Plenipotency

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The imperial plenipotentiary or general commissioner was the deputy of the emperor of the Holy Roman Empire in imperial Italy in the 17th and 18th centuries . He was head of an authority called the Plenipotency or General Commissariat .

Emergence

In the early 16th century, the establishment of plenipotency began to emerge. The background was the dispute between Rudolf II and Philip III. about the mortgage lending to Milan and Siena . The emperor sent the Reichshofrat Paul Garzweiler to Italy to clarify the feudal problems on site. On his return, he proposed permanent imperial representation in imperial Italy. Until then, the emperor sent commissioners on a case-by-case basis. Now a permanent presence was to take place through a representative of the emperor in the Italian feudal territories. This was intended to strengthen relations with the Italian fiefs. This is the only way to protect small feudal lords from access by the more powerful. Above all in relation to Spain, the remainder of the imperial rights had to be consolidated into one office and thus better protected. The old office of imperial vicar was not to be revived because it was difficult to control. Instead, they relied on permanent general commissioners from the imperial nobility.

The Duke of Massa was installed between 1606 and 1608. In 1624, Duke Ferrante II Gonzaga was appointed commissioner general. However, the office initially only existed until 1639. At the urging of the Imperial Court Council , whose members were concerned about part of their influence, the post was abolished in 1639. Temporary commissioners took their place again. Probably only in 1715 the office was renewed with the appointment of Carlo Borromeo Arese . Only since then has the term plenipotentiary been in use.

tasks

The seat of the institution was Milan, then Pisa and Pavia . In addition to the plenipotentiary, the authority of the plenipotency included a fiscal department, some of which was responsible for public prosecution, and various secretaries. The owner was the authorized representative of the emperor in Italy. The task of the plenipotentiary was to search for forgotten imperial rights and to investigate the imperial court council proceedings that had to do with Italian aspects. Overall, he was responsible for all fief issues in Italy. In addition, there was also the securing of supplies for the imperial troops in Italy. The incumbents negotiated with the vassals about the amount of the contributions to be made.

The holders of the office tried several times to transform the plenipotency into a regular court. Both Carlo Borromeo Arese and Antoniotto Botta Adorno failed because of the resistance of the Reichshofrat. In the imperial instructions for Botta Adorno's successor, Johann Sigismund von Khevenhüller-Metsch , it was stipulated in 1775 that plenipotency would never have the function of an ordinary court in the future.

In recent years, the holders of the office, such as Karl Gottharrd von Firmian or Johann Josef von Wilczek, were also mostly authorized ministers for the Austrian possessions in Lombardy. Conflicts between the plenipotentiary and the Austrian authorities in Milan came to an end. But the de facto personal union also meant that Austrian interests took precedence over the rights of the Reich.

literature

  • Alfred Kohler : The Reich in the struggle for hegemony in Europe 1521-1648. Oldenbourg, Munich 1990, ISBN 3-486-55461-1 , p. 23, p. 81 ( Encyclopedia of German History 6).
  • Florian Runschke: The General Commissariat in Italy from 1624-1632. Mission, work and acceptance of the first two incumbents . In: Sources and research from Italian archives and libraries 99, 2019, pp. 201–242 ( online ).
  • Matthias Schnettger : Feudi imperali. Imperial Italy. In: Stephan Wendehorst (Hrsg.): Reading book Old Reich. Oldenbourg, Munich 2006, ISBN 3-486-57909-6 , p. 129f. ( Library Old Reich 1).
  • Matthias Schnettger: Cooperation and Conflict. The Reichshofrat and the Imperial Plenipotence in Italy. In: Anja Amend et al. (Ed.): Judicial landscape in the Old Kingdom. Supreme jurisdiction and territorial jurisdiction. Böhlau, Cologne et al. 2007, ISBN 978-3-412-10306-4 , pp. 127–150 ( sources and research on the highest jurisdiction in the Old Kingdom 52).