The formation of new canonical congregations in the late Middle Ages
p. 51-72
Résumés
Between the end of the fourteenth and the beginning of the fifteenth centuries, new canonical congregations were founded, among others Windesheim North of the Alps and Fregionaia in northern Italy. Following the example of other observant reforms, they adopted organisational structures modelled on the mendicant orders, with the introduction of general chapters and the election of superiors for a limited period. They were helped by their close relations with ecclesiastical and political authorities. Windesheim received support from bishops and princes in Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands. Fregionaia took advantage of its close relations with the papacy. Total exemption from episcopal jurisdiction and the transfer of the congregation’s centre from Fregionaia to Rome under the pontificate of Eugene IV marked the end of its process of institutional formation.
Entre la fin du XIVe et le début du XVe siècle, de nouvelles congrégations canoniales virent le jour, parmi lesquelles Windesheim au nord des Alpes et Fregionaia en Italie septentrionale. À l’instar d’autres réformes observantes, Windesheim et Fregionaia ont adopté des structures organisationnelles modelées sur les ordres mendiants, avec l’introduction de chapitres généraux et de l’élection des supérieurs pour une durée limitée. Ces congrégations reçurent l’appui d’autorités ecclésiastiques et politiques. Windesheim reçut le soutien d’évêques et de princes d’Allemagne, de Belgique et des Pays-Bas. Fregionaia bénéficia de relations étroites avec la papauté. L’exemption totale de la juridiction épiscopale et le transfert du centre de la congrégation de Fregionaia à Rome sous le pontificat d’Eugène IV marquèrent la fin de son processus de formation institutionnelle.
Entrées d’index
Mots-clés : chanoines, Windesheim, Santa Maria di Fregionaia, Empire germanique, Italie, papauté.
Keywords : canons, Windesheim, Santa Maria di Fregionaia, Holy Roman Empire, Italy, papacy.
Note de l’auteur
I would like to express my gratitude to Pietro Delcorno and Sylvie Duval for their critical feedback. Special thanks goes to Alastair Matthews, Nicholas Youmans, Julia Jochum, and in particular to James Mixson for their meticulous reading and invaluable assistance, which have greatly contributed to the clarity and fluency of my English.
Texte intégral
1Over the last fifty years, study of the Franciscan and Dominican Observants has shown how the enormous spread of their movement can be explained by several closely interrelated factors. The first was undoubtedly the attractiveness of a reform that was based on the idea of returning to the original purity of religious life, a return understood as a renewed commitment to faithful obedience to the regula. A second factor was the promotion of a renewed, more interior spirituality, propagated by means of widespread preaching and an extensive production of spiritual and hagiographical texts, as well as of comportment manuals, all of which circulated ever-more widely thanks to the new medium of the printing press. A third, and crucial, factor for the overwhelming success of the Observant movement in the fiftheenth century was the support of the political powers that reforming communities enjoyed from territorial princes and, at the local level, from city authorities. The favour of the political world was determined above all by the fact that communities of Observance, with their wide project of moral education, were able to offer effective solutions for social problems and models of behaviour capable of contributing to the overall renewal of society. Finally, the support by the papacy and the ecclesiastical hierarchy was another crucial factor in ensuring the success of the Observant reformers.1
2The present contribution aims to analyse two examples of reform inspired by the idea of a return to the ideal of apostolic life, which gave rise to two congregations of regular canons. The first, emerged around the priory of Windesheim and spread north of the Alps from the spiritual circles of the Devotio Moderna. The second, diffused across the area south of the Alps in the Italian peninsula, was strictly connected to circles of Venetian humanists highly motivated in the renewal of spiritual life that had grown up around the priory of Santa Maria of Fregionaia, near Lucca, later called congregation of the SS Salvatore Lateranense.2
3We will leave aside another very important canonical reform spread just before that of Santa Maria di Fregionaia, that of the canons of San Giorgio in Alga of Venice, born in the same Venetian context. In fact, this reform started from a priory of secular canons and maintained this secular dimension, even as it took on characteristics very important to the reformed experiences of the Observant movement. Moreover, its development xtension was almost limited to a regional extension in the Veneto.
4Windesheim and Fregionaia, the two congregations I discuss, both illustrate key elements of the reform processes of the vita canonica. They also reveal information about the emergence and circulation of reform ideas at the origin of the Observance. Moreover, the reforms instituted in these two congregations exhibit striking similarities with those of the more familiar Observant movements, such as the Franciscans and Dominicans, in the multiple relationships between the networks of the men involved, in the processes of organisation and institutional formation, and in the spiritual and political dynamics that determined the success of the reforms. Therefore, these newly formed congregations of regular canons were very much a part of the wider world of Observant reform. The involvement of the ecclesiastical and secular authorities in the reforms are evidence of their wider significance and impact. The diocesan bishops and the papacy often played a key role from the beginning, while for the ruling German and Italian patrician families, contributing to the reforms was an important means to strengthen their influence in their local territories.
Reform attempts of the Vita Canonica and the rise of the Observant movement
5The spiritual renewal and institutional transformations that characterised religious life in the time of the Observant movement were only the culmination of a longer process of reform, of which the regular canons were an integral part. From the end of the eleventh century, the idea of a renewal of the original vita apostolica had been a key impulse behind the formation of many congregations of canons regular. Often on the initiative of reform-oriented bishops or lay sponsors, new or existing foundations were attached to centres of canonical life, which were renowned as models of the vita apostolica. In this way, in the course of the twelfth century, the congregations of Santa Croce of Mortara, San Frediano of Lucca, Santa Maria in Porto of Ravenna, and Santa Maria in Reno of Bologna were established in Italy,3 as were those of Springiersbach in the German-speaking regions4 and Saint-Ruf and Saint-Victor in the French territories.5 Each congregation was oriented around the prescriptions of the Rule of St Augustine and drew up its own consuetudines. In a manner similar to that of other religious communities, however, they were often already in need of renovatio at the beginning of the thirteenth century. The popes endeavoured to reform the original congregations of canons and transformed them into “orders” by introducing a general chapter, as well as definitors and visitors, following the institutional structure of the Cistercian and Premonstratensians. In these attempts at reform, shortly before the Fourth Lateran Council, Innocent III had also undertaken a general programme for the reformatio of individual canonical foundations (just as he had, in parallel, for individual Benedictine monasteries) and called on them to meet regularly in geographically organized provincial chapters. The only common element of the various houses was their attachment to the Regula Augustini.6
6In the fourteenth century, Pope Benedict XII again attempted a general renewal of the vita religiosa.7 After initially focusing his attention on the Cistercians,8 Benedictine monasticism,9 and the Franciscans,10 he provided the canons regular with guidelines for a specific reform programme in his letter Ad decorem Ecclesiae.11 Under the shared observance of the Regula Augustini, the Pope invited various canonical groups to merge and form a general ordo Sancti Augustini based on the revival of apostolic life, a common discipline, and a renewal of the liturgy.
