. The Barberini acquiredfifteen titled fiefs from barons in desperate financialstraits and married Taddeo, the secular head of thefamily, to Anna Colonna, daughter of the Conesta-bile Colonna. This alliance was particularly advan-tageous, for it allowed the Barberini to legitimizetheir acquisition of Palestrina, the Colonna’s mostprized fief. Some pontifical houses aspired to con-nection with ruling European dynasties, which theFarnese had achieved, but most recognized the last-ing value of the Roman feudal aristocracy. By mar-rying into the baronage, the famiglie da papiattained a position in the secular aristocracy thatwould be perpetuated by blood, which marryingamong themselves could not achieve.64 The compo-sition of the aristocracy was permanently changedas feudal barons (who were themselves descendedfrom immigrants) were joined in the upper echelonsby families of non-Roman origin who formed a newgroup of hereditary titled lords.

THE URBAN AND RURAL LANDSCAPEIN TRANSFORMATION

The political and social changes of the early modernperiod, in particular the papacy’s growing powerand international prestige and the formation of amixed aristocracy, transformed the city and its coun-tryside. Popes and nobles employed architecture andlandscape to express, and even to achieve, their new,elevated status. Popes seeking to assert their tempo-ral authority fundamentally altered the Roman sky-line as they worked to bring down those towers notalready destroyed during baronial infighting of theMiddle Ages. In the mid–fifteenth century the anti-quarian Flavio Biondo was still able to refer to

PART ONE The Roman Setting

24

Roma turrita; by the time Etienne Dupérac pro-duced his Roman vistas in the third quarter of thesixteenth century, the few surviving towers had beentruncated. The consolidation of the papal monarchy,a peaceful political climate, and the rise of a newelite undermined the traditional symbolic value ofthe baronial tower.65

The fashion for towered clan compounds gaveway to the Renaissance palace, and the medievalalley gave way to straight avenues and spaciouspiazzas created by popes determined to make thecity into a world capital. The cardinal’s palace wasRome’s new signature feature, its size and requisitesplendor described by Paolo Cortesi in his De Cardi-nalatu (1510).66 A prince of the Church was sup-posed to realize antique ideals of magnificence in hisresidence. Inspired by classical stylistic canons, theFarnese palace block, with its airy interior court andgreat entrance piazza, exemplified a Renaissanceurban ideal (see Fig. 11). The desire to be in viewand to enjoy a view was fully expressed in baroquepalaces. The papal aristocracy of the seicento soughtto outmaneuver one another by exploiting piazzas,avenues, and prominent corners for their palaces.The Borghese, Ludovisi, Barberini, and Pamphiljbuilt colossal palaces and reshaped urban spacearound them, matching the presence of the old feu-

dal strongholds.67 In his 1638 guidebook to Rome,Pompilio Totti wrote of the Borghese palace near theTiber (Fig. 8): “Its size is astonishing, so that onecould more easily judge it a castle than a palace.”68

Palace belvederes proliferated, offering light and airto the urban elite. Their presence on the Roman sky-line served a symbolic function akin to that of theformer baronial towers.69

As the militant phase of the Counter-Reformationwaned by the second decade of the seventeenth cen-tury, the pontifical families left their palatial imprinton the urban fabric and inaugurated new standardsof luxury, which the barons endeavored to match inmagnificent patronage of their own. Some seignorialfamilies built elegant palaces regular in plan, emulat-ing their newer counterparts. Those who retainedcontrol of their rural castles transformed them intopalatial residences by adding loggias and large win-dows.70 In the relatively tranquil years of the earlyseicento, the barons adopted the attitude of churchfamilies toward the countryside, recognizing thatrural land might offer not only wealth and power,along with the traditional pleasures of hunting, butalso cool air and open views. Nevertheless, thebarons seldom built villas in the ancient mode.71

Their fiefs remained symbols of their continuingrural authority.

