No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 October 2016
The Venerable English College in Rome was a product of the Counter-Reformation, which transformed the old English Hospice into a seminary second only to Douai in its importance for the mission. The nineteenth century was also a period of great vigour, when its alumni exercised considerable influence on the development of the Catholicism of the ‘Second Spring’ from their positions in the restored hierarchy, and when there grew up a style of seminary administration and of ‘Englishness abroad’ which was to last well into the present century and vestiges of which still remain.
(1) Scr 45:2:15.
(2) Scr 50:3:3–8.
(3) Scr 50:3:9. This is dated November 1773, after the dissolution of the Jesuits.
(4) Scr 46:5:12 complains against the Jesuits in terms similar to those used later of the Italian superiors.
(5) Kirk, who arrived in June 1773, mentions three superiors, a Rector, Minister and Confessor, all with English names. I have found no reference elsewhere to any Spaniard connected with the College at this time, although there is mention of a Fleming priest named Malliaert, to whom reference is perhaps being made.
(6) Scr 50:3:1. The work of re-organization was taken in hand immediately, and a complete index was drawn up, which is still in use at the present day.
(7) Scr 50:3:14.
(8) Scr 45:1:24 contains both a final version of Corsini's petition and this response, dated 3 August.
(9) Candini's account of this operation, telling how he forced Hothersall to swear that he had revealed all he knew of these without concealment, is in Scr 45:2:5 and 50:3:13.
(10) Liber 815, John Kirk's diary, quoted in Ven 16, p.3.
(11) Scr 45:2:16.
(12) The position of Foggini vis-a-vis Giovannucci is difficult to clarify. Foggini never held the title ‘Rector’, whereas Giovannucci is thus referred to both by Kirk and by a contemporary Italian document describing these events (Scr 50:3:16); but the former was clearly superior to the latter.
(13) Kirk, p.4, gives a list of those who appealed.
(14) Kirk, p.5.
(15) Scr 50:3: 12 is a fragment written by Magnani recalling his entry into the College. He mentions seven students, but can name only six of them. Prop. Coll.Ing. f.167 notes that Shaw left on 27 November, ‘turn quia modico ingenio preditus studiis non idoneus fuerat expertus; turn quia juramenta prestare recusasset.’ See also Kirk, p.5, for this incident.
(16) Prop. Coll. Ing. f.167 states that Sturdy ‘nolebat se subicere novis eiusdem Collegii Moderatoribus: ideo expetiit ab Eminentissimo Protectore in aliud Collegium transmitti, quod benigne eidem fuit indultum’, and that Daniel acted similarly, but makes no mention of the other four.
(17) This college at Bruges was heir to the old Jesuit college at St Omers, lost to them in 1762 when the Society was expelled from France. Cf, Basset, The English Jesuits (London, 1967), pp. 319–324.Google Scholar
(18) Scr 50:3:11.
(19) Scr 50:3:10.
(20) Cf supra, note 16.
(21) Scr 50:4:2.
(22) Kirk, p.8.
(23) Scr 50:4:3. Daniel later wrote to Corsini repenting of his misbehaviour and asking for an annual pension of 20 scudi, as his parents would not support him at Douai.
(24) Ward, , The Dawn of the Catholic Revival in England 1, p.71.Google Scholar
(25) Liber Z.68, pp. 203–4.
(26) Scr 50:4:1. Bossy, Cf J., The English Catholic Community, 1570–1850 (1975), on the particular problems of the Western District.Google Scholar
(27) Scr 50:4:5.
(28) Scr 50:4:6. Basset (op.cit., pp 338–9) illustrates the sympathetic attitude of the Vicars Apostolic, especially Challoner and Hornyold. Cf also Scr 50:6:11 on this point.
(29) Scr 50:4:7. For Sturdy's journey home, Douai had to pay nearly 300 livres; in a letter of September (Scr 50:4:13) to Mgr Stonor, the English Agent in Rome, Blount expressed the hope that Corsini would reimburse this sum, since he had offered to meet all expenses. There is no record of whether this was done.
(30) Scr 50:4:8. For the relationship between Douai and St Omers after 1762, cf P.R. Harris, The English College, Douai, 1750–1794’ in Recusant History 10, p.87.
(31) Scr 50:4:10.
(32) Scr 50:4:11. Bossy (op.cit., pp. 197–202) provides a detailed analysis of the social background of seminarians in this period.