7According to the idea formulated by Benedict XII in Ad decorem Ecclesiae, which was itself perhaps influenced by the failed experiment of Innocent III, reformed houses were meant to organize themselves into provinces on the basis of geographical criteria, and their representatives were meant to meet every four years in a chapter. At these meetings, definitors with jurisdiction over all the canons were to be elected, as well as visitators charged with carrying out the reforms and responsibility for controlling discipline in the various houses. A further crucial element was the prohibition of holding the office of prior for life; the term was reduced to two years, which could be extended by a maximum of two additional years, that is, until the next general chapter. Benedict XII also abolished stabilitas loci, allowing the canons to move between different communities.12 In the text, the pope also provided for detailed regulation of the internal and economic affairs of the individual communities, as well as for the organisation of studia, libraries, and archives, which continued to remain an important part of canonical life.13
8Benedict XII’s attempt at reform showed the need for a spiritual as well as economic renewal of many religious centres, which also required new organizational structures. In spite of his efforts, however, Benedict XII’s provisions went largely unheeded in many parts of Europe, and in the places where a structural and administrative reorganisation was actually undertaken, the chapters held there had serious difficulties in asserting their authority. Their development was then completely suspended, also because of the outbreak of the Hundred Years’ War (1337-1453) and then the Great Schism (1378-1417).14 Even if the idea of large, geographical provincial chapters could not be implemented, Benedict XII’s constitutions were considered – at least nominally – as a normative reference point by many different houses, and they provided a foundation which contributed to an actual reform of the vita canonica in later times.
9At the end of the fourteenth and the beginning of the fifteenth century, particularly spiritually inspired religious men, engaged bishops and the Roman Curia began to diffuse new reform ideas once again. In the religious world, the need for reform was triggered by the perceived necessity to properly foster strict monastic observance in as many religious institutions as possible. The accusations against corrupt religious life were often characterised by a number of rather commonplace features: disrespect for the Rule, private possessions, improper dress, irregular celebration of the Divine Office, and disrespect for the principle of monastic enclosure. The reformers put the focus of their efforts on restoring proper observance of the Rule and of monastic and religious constitutions. Uniformity of practices, in particular, was considered a key weapon in the fight against the perceived decline of religious spirituality. To that end, monastic and canonical regulations had to be reformed and reinstituted. A strict system of visitations was carried out to check and ensure that these regulations were observed down to the smallest detail.15 These ideas were also of interest to the world of the regular canons, which – first north, then south of the Alps – became an important part of this reform programme, once again turning to and strongly influencing the vita religiosa. In this way, they collaborated with the more familiar Observant movements, such as the Franciscans and Dominicans, to become part of the wider world of the Observance movement.
Reform north of the Alps and the formation of the Congregation of Windesheim
10The first example has its origins in the Netherlands. It was here that Gérard Groote had founded a community of men and women, the Brothers of the Common Life, who dedicated themselves to a semi-religious life and created a new inner spirituality, known as Devotio Moderna.16 In 1384 one of his followers, Florent Radewijns,17 together with six other brothers, had founded a new canonical community in a place called Windesheim, near Zwolle, which two years later received confirmation from the Bishop Floris van Wevelinkhoven of Utrecht, who also exempted it from episcopal control.18 In addition, the bishop granted the new community a second document, dated 13 December 1387, in which he also set out some elements of the internal organization that regulated the procedure for electing the prior and outlined the latter’s area of authority. For the administration of the community’s possessions, the prior was granted the freedom to choose a procurator. The reason given for this was that those who were to lead their brothers spiritually were less suited to take on material administration as well. In this way, one of the largest obstacles to realizing a perfect religious life – the realities of economic affairs – ceased to be a matter of the prior’s decision alone. The bishop also determined that the canons were permitted to draw up their own constitutions, laudabiles et rationabiles iuri consonas, which would ensure the maintenance of a disciplina regulari.19
11The case of Windesheim’s emergence allows us to consider the processes by which a new congregation formed and took on institutional structure in the late Middle Ages. As early as 1392, two other independent priories, also inspired by some Brothers of the Common Life, joined the community of the canons of Windesheim: Mariënborn near Arnhem and Nieuwlicht near Hoorn.20 These two foundations joined Windesheim in a colligatio. The joining of these two priories also required new standards to be worked out, and a commission was entrusted with the task of composing the constitutions already in 1392.21 At the end of his life, Johannes Busch (1399-c. 1480), one of the first members of Windesheim community and later prior of Neuwerk, near Halle, wrote his Liber de reformatione monasteriorum. This accurate and autobiographical report of his experience as reformer was written with an ideological focus and describes carefully the way in which the resultant normative text was drawn up with great care.22 According to Busch, this group of religious people had “read the old rules several times, thought about them in depth, analysed them, and compared the different instituta. With great care and wise foresight, they then selected the best and most useful elements for the order and for modern devotion”. On this basis, the commission created a normative text that was suitable and appropriate for the various circumstances and persons of present and future generations. Johannes Busch also added in his narrative that when the commission did not find what it was looking for, it was guided by the institutiones of other orders, especially the Statuta of the Carthusians and the Liber ordinis of Saint-Victor.23 The newly founded canonical colligatio advocated a strict life dedicated to inner devotion with particular regard to the three monastic vows of poverty, obedience, and chastity.24 Between 1394 and 1395, the Augustinian house of Eemstein, near Dordrecht in the diocese of Utrecht, joined the colligatio of the three priories.25
12Already in 1395, this small group of communities had received confirmation from Pope Boniface IX.26 According to the Roman Church, the Windesheim colligatio strove to implement its spiritual ideals in as many houses as possible. This reform, while spiritual, was at the same time also meant to ensure the establishment of an institutional organization which, by grounding itself in a normative framework, could also guarantee a uniformity of life. The most important decision of the pope was the permission to organize an annual general chapter. In this chapter were elected definitors, who had both strictly to follow the process of drawing up the constitutions and also to ensure their compliance in the newly reformed centres, as well as visitors, who were to implement and regulate the uniformity of life and liturgy.27
13The papal privilege also granted all affiliated priories a complete exemption from episcopal jurisdiction. By means of this concession, the pope also intended to guarantee liturgical unity across the priories belonging to the colligatio. The exemption allowed all affiliated priories to follow the same liturgical practices – a circumstance which otherwise would have required adjustments in accordance with the liturgy of the diocese in which each house was located.28
14In 1402 the general chapter confirmed the new text of the redacted constitutions, which were considered binding texts for all the houses that had joined the Windesheim congregation. Each house also had to keep a copy of the texts, and two canons were commissioned to correct and standardize the texts based on older transcripts.29 For changes to the basic text or for the insertion of new normative provisions, it was considered necessary to apply the usual Dominican procedure, which consisted of three consecutive readings (ordinatio, approbatio et confirmatio) in three successive chapters. Despite the obvious similarities with the Dominican system, scholars have demonstrated a literal dependence of the constitutions in their first and fourth parts on the model of the Carthusian statutes. The two central sections of the Constitutiones, including the part devoted to the officers and organization of the communal life, were based on the Liber ordinis and on a re-elaboration of the Carthusians’ statutes.30 The choice to be inspired by the dispositions of the Carthusian monks should come as no surprise. Since their beginnings in the eleventh century, they had never required a reform imposed from the outside (Carthusia numquam reformata, qui numquam deformata).31 During the fifteenth century their statutes became a model for the reform of other orders. Occasionally members of the Carthusian order were also employed by the popes as visitors in charge of the reform of other religious houses.32
