INNOCENT X, POPE. — Born in Rome on 7 May 1574, died there on 7 January 1655. GIOVANNI BATTISTA PAMPHILI, a descendant of a family that had come to Rome from Gubbio at the end of the 15th century, had been educated under the direction of an uncle who later became a cardinal, earned degrees in both civil and canon law, served as an advocate at the Roman Rota (1601), as auditor of the Rota (1604), as nuncio to Naples (1621–25) and to Spain (1626), was created cardinal *in pectore* on 30 August 1627 and published on 19 November 1629, and served as prefect of the Sacred Congregation of the Council. His election (15 September 1644) represented a reaction against the Francophile tendencies of the final years of Urban VIII; yet the Barberini, nephews of the latter, played a significant role in II.
His accession was greeted with joy, for Pamphili had a reputation as a learned jurist and skilled politician. In reality, his character, which appears in different aspects in the admirable portrait by Velázquez, in the statue by Algardi, and in the busts by Bernini, was complex. Tall and thin, swarthy, balding, with a sparse beard, he had a stern appearance, piercing gaze, was taciturn, suspicious, slow to decide; yet he was pious, good-natured, and a lover of justice and peace. Above all, he developed a tendency to accumulate money and then spend it often inappropriately, and an undue affection for his own kin. The defects of the man and the gravity of the times, in which the unity of the Catholic world was crumbling and the absolutism of princes was already threatening the Church, made his pontificate neither happy nor glorious.
He was the first to appoint a Secretary of State not belonging to his family, and after the death of Panfili he gave the office to Fabio Chigi, the future Alexander VII, a worthy man; yet for almost the entire duration of his pontificate he allowed himself to be dominated by his sister-in-law Olimpia Maidalchini, a woman of intelligence and energy but ambitious and of “disgusting greed”; her influence was such that rumors even arose of improper relations. First a son, then relatives of hers held the position of “cardinal-nephew,” not always in harmony with the domineering woman. He also damaged his reputation by failing to notice the forgeries of the subdatary Masambruno, whom he later, upon being informed by Chigi, had tried and executed.
He strove to alleviate famine with alms and grain supplies. Taking advantage of the insolvency of Ranuccio II Farnese, Duke of Parma, and his suspected complicity in the murder of the Bishop of Castro, he had Castro occupied and destroyed (1649) and secured that this and other fiefs passed under the direct dominion of the Church. Yet he was unable or unwilling to halt the political and economic decline of the Papal States and the growing deficit, which was also swollen by the extravagance of the Pamphili.
In the ongoing struggle between Spain and France, he sought to maintain a balance, though leaning toward the former, whose predominance he judged less burdensome to the Church and Italy. He had the Barberini, who had aligned themselves with France, tried for their misdeeds; yet he had to reconcile himself with them because of threats from Mazarin. Moreover, he was not lavish with undue favors even toward Spain: he did not permit the king to interfere in ecclesiastical affairs; during the Neapolitan rebellion (1647–48) he offered mediation between Spain and the insurgents and, like the insurgency itself, condemned the reprisals and Spain’s breach of faith. Though he did not recognize John IV as King of Portugal, it was not so much because the latter was in rebellion against Spain as because of his claims regarding episcopal appointments.
He confirmed Chigi as the representative of the Holy See at the Congress of Westphalia and worked for peace; yet he was hostile to concessions to Protestants and, once the peace was concluded (24 October 1648), protested against articles injurious to the interests of the Church in the brief *Zelus domus meae*, which, so as not to worsen conditions in Germany, was published only on 20 August 1650, antedated to 26 November 1648. The brief had very little resonance; yet more than the protest, what helped to regain for the Church some of the ground lost in Germany were the convocations of synods, the missions, and the establishment of seminaries, which Innocent promoted. He contributed to the spiritual progress of the Church by approving or imposing reforms of religious orders, suppressing congregations and convents with too few members, and celebrating, even with excessive pomp, the Jubilee of 1650, which drew 700,000 pilgrims.
He repeatedly confirmed the bull of Urban VIII against Jansenius’s *Augustinus*; yet he refused to allow it to be published in Flanders with the addition of a royal decree on the assistance of the secular arm, as demanded by the King of Spain in order to use it as a pretext to enslave the Church. He approved the condemnation by the Holy Office of the proposition by Arnauld on
INNOCENT X — INNOCENT XI
The body of Innocent, after remaining for some time in the care of his relatives “in a corner, in a wretched casket,” received a modest burial in Sant’Agnese in Agone. — See pl. V. BIBLICA.: Better than the volume by J. Ciampi, *Innocent X Pamphili and His Court*, Rome 1878, which is deficient in information, see Pastor, vol. XIV, and the many works cited therein. Giovanni Battista Picotti