![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cahnLast post, along with the usual 18th-century suspects, included the Ottonians; changing ideas of conception and women's sexual pleasure; Isabella of Parma (the one who fell in love, and vice versa, with her husband's sister); Henry IV and Bertha (and Henry's second wife divorcing him for "unspeakable sexual acts"). (Okay, Isabella of Parma was 18th century.)
The Making and Doubting of a Sensational Tale: The Rape of Fano
Date: 2022-11-28 02:47 pm (UTC)Reminder: after Alessandro de' Medici got murdered, Margaret after a short widowed interlude next got married by her father Charles V. to another papal relation, this one of the new Pope, Paul III, aka Alessandro Farnese. Margaret's husband, Ottavio, was even younger than teenage her, and they did not get on from the start, with Ottavio claiming he'd had her in the wedding night and Margaret scornfully saying he only wet himself, which he never forgave her for. She also refused to have sex with him for years until her grandfather-in-law the Pope talked her around, at which point Ottavio and Margaret reproduced, twins, and thereafter kept out of each other's ways again for the most part. But the guy who concerns us now is Ottavio's father and the Pope's son, Pier Luigi. Pier Luigi Farnese, whom his father had made Grand Captain of the Church (i.e. basically top general of the Papal army, i.e. Cesare Borgia's old job) had and still has a terrible reputation. That's not debated. What is debated is whether shortly before Margaret married Ottavio, he committed one particular crime: the "Rape of Fano". Essentially: raping a young bishop to death.
The facts, such as they can be ascertained, are these: Cosimo Gheri, Bishop of Fano, only 24 and thus a typical Renaissance prince of the church who inherited the job from his late uncle, died in September 1737. According to a laudatory account of him written by a former fellow student of his, Ludovico Beccadelli, he died of a fever (probably malaria); he got praised for his learning and devotion, and Fano historians have certified to his good works during his short time in office.
Pier Luigi Farnese had visited Fano in May 1537, and on that occasion, on May 23rd, did have dinner with the bishop alone, according to a letter of the bishop to Beccadelli. So far, so non-sensational. However, more than a year after the bishop's death, on November 18, 1538, an agent of Cardinal Conzaga's writes to his patron that a friend has seen in a bookstore at Nuremberg books about "il sanguinolento fatto d'armi di Pier Luigi col Vescovo di Fano". (Reminder, at this point, the Reformation is in full swing, Nuremberg has become majorly Protestant, and stories about papal bastards buggering bishops are eaten up with a spoon.)
By 1549, at which point Pier Luigi has been gruesomely killed by his new subjects in Parma and Paul III. has died more peacefully, there's a printed in English satire on the occasion of Paul III's death which does mention in detail, the story of Pier Luigi (or rather Peter Aloysius, an anglization which I have to admit sounds funny to me) having raped the young Bishop of Fano and the young guy dying of it afterwards. However, this wasn't the first take in English on this story. There's a far earlier one, from March 1539, written by one Richard Morryson who started out as a law student in Padua and living in the household of future Cardinal and last Plantagenet Reginald Pole, and then got recruited by Hilary Mantel hero Thomas Cromwell in whose service he wrote half a dozen tracts about the evils of the Catholic Church. In a March 1539 pamphlet, he gives us the "Pier Luigi and the Bishop of Fano" saga in incredible detail. Choice Tudor English quote, after Pier Luigi has come into town and the Bishop, being a polite host, has said that he and his palace are at the Captain (of the Church)'s disposal:
I knew the bysshoppe wonderfull well: he was undoubted, as well lerned a yonge man, as fewe were in Italy. (...) The Capytaine, after the byshop had bydden hym good nyghte, called 3 or 4 of his men to hym, tellynge them all of the byshops offer, sayinge, I lyke well this parte of the offer, that his body is at my commandemente, I intende to morrow int he mornynge to prove, whether he be a man of his worde or noo. If I canne not obteyne by fayre meanes, I intende to use your helpe, and have it by force.