15The ideals of reform conceived in Windesheim were considered particularly suitable to supporting and contributing to a general reform of the Church. From 1406 various new priories joined the order. These were not only new priories founded by Windesheim, but also older houses that allegedly, according to the rhetoric of reformers, were in a general state of decay or in need of reform. In order to render the Windesheim congregation more accessible to future houses, that same year Innocent VII granted the general chapter a dispensation from the somewhat stricter regulations of Benedict XII.33 The Windesheim constitutions also laid down clear guidelines for joining the community. Both a majority in the community aspiring to join and the approval of the diocesan bishop to whom the priory was subordinated were needed. The final approval of the merger was left to the general chapter of Windesheim congregation, which carefully examined the economic situation of the new priory with the help of procurators chosen ad hoc. In the event of a positive response from the general chapter, the new associated priories were removed from the jurisdiction of the bishop and were instead placed under the authority of the superior of the congregation of Windesheim. According to the constitutions, priors who were in office before the incorporation had to give up their position; in this case, the general chapter ensured that they were paid a pension.34 On 18 March 1420, Martin V, who had been elected a year earlier at the Council of Constance, confirmed a new privilege for the Windesheim congregation with the bull Sponsa Christi, in which he took a further step towards their institutionalization. This involved the introduction of a second set of regulations, which brought about renewal both on a spiritual and on a purely organizational level. In particular, there were changes to the general chapter, to the election of the prior general and the other local priors, to the criteria for the selection of definitors and visitators and to the regulation of transitus, that is, the change from one religious order to another. Also introduced were other provisions which contributed to the uniformity of liturgy and daily life, such as the habit, the celebrations of masses and the management of goods.35 Between 1414 and 1427, the general chapters that managed the incorporation of more than twenty new priories added a series of new decrees to the constitutions and either reformulated or invalidated existing ones. The whole of these special interventions was collected in the rubric De diversis statutis or Statuta de diversis que ad omnes pertinent.36
16In the years 1427-1430, the incorporation of the former congregation of Neuss, consisting of ten male and three female houses, also posed a new challenge. The houses of Neuss accepted the subordination under the general chapter of Windesheim and adopted the customs of Windesheim. They set aside their black habits and put on the white ones of the Windesheim community. Insofar as the privileges of Neuss were contrary to those of Windesheim, they had to do without them. To make the reform more effective, any difficulties and disagreements were managed within the individual communities.37 With the growth of the congregation and the repeated absence of the delegates of some monasteries at the annual chapter, the congregation was suffering from a loss of uniformity. For this reason, the general chapter of 1433 undertook a new redaction of the constitutions, which this time were to be imposed more strictly on all monasteries. The new text was completed in 1434. The original three copies would be kept in the priories of Windesheim, Neuss, and Groendaal and from there were copied and spread throughout the congregation. Each house was responsible for guaranteeing a secure copy of the new constitutions. All old versions of the constitutions that could not be easily corrected were to be deleted and burned.38
17The Council of Basel (1431-1449) officially directed Windesheim to continue its reform efforts. Various canons from the Motherhouse then spread their reform ideas across the Netherlands, Belgium, and Germany.39 In 1451 the cardinal-legate Nicholas of Cusa issued an official mandate to Johannes Busch and to Paul Busse, prior of St Mauritius, near Halle, to reform all religious centres in Northern Germany that were in need of reform.40 The Liber de reformatione monasteriorum of Johannes Busch describes his reform activities in detail and with a triumphal tone. According to his account, some fifty male and female monasteries adopted reformed customs, which brought a uniformity of life and liturgy, and joined the Congregation of Windesheim41. In those monasteries that did not join the congregation, Johannes’s reform efforts sought to ensure that every community followed the Rule it had adopted and fully upheld the required monastic observance.42 His autobiographical account also makes clear that both clerical authorities and secular rulers often supported the reform of ancient monasteries and priories. As early as the 1430s, on the initiative of two archbishops of Magdeburg, Gunther II, count of Schwarzburg, and Friedrich III, count of Beichlingen, and the bishop of Hildesheim, Prince-Bishop Magnus of Saxe-Lauenburg, Busch began to reform several male and female houses in these two dioceses.43 In 1455 Duke Wilhelm of Braunschweig-Calenberg also entrusted him with the reform of several houses in his territories, such as the female convents of Wennigsen, Mariensee, Barsinghausen and Marienwerder.44
18The analysis of local sources affirm that the assumption of uniform practices of life and liturgy was clearly an important goal. Various degrees of affiliation existed: together with priories that were completely subjected to Windesheim, some houses followed Windesheim’s regulations without official incorporation into the Congregation. This meant that such reformed houses did not participate in the meetings of the general chapter, and that they were not subject to annual visitations.45
Reform south of the Alps and the formation of the Congregatio of Fregionaia
19Similar ideas about reform and renewal of the vita religiosa could also be found south of the Alps, where similar experiments involving monastic and canonical institutions took place at the end of the fourteenth century. These reform initiatives were mainly connected to a circle of important humanists and inspired religious men in Italy who cultivated a spirituality akin to that of the Devotio Moderna.46 Prominent members of this group were closely connected to the reform of San Giorgio in Alga: Gabriele Condulmer (1383-1447), nephew of Pope Gregory XII and the future Pope Eugene IV, and his cousin Antonio Correr (1369-1445)47 with Lorenzo Giustiniani (1383-1456)48 and Ludovico Barbo (1381-1443).49 The latter worked also as active reformer in the Benedictine abbey of S. Giustina in Padua.50 To this spiritual circle also belonged the Dominicans Giovanni Dominici and Tommaso di Antonio Caffarini of Siena.51 Both men actively drove the reform of several male and female convents linked to the Dominican order and also collaborated in Venice to promote the sanctity of Caterina of Siena.52
20Related to this group of spiritually active men was a certain Bartolomeo, a vir Dei from the Roman Colonna family who had already started preaching in Rome, including in the spiritual circles around the church of Santa Brigida. Here gathered a group of intellectuals and men of deep spirituality active in promoting the holiness of Bridget of Sweden and Catherine of Siena.53 During his preaching campaigns in Lombardy and Veneto, Bartolomeo came into close contact with the Venetian circles, where he could establish himself not only as an effective preacher, but also as a tireless reformer of different religious institutions.54 In the territory of the Venetian Republic, Bartolomeo also played a special role in the revival of the vita canonica. His ideas motivated a small group of reform-minded canons. With the permission of the bishop of Lucca, they assembled in the abandoned priory of Santa Maria di Fregionaia, near Lucca,55 where Bartolomeo retired together with the Pope’s familiares Benedetto da Rimini and other disciples.56 The Roman Curia confirmed the election of Bartolomeo as prior of the small community on 8 June 1402, a position he held again in 1407-1408 before leaving the community to resume his preaching campaigns.57 In the following years, thanks to the work of these canons, numerous priories followed the example of this first community and joined Fregionaia in forming a canonical network. A good example is found in the well-documented reform activity of two canons, who Bartolomeo had met during one of his preaching missions in Lombardy, Leone Gherardini da Carate58 and Taddeo da Bagnasco,59 from the monastery of San Pietro in Ciel d’Oro in Pavia. This was one of the most important centres of Benedict XII’s reform attempt and belonged to the Ordo Mortariensis. Impressed by his ideas, they expressed their desire to leave San Pietro in Ciel d’Oro. With the consent of their abbot, they joined the community gathered in Fregionaia and dedicated themselves to a more authentic vita canonica.60
21After a certain period of time spent at the priory in Lucca, both men (like other canons who belonged to the first community) left Fregionaia and acted as vicarii and procuratores to introduce the renewal of life in new houses that began to form into a network of priories around Fregionaia. Like Leone Gherardini da Carate and Taddeo da Bagnasco, all these early canons undertook a dense series of reform initiatives and were often elected as priors to drive and to establish reform in a definitive way. The different assignments and functions of these two canons shows one of the characteristics of this canonical reform programme: the mobility of figures like those who belonged to the first community of Fregionaia, and their involvement in an intense activity of reform initiatives that spread across different parts of the Italian peninsula.
