Archivist’s cover of Archivio Boncompagni Ludovisi protocollo 1 no. 14. All photos: Collection of HSH Prince Nicolò and HSH Princess Rita Boncompagni Ludovisi, Rome

An essay / text + translation in two parts by Michael Antosiewicz (Rutgers’18)

In Part I of this piece we examined the context for the decision of the cleric Ugo Boncompagni, the future Pope Gregory XIII (1505-1572-1585) to have a child, and the threefold process by which he had his son, Giacomo or Jacopo Boncompagni (born 8 May 1548), legitimated. Below is my transcription and translation of the second of those legitimation documents, a declaration of paternity that Ugo Boncompagni wrote in his own hand and signed on 22 December 1552  (Archivio Boncompagni Ludovisi prot. 1 no. 14).

Pio Pecchiai in his article “La nascita’ di Giacomo Boncompagni” (Archivi 21 (1954) 9-47, at 32-34)  published a transcription of this document. But my text represents a new (and I hope improved) transcription from the original (digitized) declaration, as well as its first translation into English.

Palazzo Boncompagni, 6 Via del Monte, Bologna

THE SECOND DECLARATION REGARDING THE PATERNITY OF GIACOMO BONCOMPAGNI (22 DECEMBER 1552)

Parisius late consuluit cons. X. vol 2. qui loquitur in fortioribus terminis videlicet etiam in nato ex adulterio et in cons. 13. eodem vol. et licet loquatur ibi in nato in domo patris tamen idem est hoc casu cum ex commissione mea ratione honestatis domus nostre et ut supra dixi quia mea intentio erat illam dare in uxorem magistro Simone qui laborabat in domo ne ipse de hoc haberet noticiam exivit domum ad istum effectum pariendi tantum et non ob aliam causam ut scit D. Ludovica a malvasia et D. Dorathea de Scapis et alie mulieres que tunc in domo conservabantur et sic non vero ex hoc fienda difficultas cum domum ex mea commissione exiverit et ad istum effectum tantum. Et sciunt mulier Magistri Alexandri tonsoris Jeronimi et eius fillie in cuius domo peperit.

 Parisio consulted widely Consiglia X. vol. 2, which says in rather strong terms namely in the case of a birth from adultery, and in Consiglia 13 of the same volume, and although it says there in the case of a birth in the home of the father, nevertheless it is the same in respect to this case since it happened by my command for the reason of the integrity of our home, and as I said above that my intention was to give her as a wife to Master Simone, who has laboring in the house, lest he himself have gain any public notoriety of this affair, she exited the house only for the purpose of giving birth and not on account of another cause as D. Ludovica Malvasia knows and D. Dorathea de Scapis and the other women who were at that time staying in the house; and thus trouble should truthfully not be made from this since she exited the home by my command and only to that effect [of giving birth]. And the wife of Master Alexander, the barber of Girolamo and his daughters, in whose house she gave birth, know [these things].

De eius nativitate Jeronimus fecit memoriam in quodam suo libello memorialium qui reperitur in hac capsa copto ex albo ex qua memoria una cum die legitimationis et ex die nuptiarum in quibus rogatus <est> Ser Vitalis de bobus et ex quadam lista existente in dicto libello de bonis illi datis quod tempore nativitatis Jacobi Madalena non erat nupta et sic natus est ex soluta ut in legitimatione dicitur.

 Concerning his [Giacomo’s] birth Gironamo made a memorial in a certain pamphlet of his of memorials, which is found in this chest from a covered album; from this memorial together with the day of legitimation and from the day of marriage, which Ser. Vitale de Bobus recorded [Vitale be Buoi, the family’s notary], and from a certain extant list in the said pamphlet concerning the heredity given to him, [it stands] that at the time of the birth of Jacopo Madalena was not married and thus he [Giacomo] was born from an unmarried woman just as he is said to be in legitimation.