(33) Scr 50:4:16.
(34) Liber 5, p.355, and Liber 242, p.80. The endowment was made by Pope Gregory XIII in 1581–2.
(35) Prop. Coll. Ing. ff 168–378 contains the correspondence on this issue. The documents are not in chronological order, and are interspersed with those on other matters.
(36) Scr 50:6:2, contains all three letters quoted in this and the following paragraph.
(37) Scr 50:4:17 and Liber Ruber.
(38) Kirk, p. 37, and Liber Ruber.
(39) All are ‘Londinensis’ or ‘natus Londini’ except Orford, of whom it is noted, ‘pluries expetita fuit fides Baptismi, et nunquam recepta.’
(40) Scr 50:5:1. It should be noted, however, that boys in their early teens had been accepted by the College throughout the eighteenth century.
(41) The error can be accounted for by presuming that the entries of these students were not written until some time after their arrival. This would explain the mistake in year concerning Bloodworth and Kirkham, the absence of Denham, and the incomplete or non-existent dates of arrival of several other students at this period, (C.R.S.40, pp. 288–231). The list of arrivals and departures in Prop. Coll. Ing. ff. 195–6 would have been copied from the Liber Ruber in 1780.
(42) Scr 50:7:6.
(43) Cf his missionary oath (Scr 44:5:2)., and map in Bossy, p. 408.
(44) Liber Ruber notes that Kirkham came from Lancashire, and Scr 50:14:1 confirms that Taylor was sent by Walton.
(45) Quoted in Ven 16, p.9.
(46) Kirk, p. 38.
(47) Scr 50:7:1–3.
(48) Kirk p.43.
(49) Scr 50:7:7.
(50) Scr 50:8:1. This copy is headed ‘Particola di lettera di Mr Coghlan scritta in Inglese a Giuseppe Bonomi’; nevertheless, it is surely addressed from Coghlan to Bonomi, since the latter was concerned with sending students out to Rome (cf Kirk, quoted in Ven 16, p. 8), while the former, as ‘the principal Catholic bookseller during the latter part of the century’ (Burton, E.H., The Life and Times of Bishop Challoner, 1, p. 288)Google Scholar would have been in a position to subsidize the students in their journey. The only known record of the actual amount involved concerns a journey in 1783, which cost £21 10/-, apparently rather more than was usual (Cf infra, note 82).
(51) Those present in 1777, less Denham and Leoni, plus Keegan, Norris and Porter.
(52) Kirk, quoted in Ven 16, pp. 2–3.
(53) Kirk, pp. 63–4.
(54) Kirk, pp. 65–6.
(55) Scr 50:4:5.
(56) Kirk, p. 33.
(57) Scr 50:4:9. This letter, obviously intended for Broomhead and the others in the Higher Schools, was addressed to the Italian prefect to be passed on. Its preservation in the archives suggests that it was not, and it is accompanied by a translation, presumably in order to acquaint the Rector with its contents.
(58) Cf also note 23 supra.
(59) Scr 50:5:7.
(60) Scr 50:17:2.
(61) Scr 50:6:7–8. Kirk, p. 34, states that Casemore became ‘an English friar’.
(62) Scr 50:6:9.
(63) ‘Decline and Fall – 3: The College under Italian seculars 1773–1797’ in Ven 16, pp. 81 ff.
(64) A full account of the entire incident is given by Kirk, pp. 103–118.
(65) Scr 46:5:1 and 50:12:16.
(66) Scr 50:9:4.
(67) Scr 50:9:1–2.
(68) Scr 50:12:9–11.
(69) Besides Kennedy, Orford and the Willoughby brothers, Fuller left in 1780 and Keegan probably in 1781. (The Liber Ruber does not give the year, but he wrote to Foggini in October 1780 threatening to leave unless he was allowed to begin philosophy immediately). Tucker died in 1779.
(70) Clint had originally entered the Scots College, but was transferred when his true nationality became known: Scr 50:11:1–2).
(71) Scr 50:12:1. This was co-ordinated with an effort on the part of the Scots Vicars Apostolic to have their College also returned to national Superiors. Cf Ward, op.cit., p.64.
(72) Propaganda Archives: ‘Acta Sacrae Congregationis 1783’ ff 114–129 and ‘Scritture Originali Riferite nelle Congregazioni Generali 1783’, ff 287–316. A copy of Cor-sini's reply is contained in Liber Z.68, pp. 185—8 (Gradwell's scrapbook) in the VEC Archives.