22The process of these reform attempts was different in each case, although some common features can be identified in the documentation. The incumbent prior of the canonica to be reformed was forced to resign. Only in the event that he agreed to the reform could he retain his office for a year, with the support of a vicarius from Fregionaia – the time, until the next election of a new prior, whose term of office was set at one year. The first priories, which formed the originally canonical network of Santa Maria of Fregionaia, were Santa Maria of Casoretto near Milan (1405),61 San Leonardo in Monte of Verona (1407),62 Santa Maria della Carità of Venice (1410),63 and Santa Maria delle Isole Tremiti (1412).64 The canons of Fregionaia were involved in the renewal of religious life directly instituted by the pope, in particular Gregory XII, and by means of the support of other members of the papal curia, in whose name the canons from Fregionaia often acted as visitors.
23In the case of San Leonardo in Monte of Verona, an ancient priory belonging to the order of San Marco of Mantua and then passed into commendation,65 on 6 July 1407, the pope appointed as new prior, his own familiaris, Benedetto of Rimini. Together with Leone Gerardini da Carate and Taddeo da Bagnasco, he was one of the first canons of Santa Maria of Fregionaia and in 1405 already led the newly founded priory of Santa Maria di Casoretto.66 In his letter of appointment, the pope made it clear that Benedetto would dispose of all the annual incomes belonging to the priory of San Leonardo and that these would be necessary for the maintenance of the new prior and the small community, which had gathered around him.67 On April 27 1408, the pope reconsidered the relations between Benedetto, his new reformed community and the priory of Santa Maria di Fregionaia. Unlike the first affiliated priory of Santa Maria of Casoretto (1405), which was a juridical subject to Fregionaia,68 San Leonardo remained autonomous but directly connected to Santa Maria of Fregionaia. By order of the superiors, the members of the two canonical centres could move from one house to another. The change of community would have bound them to obedience to the new chapter as if they had made profession there. The office of the prior of both communities was limited to one year. After the period assigned to them elapsed, they would cease to hold office, although the chapter could renew their office a second time even without the authorisation of the diocesan bishop. The two canonical centres, while remaining independent of each other, shared privileges.69
24Gregory XII also played an important role in the reform of the Venetian priory of Santa Maria della Carità. From the twelfth century, this centre had belonged to the congregation of the canons of Santa Maria in Porto near Ravenna.70 From the end of the fourteenth, it had been entrusted commandery to Cardinal Angelo d’Anna de Sommariva of Santa Pudenziana.71 In order to support a renewal of religious life, the Cardinal appointed Francesco Capello to the office of prior, who after the cardinal’s excommunication, turned to Pope Gregory XII in 1409 to obtain confirmation of his election. Once the papal confirmation was achieved, the reform process began, assisted by some canons from Fregionaia and then from 1414 directed by Leone Gherardini da Carate in the office of a vicarius.72
25The latter was also called to act as vicarius in the process of reform of the ancient Cistercian monastery of Santa Maria delle Tremiti. On September 7 1412, Pope Gregory IX had established in a solemn privilege that the Tremiti monastery would be released from its dependence on the Cistercian abbey of Casanova.73 From that moment on a community of canons was established who made their profession according to the rule of St Augustine and who followed the instituta regularia … canonicorum of Santa Maria of Fregionaia. All movable and immovable property and all incomes were entrusted to the new community.74 An interesting element that attests to the involvement of the members of the Venetian circles at the beginning of the canonical reform initiatives is the presence of the Dominican Giovanni Dominici, who in 1409 had been elected Cardinal Priest of San Sisto and who acted at the time of the reform as commendatory of the monastery of Tremiti.75 As we noted before, in Venice he had actively participated in the multifaceted renewal of the spiritual life associated with Ludovico Barbo and Gabriele Coldumer, the future pope Eugene IV, and was active in extending such ideas to the Observant reform of numerous Dominican convents, among which were also some nunneries.76
26San Vittore and San Giovanni in Monte of Bologna were two ancient priories that belonged to the congregation of Santa Maria in Reno in the twelfth century.77 Like other regular canonical centres, the two priories of Bologna had fallen into economic and allegedly spiritual decline during the fourteenth century. Reform negotiations started slowly between 1415 and 1417 with the collaboration of a group of canons from the Lucca priory. The Carthusian monk Niccolò Albergati,78 bishop of Bologna from early 1417, confirmed the union on 6 December 1417 in accordance with the wishes of the canons of the two communities.79 The bishop’s document allows us to see how such a reform formally took place. The two priories of San Leonardo of Verona and Santa Maria of Fregionaia, who in a general chapter had expressed their consent to the incorporation of the two newly reformed priories of Bologna, asked the respective bishops of Verona and Lucca, under whose jurisdiction they were placed, to approve the union and incorporation into their network. In agreement with the operation, the two prelates turned to the bishop of Bologna, inviting him to approve the insertion of regular life into the San Vittore and San Giovanni in Monte, which were under his jurisdiction. With his agreement to the implementation of the reform, the bishop of Bologna also consented to the consolidation of the two Bolognese centres into the first group of the Fregionaia congregation.80 On the same day of the episcopal confirmation, the canons of San Giovanni of Bologna gathered in chapter. A notary read out the bishop’s document to the community, after that the chapter approved unanimously the incorporation to the Fregionaia congregation. The document also informs us that Santa Maria di Fregionaia followed the regula of Saint Augustine and some observantiae, mores ac consuetudines to which the canons of Bologna from that moment on were to submit. Unfortunately, in contrast to the case of Windesheim, we do not have any more detailed information about the process that created these normative texts or the precise procedure followed by the general chapter at this time.