Recordo como esendo Io Ugo di Bonco(m)pagni tornato dal conc. di Trento et esendo in bologna col detto conc. del a(n)no 1547, et have(n)do diviso co(n) mei fratelli la robba di nostro patre, quale era morto esendo io in Trento et have(n)domi loro (contro mia voglia) data la casa nova per indiviso co(n) Giro. mio fratello el quale no(n) havia figlioli, mi parse di proverdermi de figlioli quali potesano habitar(e) in deta casa volendo io stare a roma, et esendo una giovane in casa quale era senza marito, che stava co(n) Madonna Laura moglie di Giro., mia cognata, e chiamata Madalena hebbi da fare co(n) lei e, dopo alcuni giorni la ingravadai e, stete in casa cusi gravida p. molti mesi como da tutti che venivano in casa seli vedeva el corpo grosso.

I record how I, Ugo di Boncompagni, having returned from the Council of Trent, and being in Bologna with the said Council of the year of 1547, and having divided the estate of our father with my brothers, who died when I was in Trent, and they having given to me (against my will) the new house inalienably with Girolamo my brother who does not have children, it seemed to me a good idea to provide myself with children, who would be able to inhabit the said house with I wanting to stay in Rome, and there being a young girl in the house who was without a husband, that was staying with Madonna Laura, wife of Girolamo, my sister-in-law, and <the girl was> called Madalena; I had business to take care of with her and after a few days I impregnated her; and she stayed in the house pregnant as such for many months so that everyone that kept on coming to the house would themselves see the [her] fattened body;

Poi quando fu el te(m)po de parturire (p. eser l’intentione mia di maritarla azo no(n) si palegiase cusi che havese fato uno figliolo anchora che si dicesse publicame(n)te chera gravida di me), perche havia pensato in M. Simone che murava in casa, Parse a Gironamo di mandarla in casa di M. Alessandro mio barbiere e, suo compatre dove li stete a parturir(e) e, mi fece un figliolo maschio alli 8 maggio 1548, el quale fu portato in casa dala comatre, consignato a Ma. Laura mia cognata p. mio figlio e, lei p. tale el p/e [NOTE 1] e, li trovo una balia, a la quale io pagava L. 50 l’an(n)o.

Afterwards when it had been time to give birth (for it being my intention to marry her, she therefore did not show herself in such a way that she made me a child, although she proclaimed herself publicly to be pregnant by me), because I was thinking about Master Simone who was building in the house, it seemed to Gironamo a good idea to send her to the house of Master Alessandro, my barber and her godfather, where she stayed to give birth; and she made me a boy on the eighth of May 1548, who was brought into the house by his Godmother, consigned to Madonna Laura, my sister-in-law, as my son, and she as such (?) and she found him, my son, a wet-nurse, to whom I was paying L. 50 each year.

A li 9 fu bategiato e, chiamato Jac. lo tene a batessimo M. Ghedino di Segno. Poi la Madalena, finito chebbe el parto torno in casa e, feci che Giro. li trovo marito p. via di M. Antonio triachino cioe M. Simone murator(e) et io li ma(n)dai p. el bancho de li ozelai [NOTE 2] scudi ce(n)to venti cinq(ue) d’oro quali li pago Math di li amorini cioe sc. 100 d’oro p. la dota e, 25 p. vestirla ne fu rogato Ser Vitale dai boi di deto matrimonio e, dota e, cusi Jaco e sempre stato alevato da Giro et Ma. Laura de le mie entrate e, p. mio figliolo Como sano le done che praticavano in casa cioe Ma. Dorothea di scapi co(n) tutti li soi figlioli Ma. Ludovica malvasia e, tutti quelli di casa sua La moglie di M Jero dal Ferro e, lui e, li soi figlioli, Mo Alex. barbiero co(n) la sua moglie e, sue figliole, Nicola Jacheta e, le sue done Ma. Isabeta e Lucretia sua figliola che stano da S.Martino quale sano el tutto; Orsolina che gia stava co(n) quelli dal ferro Tutti li vicini e, tutti li parenti e, M. Jo. bat. maltacheto la tenuto a cresima p. mio figliolo.