The dastardly plan is followed up, the poor young bishop gets beaten up and raped by Pier Luigi. The bishop then comes up with a surprise twist: The byshop sayd, Sodom & Gomorrah sunke for this synne (...) woll not the emperour one day se lawes m ade for such syn executed? I trust to se his maiestie, er it be longe, I truste to be harde, and nothyinge doubt, but he woll se this ultrage, this vylanye, that thou haste done me, punished.
Pier Luigi, apparantly sure that Dad won't punish him but the Emperor (i.e. Charles V.) will, decides he better do something and has the Bishop poisoned. So far the 1539 Morryson pamphlet. The next and most famous take on the story is by Benedetto Varchi in his official Storia Fiorentina, commissioned in 1547. Here, the outrage happens as well, but somewhat differently:
In that same year a case took place, of which I do not remember having heard or read [...] a more execrable one [...] Messer Cosimo Gheri from Pistoia, Bishop of Fano, was aged twenty-four [...] when Lord Pier Luigi da Farnese (drunk of his own success and sure of his father's indulgence so that he was not to be chastised nor scolded, he went to the lands of the Church raping, either out of love or by force, how many young people he saw and liked) he left the city of Ancona to go to Fano, where a friar was Governor [...]. Having heard the coming of Pier Luigi and wishing to meet him, he asked the Bishop if he wanted to go to honor the Pontiff's son and Gonfalonier of the Holy Church; which he did, yet not very willingly. The first thing that Pier Luigi asked the Bishop was (but in his own and obscene words according to his custom, which was extremely disheartened) "how he enjoyed and had good time with those beautiful women of Fano". The Bishop, who was no less shrewd than good, acknowledging the question (and who made it) for what they were, replied modestly although somewhat indignant that "this was not his business" and, to draw himself out of that reasoning, he added: "Your excellency would do a great good to this city, which is all divided into factions, and through prudence and authority unify and pacify it". The next day, having planned what he intended to do, Pier Luigi sent (as if he wanted to reconcile the people of Fano) to call first the Governor, then the Bishop. The Governor left the room as soon as he saw the Bishop, and Pier Luigi began palpating and wrinkling the Bishop, wanting to do the most dishonest acts one could do with females. Because the Bishop, who was of little and very weak complexion [...] defended himself vigorously not only from him (who, being full of syphilis, almost couldn’t stand up), but from his other accomplices too, who were bidding to keep him still, he had him tied up [...]. Not only did they keep their naked daggers at his throat threatening him continually, if he moved, to slaughter him, but they also struck him with the tips and the knobs so that the signs remained there.
The bishop then dies after forty days of physical and emotional shock. In Rome only Cardinal Carpi dares to protest, the Pope instantly issues a bull of absolution (hasn't been found), and when the news reach Germany, the Lutherans have a blast deriding "this new kind of martyrdom of the saints". No threat to tell the Emperor is mentioned, nor any poisoning.
Now, the George B. Parks essay points out that Beccadilli, former fellow student of the bishop's, whose account is scandal free, quotes various letters from his schoolmate between Pier Luigi's May visit and the bishop's death in September which indicate normal activities until the last fifty days before his death during which he was sick, and also that he, the bishop, remained in Fano when Pier Luigi Farnese paid a return visit on July 5th, at which point he hadn't been ill yet. (Meaning, I presume, that if the bishop had been raped on May 23rd or 24th (depending on whether you believe the story where he gets raped the next day or the one where he gets raped the same day), one would expect him to be out of town for the return of his rapist.