27Once both sides of the union had given their formal assent, there was still another significant step for the reform tam in capite quam in membris to be carried out. The old prior was not prepared to give up his lifetime office, which meant that the canons of Fregionaia had only limited possibilities for completing the reform. Pope Martin V again entrusted the bishop of Bologna as papal visitor, to resolve the dispute and complete the reform.81 For political reasons, however, the bishop was in exile at this time, and the reform was not completed until 1420, when the old prior – in order not to be an obstacle to reform – agreed to renounce to his perpetual office. As a reward for his decision, the chapter entrusted him una voce et affectu once again with this position accompanied by the stipulation that he would leave at the end of the annual term of office.82
28In the next example, we can see how a reform project could intertwine with diplomatic and political relationships, as is visible at Ravenna. Here, in the name of the pope and on the initiative of Obizzo da Polenta, signore of Ravenna and papal vicarius, a reform was initiated in 1419 by an important ancient canonical centre, Santa Maria in Porto.83 This religious renewal could be read as an attempt by the pope to continue to exert political influence in these territories, which were bordering the papal state and now gravitated more and more to Venetian political power. In fact, in 1406, Obizzo had placed Ravenna under political control of Venice, declaring the Marcian Republic protector of his family against the family Este of Ferrara. The first practical consequences of this compromise were the arrival of Venetian podestà and a closer association with the political, cultural, and spiritual world of Venice. This shift of Ravenna towards the political influence of Venice represented a problem for the papacy, which was losing control of territories that until that time had remained in various ways in its sphere of influence. In February 1419, Obizzo received Pope Martin V in Ravenna .84 During his stay, and probably in the direct interest of the pope, Obizzo entrusted the reform of the ancient priory of Santa Maria in Porto directly to the rector of the entire congregation and prior of Fregionaia, Galdino de’ Bardi, while Martin V designated the bishop of Rimini, the Augustinian hermit Girolamo Leonardi, as apostolic visitor.85 The reform decision was probably part of a political project of the papacy, which tried to find new strategic points in these territories. Leonardi arrived in Ravenna on 19 July 1420. On the following day, after the celebration of a solemn Mass, the papal document was read out and translated in the presence of the new community, the bishop of Rimini, and a circle of nobles of Ravenna, close to the Obizzo family. From that moment on, the papal visitor formally introduced the regula of Saint Augustine and the consuetudines of Fregionaia. He then charged the rector of Santa Maria of Fregionaia, Galdino de’ Bardi, one of the canons belonging to the first reformed group of the priory of Lucca, to assist the prior of Ravenna and accompany him in the reform process.86
29Martin V not only supported the reform attempts of new communities but also gave an important legal impulse to the process of institutional and organisational formation of the new congregation, as he did with Windesheim. In 1418 the pope granted Fregionaia, San Leonardo of Verona and the priories of San Vittore and San Giovanni of Bologna apostolic protection and confirmed the privileges approved by his predecessors.87 On 30 June 1421, the pope addressed an official privilege to the network with the letter Sollicitudinis pastoralis. In this document, he confirmed as unum corpus, unaque congregatio similiter et invicem connexa the union of the canonical centres affiliated to the priory of Santa Maria of Fregionaia.88 Before this privilege, the union of priories associated with Fregionaia was a composite group of communities held together both by forms of dependency and by the action of prominent figures. Now the papal privilege recognized the congregation as a legal unity of various houses subject sub una eadem lege, ac observantie regularis unitate, morumque conformitate et eisdem consuetudinibus. Some dispositions were discussed before the proclamation of the privilege, because the general meeting in Ravenna ordered their publication. The pope displaced the congregation of priories from following the constitutions of Benedict XII and approved the privileges granted by Gregory XII, together with the dispositions adopted during the reform process.89
30The pope also authorized the assembly to gather in a general chapter, which could meet annually, biennially, or triennially as required, and was the only body authorized to change the norms and adopt new regulations prout eidem capitulo magis congruum videbitur et utilius secundum Deum et pro communi omnium pace et conservationi regularis observantiae.90 Within the general chapter, provision was made for the election of the rector of the whole congregation. Together with the priors of the individual communities represented in the general chapters, he was to elect the definitors to whom the government of the whole congregation was entrusted. The duration of the appointments was limited to one year, with the possibility of extension for another year. The pope also determined that profession bound each canon not to a particular house, but to the entire congregation. In addition, the latter was given the right to absorb iusto titulo loca et monasteria tam facta quam de novo construenda a quocumque.91 As Cosimo Damiano Fonseca noted, this provision proves that the pope further conceived the new congegratio and its way of life as an instrument for reforming ecclesiastical foundations, just as Gregory XII had already done.92 The concern of the pope for the reform of decaying canonical foundations seems to be in line with the provisions of the last canon established in the forty-third session of the Council of Constance on 21 March 1418, which was dedicated to De vita et honestate clericorum, content in the so-called Decretales reformationis.93 Martin V’s interventions in the process of formation of the canonical congregations both of Fregionaia and of Windesheim was part of this wider reform programme of the vita religiosa as conceived in the ecumenical council, to which he also owed his election. The concern of the pope was not only limited to the organisation of the congregations of the canons of Windesheim and Fregionaia, but was also focused on the parallel monastic reform movement. One year before the documents concerning the canonical congregations of Fregionaia, on 1 January 1419, Martin V addressed a papal privilege, the Ineffabilis summi providentia Patris, to the Benedictine group of monasteries gathered around S. Giustina of Padua. It is clear that the pope’s intervention was aimed at the organization and in a certain sense at the institutionalization of the three congregations, born from the ideas of reform. Just as with Fregionaia and Windesheim the pope established, in accordance also with the wishes of Ludovico Barbo, the authority of the general chapter as a decision-making body for the self-government of the monastic congregatio. He also underlined the role of visitors for the implementation of chapter decisions and the principle of the one-year term of office for the abbots.94 The relations between the two reform movements of Fregionaia and S. Giustina are evident not only in the results of their institutional organization, but also, as Cosimo Damiano Fonseca noted, in the close relationships between their founders. Ludovico Barbo had met Bartolomeo of Rome; he had been deeply fascinated by his reform ideas and had had close relations with Paolo Maffei, another of the first canons of the Fregionaia network, as well as with the secular canons of San Giorgio in Alga.95 It must therefore be assumed that Barbo’s reform initiative followed the Fregionaia model not only on the level of spirituality and ideas, but also in agreement with the pope and the Roman curia regarding matters of practical organisation.