On the ninth he was baptized and called Jacopo. M. Ghedino di Segno held him at his baptism. Afterwards Madalena, once she had finished giving birth, returned to the [our] house. And I made it that Girolamo found there a husband by way of Master Antonio Triachino; that is, Master Simone the mason; and I ordered for him, through the bank of the ozelai, 125 scudi of gold which Math. of the Armorini paid him, namely 100 scudi for the dowry and 25 scudi for dressing her; Ser. Vitale dai boi chronicled the marriage and dowry. And as such Jacomo has always been raised by Girolamo and Madonna Laura by my income and as my son, as the women that were frequenting my house know, namely, Madonna Dorothea di Scapi with all her children, Madonna Ludovica Malvasia and all those of her house, the wife of Mr. Jer. dal Ferro and himself and his children, Master Alexander the barber with his wife and his children, Nicola Jacheta and her girls, Madonna Isabata and Lucretia her daughter who were from S. Martino who know the whole affair; Orsolina that was staying already with the dal Ferro; all the neighbors and all the relatives. And Master Jo. Bapt. Maltacheto held him at his confirmation as my child.

Tutti quelli praticavano in casa cioe maestro Philepono falignamo Jacomo ferrarese taglia pietra el Brocca da varignana li muratori li falegnami e, li depintori filioli di Biaggio depintor(e) el pentraca bre(n)tador(e) compatre di Gir. Mascarono Ludovico depintor(e) che depinse el cortille, Vince(n)tio pizalpasso Marscoto che alora stava co(n) mi in bologna che sta adeso p. Paraferniero del Rmo Mathera Camilo mio servitor(e) che alora era in bologna con mi, Joane credenciero Tutti li nostri contadini cioe a quello te(m)po li bagnoli, li torches, li poggij Girolamo che stava a S. Lazaro Jac. chera galinaro di Giro Bertino dal scelaro zopo M. Hercule severole da faenza pensator(e) in roma col qual veni a roma dal concilio di bologna e, li co(n)tai tutto el fatto e, tutti li pare(n)ti sano certo eser(e) mio figliolo e dicano asimigliarsi a nui dela casa e, che par(e) figliolo di Ma. Jacoma nostra sorela e, cusi lo te(n)go p. tale mio figlio e, da tutti voglio sia tenuto e, cognoscuto Ne credo che alcuno li possa dir(e) el contrario se no(n) p. malignita, el che non credo ne mancho [NOTE 3] seli habia da fare contraditione esendoli la casa notoria e, p. tale al presente lo te(n)go in casa mia in bologna sotto lo governo di Ma. Laura mia cognata e, in fede alli 22 di decemebr(e) nel 1552. Ho fatto la presente Jo Ugo di Boncompagni.

All those that were frequenting the house, namely Master Philepono the carpenter, Giacomo the stone cutter from Ferrara, the Brocca from Varignana, the masons, the carpenters, the apprentices of the painter Baggio; the Pentraca wine-porter, the godfather of Gir. Mascarono; Ludovico the painter that painted the courtyard, Vincentio Pizalpasso Marscoto who was then staying with me in Bologna, that now remains as the Paraferniero of Rmo Mathera; Camilo my servant that was then in Bologna with me, Joana the wine-taster; All our farmers, namely at that time the Bagnoli, the Torchij, the Poggij, Girolamo that was staying at S. Lazaro, Jacomo who, a lame person, was the seller of hens of Gir. Bertino; Master Hercule Severole from Faenza, a thinker in Rome, with whom I came to Rome from the Council of Bologna, to all of them [whom I just listed] I related the entire affair; and all the relatives know for certain that he is my child and they would say that he resembles us of the said house and that he appears to be the son of Madonna Jacoma our sister. And as such I hold him as my son and I want him to be esteemed and recognized by everyone. Nor do I believe that anyone could speak the contrary against him if not for malignity, and since the reputed house is there [as proof], I do not believe anyone with have cause to make contradiction, and as such for the present I keep him in my house in Bologna under the governorship of Madonna Laura my sister-in-law.