25

Chapter One Papacy and Aristocracy

figure 8. Matteo Greuter, view of thePalazzo Borghese near the Porto diRipetta, Rome, 1618. (Herzog AugustBibliothek Wolfenbüttel)

In the countryside, church families competed withbaronial clans not only by adopting key features ofseignorial architecture but also by introducing novelforms of their own. Some papal clans, such as theLudovisi or Barberini, purchased fiefs and trans-formed their baronial castles into palaces for villeg-giatura while also building or renovating villas.Many villas followed Leon Battista Alberti’s neo-antique prescriptions, incorporating summer andwinter apartments, landscape frescoes, centralcourts, gardens, terraces, and classical loggias posi-tioned to offer views. Other villas displayed archaiccastellar forms, such as the Villa Sacchetti at Castel-fusano, built in the early seicento by a Tuscan clanthat harbored papal and noble ambitions (Fig. 9).72

At the Villa Mondragone near Frascati the Borghesecreated a novel architectural hybrid that incorpo-rated elements of a papal palace, a country villaall’antica, and a baronial castle; the planting of itswoods and olive groves recalled the landscape ofancient Tusculum as well as that of nearby medievalfiefs. The villa signaled not only the family’s papal

status but also, more important, its claim to antiquelineage and Roman aristocratic rank.

FROM STATE POWER TO FAMILY POWER

Historians have argued that as the pope centralizedcontrol over the Papal States and over church gov-ernment, the political authority of the baronage andthe corporate authority of the College of Cardinalsdeclined. Once rebellious and bellicose, the baronagewas transformed into a courtly aristocracy subject tomonarchical rule and dependent on papal credit.73

The College of Cardinals, too, lost power. Formerlyit had been an autonomous executive body, whichthe pope assembled to vote in the Consistory severaltimes a week, issuing his decrees “with [its] adviceand consent.” By the early seicento, the Consistorysat once or twice a month. The pope met with theCollege of Cardinals to announce rather than to dis-cuss his intentions. One contemporary observed that“the Pope governs alone, and to the Cardinals he has

PART ONE The Roman Setting

26

figure 9. Pietro da Cortona, view of the Villa Sacchetti at Castelfusano, 1630s, GalleriaNazionale d’Arte Antica, Rome. (ICCD)

left only the appearance [of taking part.]” The Col-lege of Cardinals formed part of a courtly aristocracywith declining political relevance to the state.74

Nonetheless, throughout the early modern periodboth the barons and the cardinals maintained tre-mendous dynastic and personal prestige and manyof the traditional privileges of noble status. Baronialfamilies continued to be admired for their antiquityand their hereditary rank. Cardinals built dynastiesand displayed their magnificence in palaces and vil-las, churches and altarpieces, fountains and otherpublic monuments. Election to the papal thronebrought ecclesiastical families sufficient wealth tobuy fiefs. In the seventeenth century, barons newand old were absentee lords who resided at anurban court, yet they kept a watchful eye on theirfiefs, where they retained the prerogatives of noblejurisdiction.75 Even as state power grew and baro-nial rebellion calmed, local authority in rural landsremained strong.

In early modern Rome the center did not domi-nate the periphery; rather, the two were interdepen-dent. Urban court culture and rural baronial cultureintertwined. When the barons first moved fromcountry to city in the Middle Ages, they broughtwith them their aristocratic values. They did notrelinquish their rural power bases but complementedthem with ties to the papacy and city. When thepapal aristocracy moved in the opposite direction inthe early modern period, it maintained its connectionto central authority and its reliance on courtly dis-play while establishing loci of power and status at

castles and villas in the Campagna. City and coun-tryside, the Church and land, were twin zones ofpower where papal and feudal society mixed. InRome, as elsewhere in Europe, absolutism developedgradually; the early modern state was a hybrid ofcentral and local authority.76 The elective nature ofthe papacy fostered this plurality of powers. The reg-ular fluctuations of the state regime left papal clansfeeling uneasy and mindful of the need for indepen-dent sources of dynastic power. Each family there-fore invested in the countryside, where the legalauthority attached to fiefs, and, more generally, theideological associations of landholding provided abase from which to maintain position in the city.

The Borghese adopted strategies that the baronsand other pontifical families had employed – usingancient sites and fictitious genealogy to claimromanitas, amassing farms and titled fiefs, celebrat-ing nuptials with a baronial clan, and engaging inpatronal activities – doing so with a boldness thatmatched the Farnese and on a scale that surpassedthem. Cardinal Scipione Borghese turned to his villanear Frascati not only for otium but also for seigno-rial lordship, which he enjoyed as owner of thefiefland on which it stood. The Mondragone epito-mized the interdependence of city and countryside.There the pope enjoyed the learned leisure of a culti-vated urban elite and conducted state business whilehis nephew built an enduring dynastic symbol tooutlast the pontificate. Into the nineteenth centurythe Mondragone and its properties sustained thearistocratic status of the Borghese.

27

Chapter One Papacy and Aristocracy