31In 1431, Pope Eugene IV, who came from the intellectual, spiritual and reformist circles of Venice, continued the process of religious renewal of the different ecclesiastical institutions. During the time of his cardinalate, he worked for the reform of the monastery of San Paolo fuori le Mura in the city of Rome, which he entrusted to a group of monks coming from S. Giustina of Padua.96 At the same time, he also began the project of the reform of the secular church of San Giovanni in Laterano, which Boniface VIII had transformed into a house of secular canons at the end of the thirteenth century. He also started to organize the canons of Fregionaia.97 He knew the canonical reform movement originating from Fregionaia from the beginning, since he had been in close relationship with Bartolomeo of Rome at the time of his preaching in the Venetian territory.98 He had also intervened in the reform of the Venetian house of San Salvatore and, as apostolic legate, he had worked to join the priory of San Giacomo and Lazzaro near Ferrara to the congregation of Fregionaia.99
32The general chapter in Fregionaia initially took a very negative view of the project concerning San Giovanni in Laterano. Nevertheless, in 1432, it complied with the pope’s request. Political upheavals in Rome and the military threat of Filippo Maria Visconti at the borders of the Patrimonium Sancti Petri delayed the implementation of the reform project, which was not taken up again until 1439. In that year, the pope removed the secular canons from the Lateran Basilica. The movement of the canons of Fregionaia to the Lateran was achieved only with considerable difficulty and was not possible until 1444. On 10 January 1445, Eugene IV assigned ownership of the Lateran Basilica to the canons of Fregionaia. From that moment on, their title was Congregatio SS. Salvatoris Lateranensis instead of Congregatio Sancte Mariae de Frixonaria, and the church of San Giovanni in Laterano was from that point considered the motherhouse of the associated communities of canons regular.100 The move of the headquarters to Rome and the new name led symbolically to a new institutional phase, which was characterized by ongoing organizational refinement. In the same time period, the papacy played a decisive role in the growth and establishement of canonical reform, first with the Venetian Gregory XII, then with the organisational input of Martin V and then definitively with Eugene IV. The latter, in turn, played a decisive role as a young cleric in the reform of San Giorgio in Alga and had actively participated in the Venetian spiritual and reform circles from which the experiences of Fregionaia and S. Giustina had sprung. When he became cardinal and then pope, he had given the canonical reform experiences, born in Veneto and then spread to Lombardy and in the North of the Peninsula, a new ‘Roman’ dimension, moving the centre to Rome in the heart of Christianity. It should also be noted that the Fregionaia congregation obtained exemption from the power of the diocesan bishop for its dependent priories only in 1439, exactly when the pope launched the project of the Roman reform.101
33The papal reform efforts of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries also addressed the perceived issues in the world of the regular canons. In a similar manner to their efforts with the Benedictines, the popes had tried to introduce a new order, one that was intended to bring the entire vita canonica together under a general name: ordo Sancti Augustini. It became clear, however, that the spatial-geographical criterion of Innocent III, and then later of Benedict XII, was not sufficient to carry out the reforms successfully. Reform required the charismatic influence of founders or the charismatic power of leading old ideals such as the vita apostolica of the first Christian communities, the revival of which was set out in common religious guidelines, disseminated and lived out in an exemplary manner by zealous canons. Alongside this ideal dimension, reform often needed the support of local political and ecclesiastical powers in order to achieve success.
34These conditions emerged at the end of the fourteenth and at the beginning of the fifteenth century, as shown by the cases of Windesheim and of Fregionaia. The process of reform and slow institutional formation of these two congregations presents many similarities with what recent studies have recognized as typical in the emergence and establishment of Observant movements. First, it should be noted that both congregations of regular canons originated from the same general climate of spiritual renewal focused on an intense inner and Christ-centred spirituality. While in the area north of the Alps reform grew directly out of the spiritual impulse of the Devotio Moderna, south of the Alps the reform of Fregionaia emerged, in parallel, out of the “laboratory” of a spiritually engaged Venetian network. These were clerics, like Bartolomeo of Roma, Ludovico Barbo, and Gabriele Coldumer, and other religious belonging to various orders, like the Dominican Giovanni Dominici, who at the beginning of the fifteenth century were striving with their preaching activities and with their example of ascetic life for an extensive reform of the vita religiosa from which also arose the Observant movements. Second, from an ideological point of view both reforms shared the idea of a return to mythical origins common to so many Observant movements, as well as a rhetoric of spiritual decline. Both also used the same linguistic tools, such as the rhetoric of faithful commitment to a regularis observantia. A third consideration centres on the new organizational form of congregationes. By abandoning a form of organization based on a purely geographical principle, these were a development of Benedict XII’s ancient proposal for reform. A central moment in the process of formation of the two canonical networks was the pontificate of Martin V, who strove to implement the reform decisions of the Council of Constance regarding the vita religiosa. He endowed both canonical networks with a defined institutional structure in the form of congregations, and modelled it on the organisational structure of the mendicants. Also key for the success of these reforms were the abandonment of a top-down structure and the introduction of a more democratic organisation, characterised by general chapters, the activity of elected definitores as a legislating body, and a system of visitation to ensure proper regulation of a uniformity of life and liturgy. The leadership of the congregation was entrusted to a rector, chosen annually in the chapter. The individual houses were led by a prior, who was elected in the chapter of the individual communities and who held office for one year. Another factor was a large mobility of the canons belonging to the first reformed communities, who, following the model of the mendicant orders, were not bound to stabilitas within the priory in which they made their religious profession and could therefore act as visitors to follow the reform process on site. Fourth, a very important task for a positive result of these reform attempts was the support of political and ecclesiastical power, particularly of the papacy.
35In the case of Windesheim, the impulse seems to have been closely linked with the initiative of many bishops and archbishops, as well as with territorial princes who supported the action of canons in charge of the reform process across many territories (Germany, Belgium, and the Low Countries). At the beginning, the popes limited themselves to sporadic interventions focused on the institutional establishment of congregations, on establishing general chapters, and on the drafting of common regulations. In contrast, the essential core for the formation of the congregation of Fregionaia consisted in close and direct relations with the papacy. Particularly two Venetian popes, Gregory XII and Eugene IV, tied to each other by familial bonds and belonging to the spiritual networks of Venice, supported the reform process. Gregory XII sustained the canons of the first community in Fregionaia with the assistance of the local bishops and the urban patriciate, reforming different priories from the Veneto to Lombardy and establishing himself as a defender of their institutional connection to the congregation. Martin V and Eugene IV also sustained the growth of reform in different parts of the peninsula, though in their ‘reform politics’, it is also possible to recognize a direct interest in regaining territories on the geographical periphery of the papacy’s sphere of influence. With the granting of complete exemption from episcopal jurisdiction and with the transfer of the centre of the congregation from Fregionaia to Rome during the pontificate of Eugene IV, the process of institutional formation came to an end. From this moment on, the regular canons began to reflect with renewed interest and depth on their identity, on the meaning of their pastoral vocation and on their role in Christian society. The two canonical congregations considered in their own distinct way can be understood as part of the wider world of the Observant movement.
Notes de bas de page
1See Zarri 2015; Meyer – Viallet 2005; Pellegrini – Varanini 2011.
2On the connections between Devotio Moderna, the humanism and Venetian intellectual circles, cf. Favreau-Lilie 2004 and Picasso 1999.