Et Boncompagnus appellat illum meum fillium ut ex eius litteris hic apparet et ex litteris etiam dictae Laurae apparet

I, Ugo di Boncompagni, made this present <declaration>. And Boncompagno calls that one my son as he appears here from the records of him and as he also appears from the letters of the said Laura.

Interior of Palazzo Boncompagni, Bologna, built between 1539 and 1546. The attribution to the famed architect Baldassare Peruzzi of the cortile bears investigation, since he died in 1536

[NOTE 1] This phrase has caused much confusion for both of the earlier transcribers of the document and myself. One interpretation renders the phrase “al presente,” “at the present.” I find this solution unsatisfactory. In the first place, it changes the singular masculine article into a preposition. Since lowercase “a” and “e” are very distinguishable in Ugo’s handwriting, I feel that it is a change that cannot be reasonably made. This view also fails to take into account the subsequent occurrences of “presente” in the declaration. “Presente” is otherwise fully written or abbreviated differently from the “p/e” in this case. In one of those instances, the phrase “al presente” does occur with a clearly written “al.” In my view, the “p/e” is an abbreviated adjective or noun and forms a predicative phrase with the article (el p/e) in apposition to an implied object pronoun “lo” and an implied verb, such as “tenere”—the translation thereby being, “she holds him as the (noun)/ (adjective) one” Although this interpretation does make its own assumptions, it does reflect formulations used elsewhere in the document and better accords to the context. Further research into the legal texts used to argue legitimation may reveal what “p/e” actually means.

[NOTE 2] This name most likely refers to a bank or a banking family.

[NOTE 3] The phrase “ne mancho” is still not clear; it most likely bears some legal significance that will be clarified with further legal research. Nonetheless, the sentence indicates that the house, on account of its reputation (“notoria”), confirms Ugo’s account and certifies Giacomo’s legitimate filiation.

This register of cash disbursements by the Boncompagni family (compiled 1712) shows that a dowry for a  marriage was promised to Giacomo Boncompagni’s mother on 13 November 1548 (five months after she gave birth)—and finally paid on 11 May 1551. Collection of HSH Prince Nicolò and HSH Princess Rita Boncompagni Ludovisi, Rome.

About the author:  Michael Antosiewicz is an undergraduate student in the School of Arts and Sciences Honors Program at Rutgers University. Michael majors in History and Classics with a focus in both Greek and Latin. He is also a Lloyd C. Gardner Fellow. He has assisted with the Archivio Boncompagni Ludovisi project since 2015, under the auspices of Rutgers’ Aresty Undergraduate Research Assistant Program. His interests primarily consist of early-modern and nineteenth century cultural history as well as examining the evolving meaning of the “classical” tradition during that time period. His plans involve becoming a professor of either History or Classics.

Warmest thanks, as always, are owed to HSH Prince Nicolò Boncompagni Ludovisi and HSH Princess Rita Boncompagni Ludovisi, for making this archival research possible.

Ugo Boncompagni = Pope Gregory XIII. From Pompeo Litta, Famiglie celebri italiane II (1836)

An essay / translation in two parts by Michael Antosiewicz (Rutgers’18)

One of the most remarkable documents in the Archivio Boncompagni Ludovisi at the Villa Aurora is the 22 December 1552 declaration written by Ugo Boncompagni, the future Pope Gregory XIII (1502-1572-1585), asserting the legitimate filiation of his son Giacomo Boncompagni, the Duke of Sora. That child had been born to him four and half years previous, on 8 May 1548.

This 1552 document represents the second of three efforts on the part of Ugo to secure the legitimacy of his son begotten out of wedlock. The first effort consists of a diploma of legitimation issued by Tommaso Campeggi, Bishop of Feltre (Veneto), on 5 July 1548, prefaced by a short declaration of paternity in Ugo’s hand, written on 20 July of that year. The third effort was a Papal Bull issued by Ugo as Gregory XIII on 13 June 1572, only a month after his ascension to the papacy.