Which sounds true enough, and also Varchi's description of Pier Luigi being so eaten by syphilis that he can't stand on his own is demonstrably false (he went on to live, lead armies and terrorize people, which involved a lot of riding under stressful conditions, for ten years more), but otoh, I don't see Pier Luigi completely in the clear on this one yet. Not least because the young Bishop is hardly unique in dying of a fever in Italy, and yet a year later you have gossip in very different places - Rome, Nuremberg, Britain, and a decade later Florence. Now, Nuremberg Protestants and Cromwell's pamphleteer are hardly unbiased chroniclers - they're Protestants invested in making the Papacy look as terrible as possible, and when for example Morryson, who at this point lives in England and is cut off from his earlier connections to Pole's household, gives us lengthy dialogue between Pier Luigi and the bishop, and Pier Luigi and his men, he's clearly making things up since he can't have witness reports on these. As for Varchi, Florence and Rome are into mutual loathing each other. But, different and ideologically motivated as these accounts are, they do agree on one thing: Pier Luigi raping the Bishop. And it's not like this young guy was famous so that his early death would have needed an explanation. (Like the disappearing Princes in the Tower.) So why does everyone fixate so quickly on this guy as Pier Luigi's victim? As for Beccadelli NOT mentioning anything unusual in his elogy on his dead friend, well, if you'll recall Formey's elogy of Peter Keith as referenced by Mildred manages to vaguely mention "circumstances" causing Peter to spend a decade abroad (escape attempt, what's that?). So if I were a member of the jury, I might not think there's enough to convict, but I would have still my doubts Pier Luigi didn't do something that people noticed. Not a gang rape or a gang beating with ensueing rape, maybe, but he could have made a pass?
(That he was at the very least bi in the modern sense and not always bothering with consent is certified; there's a letter from his father the Pope reproaching him for taking male lovers when on a official mission to the Emperor's court, and according to wiki another from the chancellor of the Florentine embassy detailing a man-hunt he had mounted in Rome to search for a youth who had refused his advances.)
Re: The Making and Doubting of a Sensational Tale: The Rape of Fano
Date: 2022-11-28 05:19 pm (UTC)So if I were a member of the jury, I might not think there's enough to convict, but I would have still my doubts Pier Luigi didn't do something that people noticed. Not a gang rape or a gang beating with ensueing rape, maybe, but he could have made a pass?
Yeah, that seems reasonable. Smoke doesn't always mean fire, but after reading this account, I have a lot of questions.
the young Bishop is hardly unique in dying of a fever in Italy
Trufax! Cahn, if you listen to the podcast, you will get an example almost every episode. (A while back, after listening to a bunch of those episodes, my wife wanted to know how the Normans even survived setting up a kingdom in southern Italy. I said, probably the same way the Normans survived everywhere: the men showed up, spread their Y chromosomes, and procreated with the local women. Their descendants presumably had all the same mutations that allowed the locals to survive malaria in great enough numbers to sustain a population. Then I started reading this article on the history of malaria in southern Europe, because getting sidetracked is a way of life. :'D)
Morryson, who at this point lives in England and is cut off from his earlier connections to Pole's household, gives us lengthy dialogue between Pier Luigi and the bishop, and Pier Luigi and his men, he's clearly making things up since he can't have witness reports on these.
Yeah, and I admit, "If I canne not obteyne by fayre meanes, I intende to use your helpe, and have it by force" immediately made me suspicious, because people don't usually admit up front to their victims that they're not using fair means, they will usually try to rationalize why their use of force would be justified. Especially if they're trying to get said victim to give in without the immediate use of force.
another from the chancellor of the Florentine embassy detailing a man-hunt he had mounted in Rome to search for a youth who had refused his advances.
Wow, a manhunt? That's not just rape, that's a sense of entitlement and inability to take no for an answer that's hardcore.
Interesting, thanks for sharing!
Re: The Making and Doubting of a Sensational Tale: The Rape of Fano
Date: 2022-11-28 06:01 pm (UTC)Yep. Mind you, "a youth" is different from "a Bishop" (i.e. prince of the church, noble with connections), and it's not like Pier Luigi couldn't think strategically. He had a fairly successful career as a condottiere before his father ever became Pope. The Farnese even managed to play their cards right during the Sacco di Roma - Pier Lugi fought for the Imperials, his brother Rannuccio for Pope Clement, when the imperial troops took the city, Pier Luigi "occupied" the family palace, thereby ensuring it wasn't sacked (while pretty much everyone else's palaces were), but because his brother meanwhile was holed up with the Pope (and Cardinal Dad Farnese) in San Angelo, Clement had no room for complaints against the general Farnese loyalty when the dust was settling.