3Andenna 2009. On the congregation of Santa Croce di Mortara, see Andenna 2007.
4Pauly 1962.
5On the congregation of Saint Ruf, see Veyrenche 2018; on Saint-Victor in Paris, see Gebert 2015, p. 119-171 and Feiss – Mousseau 2018.
6On the exemple of the reform of the Mortariensis Ecclesia, see Andenna 2009, p. 404-406. On the experiment of the general chapters in the time Innocent III, see Alberzoni 2012, p. 96-101.
7Felten 1992.
8Fulgens sicut stella (12 July 1335), in Tomassetti 1859, p. 330-345. Mahn 1949; Schimmelpfennig 1976 and Jamroziak 2013, p. 242, 243, 250, 261.
9Summi Magistri (20 June 1336), in Tomassetti 1859, p. 348-387. Ballweg 2001.
10Redemptor noster (28 November 1336), in Tomassetti 1859, p. 391-415. For the missing reform of the Dominicans, see Felten 1991.
11Ad decorem Ecclesiae (15 May 1339), in Tomassetti 1859, p. 424-456 and Salter 1922, p. 214-267 (from which I quote). For the reform of the Regular Canons, see Felten 1989.
12Ad decorem ecclesiae, particularly chap. 1, p. 215-216; chap. 4, p. 217-218; chap. 7, p. 223-220; chap. 8, p. 226-227. See also Andenna 2018, p. 324-325.
13Ad decorem ecclesiae, particularly chap. 11-12; on the organisation of the studia, see Boehm 1978.
14Andenna 2018, p. 325; Giroud 1961, p. 43 and 100-102.
15Mertens 1996, p. 158.
16On Devotio moderna see Andenna 2018, p. 325-326; Zeyer 2017; Boer – Kwiatkowski 2013; Van Engen 2008; Elm 2004. On Groote and the Brothers of Common Life, see Lim 2017 and Staubach 2004.
17On Florent Radewijns, see Epiney-Burgard 2000.
18Egger 1975c; Haverals 2014, p. 5-6; Acquoy 1875-1880, III, p. 262-264.
19Haverals 2014, p. 6-8.
20Louviot 2019a, p. 26. On the monastery of Mariënborn, see Kohl – Persoons – Weiler 1976-1984, III, p. 127-144; on the monastery of Nieuwlicht, see ibid., p. 323-343.
21Haverals 2014, p. 9-10.
22On Johannes Busch, cf. Lesser 2005. The Liber de reformatione monasteriorum is a part of the Chronicon Windeshemense, cf. Grube 1886, p. 377-799. A new edition is in preparation, cf. Lesser forthcoming. On this text and his significance, see Mixson 2015b and Huijbers 2015.
23Grube 1886, p. 308-309: Summa igitur diligentia discretaque providencia antiquorum regularium instituta continue relegentes exacte masticantes undique perlustrantes ac inter se diversa ad invicem comparantes optima tandem et ordini nostro moderneque devocioni perutilia ex ipsis extrahentes ediderunt instituta temporibus et personis nostri presentibus et futuris bene apta et proporcionata. Ubi autem, quod querebant, in ipsis non repererunt, ex aliorum id ordinum institutis presertim Carthusiensium supplere curaverunt, cuncta in uno volumine in quatuor partes diviso. See Haverals 2014, p. 10-11;
24Louviot 2019a, p. 25-27.
25Louviot 2019a, p. 26; Kohl 1989; Kohl – Persoons – Weiler 1976-1984, III, p. 183-202.
26Acquoy 1875-1880, III, p. 302-305.
27Haverals 2014, p. 11-12.
28Louviot 2019a, p. 31.
29Haverals 2014, p. 12.
30Haverals 2014, p. 11-12 and 15-17.
31Duaols 1975, col. 803-805.
32Rüthing 1989 p. 36-41.
33Haverals 2014, p. 13-14; Acquoy 1875-1880, III, p. 282-287.
34Hofmeister 1941, p. 178-180.
35Haverals 2014, p. 13; the privilege is in the collection of Bosman s.d., p. 9-15.
36Haverals 2014, p. 13; Van der Woude 1953, p. 20-22.
37Hofmeister 1941, p. 167-168.
38Haverals 2014, p. 14; Lourdaux – Peersoons 1964, p. 203-204; Van der Woude 1953, anno 1434, p. 28.
39Bärsch 2014, p. 24.
40Louviot 2019a, p. 33.
41Hotchin 2008.
42Louviot 2019a, p. 35.
43Louviot 2019a, p. 32-33 and Appendix 2 with a list of reformed monasteries in the different diocesis and territories.
44Louviot 2019a, p. 33; for the story of this reform proceeding, see Grube 1886, p. 555-568.
45Louviot 2019a, p. 35-36.
46Girgensohn 1996, p. 182-189.
47Uginet 1983; Favreau-Lilie 2004, p. 304-305. On the Reform of San Giorgio in Alga, see Helmrath 1989, p. 80-82; Cracco 1989; Fonseca 1984; Cracco 1959.
48Del Torre 2006.
49Romanello 1980, p. 1446; Pratesi 1964; Tassi 1952.
50On the reform of S. Giustina, see Haering 2013, p. 55-74; Favreau-Lilie 2004, p. 301-307; Trolese 1984b; Trolese 1983; Trolese 1976.
51On Giovanni Dominici, see Debby 2001; Cracco 1990 and 1963. On Tommaso Antonio Caffarini, see Hamburger − Signori 2013; Nocentini 2005; Manselli 1983.
52On the observant reform of the Dominicans, see Festa 2009.
53Tramontin 1974; Fonseca 2005.
54Teofilo Michiel, first prior of the monastery of Polirone, reformed following the model of the monastery of S. Giustina of Padua, described the indefatigably activity of Bartolomeo in a letter written as funeral eulogy, see Fonseca 2005, p. 456: sollicitudo omnium ecclesiarum, virum istum semper occupabat, et non poterat diebus ac noctibus suspirans ac lacrimans ab hac instantia requiescere; si fieri potuisset omnia templa Dei dirrupta voluisset protinus reparare, omnia vero loca ecclesiastica in cultu Dei et observes eas deformata, procurabat omnimodis reformare.
55On Fregionaia, cf. Fonseca 1979 and Widloecher 1929, p. 77-85.
56Widloecher 1929, p. 31 and 39-41.
57Pennotto 1624, p. 575; Widloecher 1929, p. 31-32.
58Leone Gherardini da Carate, after a long activity as procurator, sindicus et prior in the monastery of San Pietro in Ciel d’Oro, was in 1406 canon in Fregionaia. After having been prior of Fregionaia in 1408, Leone left Fragionaia to help the reform attempt of Santa Maria delle Tremiti and was probably elected prior there in 1412. In 1414, he acted as vicarius in the reform of Santa Maria della Carità di Venezia. In 1418 and 1419, he was a visitor, committed from Fregionaia, in different newly reformed priories and a year later acted again as procurator in the priory of Tremiti. On the 30 of June 1421, Leone was elected prior of the just reformed priory of San Salvatore of Brescia and one year later he was prepositus in the same priory. In 1428 he was elected prior of San Lazzaro of Rimini. In the last years of his life he was prior of Santa Croce of Cesena many times, until the year 1438, when he died. On him, Lo Schiavo 1985, p. 331-332.