From July 1548, autograph declaration of paternity by Ugo Boncompagni (left) and legitimation document by Tommaso Campeggi, Bishop of Feltre, held in the Archivio Segreto Vaticano. Credit: G. Venditti et al., Archivio Boncompagni Ludovisi. Inventario I (2008), plates facing p. 60

The December 1552 document is significant for a number of reasons. In the first place, it discloses full details of a story that would be unimaginable today: a Pope having a son. Secondly, it provides key insights into one of the most formative chapters of the Boncompagni (later Boncompagni Ludovisi) dynasty when the family’s destiny was in serious jeopardy nor foreseeable. Lastly, it captures a convergence of social, legal, cultural and ecclesiastical histories. You can see a transcription and translation of the 1552 Declaration in Part II of this post.

From Pompeo Litta, Famiglie celebri italiane II (1836). This image of Giacomo Boncompagni (detail) reproduces his (1594) portrait by Lavinia Fontana; that story is told here

Besides its scholarly significance, the document is also striking on account of its placement in the Boncompagni Ludovisi private archive over the past several centuries. To date, only a few scholars—and none in the last 60 years—have ever seen the declaration. For the circumstances of its preservation and rediscovery, and then second rediscovery, see here.

From the Archivio Boncompagni Ludovisi at the Villa Aurora: archival “cover” for the 1552 declaration relating circumstances of its rediscovery in 1870

Boncompagni Ludovisi family archivist Giuseppe Felici typed up a tentative transcription of this document in the late 1940s, that has remained unpublished in the Villa Aurora archive. And Pio Pecchiai (1882-1965) in his article “La nascita’ di Giacomo Boncompagni” (Archivi 21 (1954) 9-47, at 32-34) published a transcription of this declaration, as well as those of additional documents that together form a dossier on the legitimation of Ugo Boncompagni’s son, with extensive commentary. But scholars have not had access to the document in the interim, and an English translation of the document has not existed before now.

However amazing and impactful this document is, it never should have been written. As a tonsured cleric on course to an austere life of legal and doctrinal disputes, Ugo Boncompagni was never supposed to have a son, if not for a family crisis compelling him for the sake of securing the family’s heredity.

Detail from diploma granting Roman citizenship to Giacomo Boncompagni, 27 July 1573. Collection of HSH Prince Nicolò and HSH Princess Rita Boncompagni Ludovisi, Rome.

Here is some basic background. Between 1543 and 1546, the Boncompagni family suffered a scourge of deaths. Altogether five of eight sons would perish: Gian Francesco (b. 1494), Antonio (b. 1496), Giorgio (b. 1498), Sebastiano (b. 1506), and Ludovico Boncompagni (b. 1507). These deaths had great ramifications for the process of inheritance; with the eldest son, Gian Francesco, dead, the inheritance had fallen into some confusion. This confusion peaked with the death of Cristoforo Boncompagni, the family’s patriarch, in 1546.

At the time of Cristoforo’s death, only three Boncompagni brothers were alive to manage their family’s estate, which now included a palazzo in Bologna still under construction. In addition to Ugo, there were his older brother by three years Girolamo Boncompagni (b. 1499) and his younger brother by two years Boncompagno Boncompagni (b. 1504). Unfortunately, neither Girolamo nor Boncompagno would prove viable heirs.

One would suspect that as the eldest remaining brother, Girolamo would have been a perfect heir, especially since he was already married, to one Laura Dal Ferro. The couple, however, did not have any children nor would produce any in their lifetime. If the family’s heredity was transferred to them, it would have soon been discontinued.

On the other hand, Boncompagno was an even worse candidate. Although he was married with a child, he was severely estranged from his family, especially from Ugo. Historians would later note that upon his election as Pontiff, Ugo refused to receive his brother at the Vatican. The exact reason for their estrangement remains uncertain, although his wife Cecilia Bargellini may have contributed to a rift between him and his father. Nonetheless, both Girolamo and Boncompagno did not represent viable heirs.

Detail from diploma granting Roman citizenship to Giacomo Boncompagni, 27 July 1573. Collection of HSH Prince Nicolò and HSH Princess Rita Boncompagni Ludovisi, Rome.

