In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Reviewed by:
  • Benedetto XIII (1724-1730): Un papa del Settecento secondo il giudizio dei contemporanei by Orietta Filippini
  • Volker Reinhardt
Benedetto XIII (1724-1730): Un papa del Settecento secondo il giudizio dei contemporanei. By Orietta Filippini. [Päpste und Papsttum, Band 40.] (Stuttgart: Anton Hiersemann. 2012. Pp. viii, 427. €158,00. ISBN 978-3-7772-1211-1.)

Only very few popes seem to have received such an irrevocable judgment as did Benedict XIII Orsini (1724-30): A quixotic ascetic, frittering away time with ceremonies rather than ruling Church and State, which he had handed over to his dubious minion Niccolò Coscia and others for despoilment. Even well-meaning commentators could only mollify this verdict by referring to extenuating circumstances such as his naïve trust and his blemished knowledge of human nature and its abysses—a rather controversial conclusion for such a well-versed theologian as Orsini.

These clichés don't live up to the complex historical reality, as was demonstrated by Beate Mehlin's study Gestörte Formation: Erdbebenbewältigung in Benevent und Verwirchlichung von Herrschaft im Kirchenstaat 1680-1730 (Tübingen, 2003). She provided conclusive evidence of how cunningly the then-archbishop of Benevento employed the [End Page 569] devastating earthquakes of both 1684 and 1702 to his personal benefit. Having been buried and saved twice, he thus celebrated his personal divine election and in the meantime made the town dependent on himself and his family by providing credit to the ruined city.

The present study makes an effort to differentiate this seemingly one-dimensional papacy as well; however, it regrettably neglects to implement Mehlin's results. Its merits, though, consist in presenting an extensive panoramic view of the contemporary evaluation of pontifex and papacy, ranking from standard historiography to the ramified correspondence of second and even third-ranked members of the Curia. This reconstruction of Benedict XIII's memoria is driven by the question how—judging by these pro and contra statements—his style of government might be characterized and to what extent conclusions can be drawn regarding his actual objectives and approaches. Making this collective memory available required nearly heroic diligence for which the author deserves praise and is in itself already a considerable achievement. Using these sources to provide an accurate scientific judgment sine ira et studio, however, proves useless since all these emotionally loaded evaluations remain either hagiographic or critical of Orsini's arriviste career: the holy and fey pope who trusted bad counselors and so on. New approaches shine through, but are not thoroughly followed up. Benedict XIII actually did not install a cardinal-nephew as regent but preferred to create his own minion, Cardinal Coscia, ex nihilo, which is in fact a reaction to Innocent XII's bull Romanum decet pontificem (1692), not (as suggested by the author) forbidding nepotism but managing to bring it down to a still very considerable dimension. Hence this reform brings something new to Rome: the favori not related by blood, who—just like his predecessor, the cardinal-nephew—was showered with privileges and by their relentless exploitation managed to amass a fortune and to create his own network, soon pervading every single part of the reign and the administration. In stark contrast to the cardinal-nephew, however, this social and financial rampage brings about the minion's downfall. Here, Rome applies a different measure—but why? Comparison and further inquiry might have been appropriate here. One explanation seems logical: Especially a pope of such a spiritual reputation as Benedict XIII needed someone who could act as a "lightening rod" and was held responsible for the worldly aspects of the regime. Of course, this function also was adopted by a cardinal-nephew, hereby often considerably damaging the family's reputation. The entire critique of the Orsini's papacy was actually attributed to Coscia, which must be seen as a deliberate and well-considered calculatio. The image of a politically absent pope can therefore definitely be refuted. But this was already the case before the present study, which regrettably did not devote its great effort and ingenuity to more relevant problems and questions related to the Orsini pontificate. [End Page 570]

Volker Reinhardt
Université de Fribourg

pdf

Share