59Taddeo da Bagnasco was canon in San Pietro in Ciel d’Oro, where he is attested acting in 1397 and 1402. Since 1406 he was instead in the community of Fregionaia. In 1417-1418 he was vicarius in the priory of Santa Maria della Carità in Venezia and a year later prior of Santa Maria of Casoretto, near Milano. In 1424 he was elected prior of the newly reformed priory of SS. Lazzaro and Giacomo of Ferrara. Between 1428 and 1429 he accompaigned the rector of the Fregionaia congregatio as socius in different visitationes and in 1434 was present in the general chapter. On him, Lo Schiavo 1985, p. 329-330.
60Andenna 2023; 2007, p.153-154; Fonseca 2005; Lo Schiavo 1985, p. 342-443.
61Widloecher 1929, p. 37-39. About Casoretto, see also Brancato 2012, p. 388-390.
62Widloecher 1929, p. 39-41.
63Widloecher 1929, p. 41-42.
64Widloecher 1929, p. 41-45.
65Biancolini 1749-1771, III, p. 25-29. On the Congregatio of San Marco of Mantua, see Gardoni 2005.
66The priory was founded in 1404 by a Milanese nobleman, Pietro Tanzi, who had called the canons of Fregionaia to introduce in the new foundation a regular discipline; Widloecher 1929, p. 37-39 and Brancato 2012, p. 388-389.
67Pennotto 1624, p. 582.
68In the legate of Pietro Tanzi was disposed, that the new priory was directed subjected sub protectione, iurisdictione, observantia et honore of Santa Maria of Fregionaia and could enjoy all privilegiis, honoribus, iuribus, iurisdictionibus, immunitatibus et exemptionibus, enjoyed by all the other subjected priories. Once a year the prior of the Milanese priory would have to go to Lucca, here swear obedience to the superior of the community of Fregionaia and lay two wax candles on the altar; Widloecher 1929, p. 37-38, fn. 1.
69Bullarium Lateranense 1727, p. 150.
70On the congregation of Porto, see Andenna C. 2009, p. 418-420 and Gehrt 1984, p. 79-114.
71Strnad 1986.
72Widloecher 1929, p. 41-42.
73On Casanova: Paciocco 1994. About Santa Maria delle Tremiti in the Cistercian time: Santoro 2007. Into the fifteenth century, Andenna 2011.
74Widloecher 1929, Appendice, p. 358-359, doc. 2.
75Widloecher 1929, p. 43-44.
76Cracco 1963.
77On the congregation of the regular canons of Santa Maria in Reno of Bologna, cf. Andenna 2009, p. 416-418; Gehrt 1984, p. 115-170 and about the process of reform in the fifteenth century and the creation of the regular canons of the Congregation of the Santissimo Salvatore, see Zarri 2018. On San Giovanni in Monte, see Zarri 1996.
78Pasztor 1960; Wolter 1980. In the same years, Nicolò was also closely connected with the reform of Santa Maria in Reno. He received in 1418 the commitment from the pope Martin V to formalize the union of this congregation into the congregation of the regular canons of Sant’Ambrogio of Gubbio. The act of union was composed in the bishop palast on the of 4 March 1419; see Toth 1934, I, p. 229-232 and Zarri 2018, p. 27-28.
79Pennotto 1624, p. 601-605; Widloecher 1929, p. 42-45.
80Pennotto 1624, p. 602-603.
81Widloecher 1929, p. 49.
82Widloecher 1929, p. 49-50.
83Cantelmi 2015.
84Cantelmi 2015.
85Bullarium Lateranense 1727, p. 153-154.
86Galdino de’ Bardi came to Santa Maria of Fregionaia in 1405. In the year 1419, he was elected rector of the whole congregatio and was entrusted with the reform of the priory of Santa Maria in Porto of Ravenna, of which he became prior in 1426 and 1427. He cooperated also with the reform of San Lazzaro of Rimini. From 1421 and 1429 he was continuously socius of the rector of Fregionaia. In the year 1431 and 1432, he himself was again elected rector of the congregation and went to Rome with Leone Gerardini da Carate to promote the sustaining of Eugene IV; Widloecher 1929, p. 33; 59-60; 65; 78; 90-93; 154; 304-305; Pennotto 1624, p. 617.
87Bullarium Lateranense 1727, p. 151-152.
88Ibid., p. 154-157.
89Ibid., p. 155; Fonseca 1984, p. 301.
90Bullarium Lateranense 1727, p. 157.
91Ibid., p. 157-158; Widloecher 1929, p. 65-72.
92Fonseca 1992, p. 82-84.
93Alberigo – Melloni 2013, II, p. 449-450; see also Stump 1994, p. 157-158.
94Tassi 1952, p. 54-57 and Fonseca 1984, p. 302.
95Fonseca 1984, p. 298-303; D’Arcangelo 2012, p. 376-380.
96Barone 1992.
97Aurora 2018.
98Fonseca 1984, p. 298.
99Widloecher 1929, p. 62-63.
100Bullarium lateranense 1727, p. 162-163; Widloecher 1929, p. 73-92; Egger 1975b, p. 104-106; Aubert 2009, col. 875; Fonseca 1979; Lo Schiavo 1985, p. 342-347; Andenna 2018, p. 326.
101Bullarium lateranense 1727, p. 161-162.
Auteur
-
Cristina Andenna
Universität des Saarlandes, Saarbrücken, cristina.andenna@uni-saarland.de
Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence Licence OpenEdition Books. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.
Le Thermalisme en Toscane à la fin du Moyen Âge
Les bains siennois de la fin du XIIIe siècle au début du XVIe siècle
Didier Boisseuil
2002
Rome et la Révolution française
La théologie politique et la politique du Saint-Siège devant la Révolution française (1789-1799)
Gérard Pelletier
2004
Sainte-Marie-Majeure
Une basilique de Rome dans l’histoire de la ville et de son église (Ve-XIIIe siècle)
Victor Saxer
2001
Offices et papauté (XIVe-XVIIe siècle)
Charges, hommes, destins
Armand Jamme et Olivier Poncet (dir.)
2005
La politique au naturel
Comportement des hommes politiques et représentations publiques en France et en Italie du XIXe au XXIe siècle
Fabrice D’Almeida
2007
La Réforme en France et en Italie
Contacts, comparaisons et contrastes
Philip Benedict, Silvana Seidel Menchi et Alain Tallon (dir.)
2007
Pratiques sociales et politiques judiciaires dans les villes de l’Occident à la fin du Moyen Âge
Jacques Chiffoleau, Claude Gauvard et Andrea Zorzi (dir.)
2007
Souverain et pontife
Recherches prosopographiques sur la Curie Romaine à l’âge de la Restauration (1814-1846)
Philippe Bountry
2002