Ugo was as an equally unviable heir as his brothers if not more so. In 1539, he received the first tonsure and started his meteoric rise within the Church. This act barred Ugo from marriage and consequently eliminated any possibility of producing a naturally legitimate heir. Just as in the case of Girolamo, Ugo had no descendants to whom to transmit his family’s increasing heredity. In order for the Boncompagni family to retain their heredity, drastic measures had to be taken.

Having left the Bolognese universities in 1539 to work in the Roman Curia, in 1547 Ugo finally returned to Bologna, to attend the Council of Trent. In that year the Council was transferred from Trent to Bologna, though the Council was to never meet in this location.

Ugo had been aloof of the details of his family’s situation. In fact, the evidence suggests that Ugo did not know of his father’s death until he returned to Bologna. As one could imagine, his homecoming after an absence of eight years would have been hectic. He would have discovered not only the deaths of his father and his brothers, but the urgency of resolving the family’s inheritance crisis.

Palazzo Boncompagni, Bologna. Credit: Corey Brennan

From the 1548 and 1552 documents we know the details of what happened next. When Ugo arrived in Bologna, Girolamo and his household inhabited the family’s new palazzo. One of the members of Girolamo’s household was an unmarried young woman (“dona soluta”) named Madalena De Fulchinis. She is described as staying with Laura, the wife of Girolamo, and most likely was a domestic servant. Ugo decided to have a child with her.

In the 1552 declaration, Ugo describes this sequence of events with the following (euphemistic) words: “hebbi da fare con lei e dopo alcuni giorni la ingravadai” (“I had things to get done with her, and after a few days I impregnated her”).

Over the next few months Madalena stayed in the family’s home. Right before she gave birth, Girolamo sent her to stay in the house of Maestro Alessandro, Ugo’s barber. On May 8, 1548 Madalena “made a masculine child” in Alessandro’s house; Giacomo was born!

Palazzo Boncompagni, Bologna: detail of doors. Credit: Corey Brennan

Some time after she gave birth (no sooner than November 1548) Madalena was married to a Simone Antonio Scarani of Milan, a mason working in the palazzo. She went to live with Simone and had no part in raising Giacomo. Not much other information is available on the remainder of her life.

Giacomo was immediately delivered into the “guardianship” of his aunt Laura Dal Ferro, wife of Girolamo, and was raised by her. Ugo played no direct role in his upbringing at this time having immediately returned to Rome to resume Curial affairs. His only contribution consisted of his financial reimbursements to Laura and Girolamo for any costs incurred in raising the child.

According to the 1552 declaration, it seems Laura assumed this position without resisting. Moreover, Giacomo is said to have “resembled” those of the house, fitting into his home and his family’s elevated social sphere.

Detail from diploma granting Roman citizenship to Giacomo Boncompagni, 27 July 1573. Collection of HSH Prince Nicolò and HSH Princess Rita Boncompagni Ludovisi, Rome.

With Giacomo’s birth, the process of legitimation commenced to make Giacomo a legal and rightful heir. Back in Rome Ugo stayed at the house of Tommaso Campeggi, the Bishop of Feltre, who himself hailed from a prominent Bolognese family. Just two months after his birth, on 5 July 1548, Campeggi issued a diploma that legitimated Giacomo. In his own handwriting, Ugo a few weeks later (on 20 July) added a paragraph to the front of the document that briefly summarizes the circumstances of conception and the sequence of events.

Although Ugo technically accomplished his goal of securing a legitimate heir, he continued to reaffirm Giacomo’s legitimation. The 1552 document plays a special role in this process.

Whereas the 1548 diploma and the 1572 document wield ecclesiastical authority, the 1552 declaration constructs a legal argument for legitimation. The declaration operates in two parts and uses two languages.

Detail from diploma granting Roman citizenship to Giacomo Boncompagni, 27 July 1573; he had been prefect of the Papal stronghold of Castel S Angelo (depicted here) since 23 May 1572. Collection of HSH Prince Nicolò and HSH Princess Rita Boncompagni Ludovisi, Rome.