However, no one I've seen is making the case Pier Luigi was anything but a ruthless Renaissance thug either before or after his father made Pope, and if he had good qualities, his Dad must have been the only one to see them. (Note: Alessandro Farnese the future Pope Paul III seems to have had all his known children with the same woman, Silvia Ruffini, and there are no other known mistresses, either. Which probably intensified the family bod. Also Alessandro/Paul III was nothing if not loyal; he defended and spoke well of his original patron, Rodrigo Borgia/Alexander VI, till his dying day, when it had been convenient for everyone else to pretend the Borgia had been the worst (as opposed to Spaniards daring to successfully interfere where only the Italian nobility wanted to go) and to distance themselves.) Pier Luigi's death was also one of these spectacularily nasty Renaissance events where he got stabbed to death and then his body was hung out of the window of his own palace. Since Charles V. (by then having joined the ranks of Pier Luigi's multitudes of enemies) had at the very least known about the conspiracy leading up to this, and likely greenlighted it, which grieving father Paul III. promptly accused the Emperor of in public, life for Margaret must have been very difficult. (Especially since her grandfather-in-law the Pope was the only one of her in-laws whom she actually got on well with and liked, and vice versa.)
(Margaret's two marriages: featuring two of the more infamous murders of the Renaissance.)
I admit, "If I canne not obteyne by fayre meanes, I intende to use your helpe, and have it by force" immediately made me suspicious, because people don't usually admit up front to their victims
Indeed. It sounds like the outline of drama scene more than like a real life event. What I found interesting isn't that Morryson has the whole event ending by poison (as opposed to a broken heart/soul like Varchi), but that he has the Bishop threaten to appeal to the Emperor in order to motivate the poisoning. Why do I find this interesting? Because if his pamphlet is from 1539, this is BEFORE the official fallout between Charles and the Farneses, and it's not like Charles "No, you're not divorcing my Aunt" V. was a good guy as seen by Morryson's patron Thomas Cromwell and Henry VIII - there was no money in presenting him as a higher authority, either, you want your English readers to root for Henry as the ultimate authority in everything, after all.
Re: The Making and Doubting of a Sensational Tale: The Rape of Fano
Date: 2022-12-04 05:16 am (UTC)Trufax! Cahn, if you listen to the podcast, you will get an example almost every episode.
Gosh, I knew this happened (though not with that frequency) -- but I didn't know it was malaria!
Re: The Making and Doubting of a Sensational Tale: The Rape of Fano
Date: 2022-12-04 07:35 am (UTC)Re: The Making and Doubting of a Sensational Tale: The Rape of Fano
Date: 2022-12-04 05:16 am (UTC)this is still hilarious to me, ngl
But the guy who concerns us now is Ottavio's father and the Pope's son, Pier Luigi.
Uhhhh I blame the discussion of Pope Joan in the previous post, but for a second I misparsed that as [Ottavio's father's and the Pope's] son and did a double take :)
Essentially: raping a young bishop to death.
Me: WHAT
If I canne not obteyne by fayre meanes, I intende to use your helpe, and have it by force.
Wow, that is... something else! (Definitely sounds like the villain in a melodrama rather than a real person. As you and mildred say.)
So if I were a member of the jury, I might not think there's enough to convict, but I would have still my doubts Pier Luigi didn't do something that people noticed. Not a gang rape or a gang beating with ensueing rape, maybe, but he could have made a pass?
...sounds reasonable!
Re: The Making and Doubting of a Sensational Tale: The Rape of Fano
Date: 2022-12-04 01:57 pm (UTC)Oh, same here. I mean, it's slightly unfair of me re: teenage Ottavio, who I'm sure was under a lot of pressure from his family and was shamed afterwards for, err, not performing, given his father (whether or not his father was a bishop rapist, he certainly had lots of sex with both genders). But because of the social rules of the day, first teenage and then adult Ottavia was given complete power over his wife, and so my sympathies will always be with Margaret first.
(And I'm really glad she won Grandfather Pope's sympathies, which allowed her to be first lady of Rome socially, learn a lot and be talked into sleeping with Ottavia seven years later, as opposed to being forced to have sex with him as her wifely duty right then and there, which I'm sure would have been Pier Luigi's idea of how to solve the Ottavio/Margaret problem.)
Re: The Making and Doubting of a Sensational Tale: The Rape of Fano
Date: 2022-12-18 10:24 pm (UTC)