(73) Scr 50:14:1.
(74) Scr 50:18:32.
(75) Ven 20, p. 204. Cf Scr 45:9: 18, p. 6.
(76) Cf Ward, op.cit., p. 63.
(77) Propaganda Archives: ‘Lettere della Sacra Congregazione’ 242, ff 320–322. The text reads: ‘Tamen quoniam hoc a vobis tantopere desideratur, curari in posterum posse, ut cum primum vacare contigerit, aliquis ex vestris sacerdotibus praeficiatur’; and it seems that this was mistakenly understood to apply to the Rectorship by the English Bishops’ Agent, Mr Macpherson, who discovered it after the reconstitution of the College in 1818. Cf T. Curtis-Hay ward, ‘Decline and Fall-3’ (Ven 16, p.89), which accepts this version; in such a case, however, it is impossible to account for lack of jubilation on the part of the Vicars when the decision was announced, or of fury when another Italian was appointed in 1787. Ward (op.cit., p. 64) correctly states Propaganda's decision on this issue.
(78) Liber Z.68, p. 205: ‘Si cunctus animus tuus his Missionibus adfuvandis unice intentus sit’; then the demands follow.
(79) As at n. 35 supra. Cf A. Laird ‘The College Church’, Ven 24, p. 33, for a discussion of the financial problems of the College, 1682–1773.
(80) This was Morrisson, who arrived in May 1783 (Liber Ruber, vol 2).
(81) Scr 50:13:4–7. The former practice had been to make an allowance of 40 scudi only to those who had been ordained (Scr 45:2:20).
(82) Scr 50:13:9.
(83) Scr 50:17:9.
(84) Cf my article, ‘Liber Ruber’ in Ven 25, p. 41–2.
(85) Scr 49:1.
(86) Liber Ruber, vol 2, p.1.
(87) This was what Corsini told Stonor (cf letter quoted by Ward, op.cit., 1, p. 65). A memorial in Italian written after Foggini's death contains a detailed exposition of Magnani's negligence (Scr 46:1:5).
(88) Scr 50:16:7–8. Stonor's account of this is given in Ward, loc. cit.
(89) Scr 50:16:9, 11, and Scr 49:2.
(90) Kirk, p. 118 ff. The original is Scr 44:4:10.
(91) Scr 50:15:3.
(92) In all there are seven letters in Scr 50:16 on this subject.
(93) Scr 50:17:11. This was not altogether a happy arrangement, and Prop. Coll. Ing. f. 391 records that in the examinations Thomas Berry and James Delaney ‘nonnulla contra Romanorum Theologorum sententias ausi sunt scribere’, as a result of which the Prefect of Studies at the Collegio Romano arranged for them to be removed. Cf S. Dean ‘The Book of Life’ in Ven 24, p. 101, for the Liber Ruber's version of this incident.
(94) Prop. Coll. Ing. ff. 419r – 424v.
(95) Cf Scr 50:17:2, a letter from the former student William Keegan concerning his attempts to defend the Italian seculars against their detractors in England.
(96) Scr 50:21:10.
(97) Tucker, ‘The Cardinal King of England’ in Ven 18, pp. 135–148. This claims that Coxe-Hippesley began his activities as early as 1792.
(98) Prop. Coll. Ing. f. 418 r.v.
(99) Scr 50:21:11 to Erskine lists all that he has done for the College and ends resignedly, ‘se non ostante tutto questo li Sig. Vicari Apostolici d'Inghilterra sono malcontenti del mio governo, ci vorrà pazienza’.
(100) The ‘locus classicus’ is Ward, op.cit., chap 29. Curtis-Hay ward (art.cit., pp 89–91) and Moakler (Ven 16, pp. 161–172) recount the flight to England and the state of the College until the installation of Gradwell as Rector in 1818. Extracts from letters describing the French invasion of 1797–8, written by Robert Smelt to Bishop Douglass and Mr Thomas Horrabin (A.A.W., vol 47), are to be found in Ven 6, pp. 378–394.
(101) Prop. Coll. Ing. f. 461r. The critical passage reads: ‘Qui tamen Rector praesit Alumnis in iis, quae ad mores pertinent, nec ullo modo bono rum administrationi se immisceat; contrariis quibuscumque non obstantibus.’