The first section cites, in Latin, legal precedents for legitimation. The legal precedents derive from the Consilia of Pietro Paulo Parisio, Ugo’s prolific colleague at the University of Bologna.

The next section, in Italian, demonstrates compliance to the legal stipulations. The Italian narrative relates the sequence of events once Ugo returned to Bologna, the circumstances of conception, the arrangement of Madalena’s marriage and dowry, as well as the arrangements for Giacomo’s upbringing.

Most importantly, the document provides an extensive and comprehensive list of all those in the house or close to the family’s affairs that possessed knowledge of the affairs and thus could corroborate claims of legitimation. In fact, out of the document’s total four pages, nearly one full page of witnesses is given by Ugo—ranging from the family’s many friends, to workers in the house, to the tenant farmers on the Boncompagni estate.

Detail from diploma granting Roman citizenship to Giacomo Boncompagni, 27 July 1573. Collection of HSH Prince Nicolò and HSH Princess Rita Boncompagni Ludovisi, Rome.

A close reading of the document provides details and insights into Ugo’s mindset and reasons for producing the 1552 declaration.

First and foremost, Ugo clearly wanted to ensure that Giacomo’s reputation and legitimate filiation were unassailable. He states: “cusi lo te(n)go p. tale mio figlio e, da tutti voglio sia tenuto e, cognoscuto Ne credo che alcuno li possa dir(e) el contrario se no(n) p. malignita” (“As such I hold him as my son, and from everyone I want him to be acknowledged and held; nor do I believe anyone could speak the contrary against him if not for malignity”).

Furthermore, it is clear that Ugo decided to have a child out of familial necessity. With chilling ease he explains in the beginning of the document that he decided to “provide myself with children” who “potesano habitar in deta casa volendo io stare a roma” (“could live in the said house [the Palazzo Boncompagni] since I want to stay in Rome”).

Clearly, Ugo wished to continue his ascendance in the Curia and viewed Giacomo as a way to secure and maintain a presence over the family’s affairs in Bologna.

Palazzo Boncompagni, Bologna. Credit: Corey Brennan

Another interesting facet of the document consists of its legal language. Ugo uses particular words and phrases throughout the document as well as emphasizes certain details.

One legal formulation stands out; it concerns the family’s public reputation: “p. eser l’intentione mia di maritarla azo no(n) si palegiase cusi che havese fato uno figliolo anchora che si dicesse publicame(n)te chera gravida di me” (“it being my intention to marry her off, she [Madalena] therefore did not show herself in a way that she had a child, although she did publicly declare to be pregnant by me”).

For the sake of legitimation Ugo’s paternity had to be well-attested, but knowledge of Madalena’s giving birth could not be dispersed publicly as it would interfere with her marriage to Simone the mason.

The legitimation process of Giacomo Boncompagni finally ends 24 years after his birth, and 20 years after our document. In a Papal Bull of 1572, Ugo decrees his son’s legitimate filiation and thus also validated his social prominence.

From 1572, Papal bull by Pope Gregory XIII legitimating his son Giacomo Boncompagni, held in the Archivio Segreto Vaticano. Credit: G. Venditti et al., Archivio Boncompagni Ludovisi. Inventario I (2008), plates facing p. 60

On the whole, this series of events concerning the legitimation of Giacomo Boncompagni constitute more than one of the most crucial periods in the history of the Boncompagni Ludovisi dynasty. It details and illuminates a world that in so many ways feels so remote but yet reverberates to the present day.

A transcription and translation of the 1552 Declaration follow in Part II of this post.

Warmest thanks, as always, are owed to HSH Prince Nicolò Boncompagni Ludovisi and HSH Princess Rita Boncompagni Ludovisi, for making this archival research possible.

From Pompeo Litta, Famiglie celebri italiane II (1836). This image of Giacomo Boncompagni (detail) reproduces his (1594) portrait by Lavinia Fontana; the letter shows his status on the “Secret Council” of the Duchy of Milan