The Heritage of Priests Between Religion, Culture and Politics in an Italian Peripheral Area: The Collections of Romolo Putelli (1880–1939) and Alessandro Sina (1878–1953)

Abstract

Romolo Putelli and Alessandro Sina were two politically active priests in Italy in the first decades of the twentieth century. Their work, as well as their heritage, is culturally and socially representative of a peripheral area of Northern Italy, the Valcamonica. However, the two figures stood out by supporting two different political factions during the fascist period, generating alternative ways to acquire or donate their assets. By examining the archival documentation and bibliographical materials in their collections, this article aims to understand the processes, individuals involved, and the role of priests in assembling collections that remain accessible today. To accomplish this goal, it is essential to trace the biographical profiles of Romolo Putelli and Alessandro Sina, emphasising their prominent traits, as well as reconstructing the bureaucratic stages of the donations and acquisitions by identifying those aspects—whether socio-political, religious, or cultural—that would have significantly influenced the course of events. In doing so, this article aims to highlight how political–religious interference and public interest influence the development of a bibliographic cluster.

1. Introduction

The figure of the socially and politically active erudite ecclesiastic spread across Italy from the beginning of the twentieth century. In fact, these individuals gained prominence within both religious and academic spheres. As custodians of archives, documentation, and libraries, they enjoyed considerable freedom in their research activities, whether professional or self-taught. Particularly in less populated peripheral areas, they stood out as trustworthy collectors of historical knowledge. Alessandro Sina and Romolo Putelli were well-known and enjoyed a significant reputation in their native area, Valcamonica. This region, situated in northern Italy between Brescia and Bergamo, is notoriously rich in its archaeological heritage and geological features. Its history features paths and trails that have connected Italy to France on one side and Austria on the other since modern times, turning the valley into a centre of political and economic interest.

Sina and Putelli lived concurrently in Valcamonica, and were connected by a bond of friendship, as well as by shared professional and research interests. They remain among the most significant scholars of Valcamonica. In support of their decades-long research, they amassed a significant bibliographical patrimony, which, however, underwent a completely different donation/acquisition process upon their death. The reasons for this notable difference may lie in their political beliefs: on the one hand, Putelli supported fascism; on the other, Sina fought for the Italian Resistance. Furthermore, Putelli’s life was marked by contrasts, frequently placing him at the heart of social and cultural attention in Valcamonica. A further aspect of the issue is connected to the Second World War, a time of great chaos even in the smallest towns of Italy.

This article aims to reconstruct the key stages of the inheritance formation of the two priests and to gain a better understanding of the reasons behind the developments that followed their acquisitions or donations. The research will therefore follow the essential phases of the last century. Still, it will also examine how much of this heritage—and under what conditions—has been transmitted to the present day. To support this research, several consultations were conducted in archives and libraries linked to the two priests, their scientific work and their assets. To these Institutes, which will be referred to together with their materials in footnotes, I extend my sincere thanks for their assistance.

This article will be divided into two main sections dedicated to Putelli and Sina and their inheritance. The final paragraph, however, attempts to relate the events and thereby highlight their differences in political and cultural terms. Special consideration will be given to Romolo Putelli’s donation, given its troubled history.

2. The Eclectic Nature of Romolo Putelli’s Life Encompassing Priesthood, Studies, and Public Offices

Romolo Putelli was born in Breno on 3 March 1880 to Giovanni Putelli and Francesca Valgolio.1 He was born into a family with a modest social background, and although he was an only child, his parental network was extensive. Putelli initially studied at the seminary in Brescia and later at the Apollinare University of Rome. He obtained his degree in Dogmatic Theology in 1904. In August that year, he was ordained as a priest in the town of Alatri, situated approximately sixty miles from Rome. For several years, he served as deputy director and professor at the episcopal gymnasium, as well as a pastoral minister.2 At the end of this experience outside Valcamonica, Romolo Putelli returned to Breno to study the history and civilisation of the Valley.3

Upon his return, Putelli re-established connections with the social and cultural elites not only within the valley but also across the entire province of Brescia, seeking to forge new relationships with prominent figures of national importance.4 His successful networking enabled him to undertake various roles. He was appointed a partner of the Ateneo of Brescia, a member of the Historical Society for Lombardy, Venice and Piedmont, as well as Royal Bibliographic Inspector for Valcamonica. Moreover, these roles allowed him to work on important projects such as the reorganisation of the Episcopal Archives of Brescia and Mantua. This increased Putelli’s public visibility and gradually took him away from performing his religious duties.

Among the public offices held by Romolo Putelli, those most connected to the development of his bibliographic heritage were the roles of General Secretary of the Associazione Pro Valle Camonica,5 Director of the magazine Illustrazione Camuna6 and Director of the Museo Camuno. However, this museum had not yet been established.

With these titles, though with some complaints of political and clerical interference,7 Putelli’s private sphere was increasingly influenced by his presence in the public domain. This affected the development of his private collection, perceptions of his status, and the transmission of his future inheritance.

The bond that Putelli created with the Museo Camuno—which has been in operation for over a decade since its opening in 1923—was undoubtedly the closest and most enduring he maintained. He used his own house to exhibit the museum collections, thereby utilising his private property to display objects belonging to the museum of the Associazione Pro Valle Camonica.

Furthermore, Putelli diminished the influence of the Associazione Pro Valle Camonica, which used the magazine Illustrazione Camuna to solicit support and donations from citizens. Although he acted as a facilitator in securing contributions, his reputation enabled him to sideline the authority of the Associazione Pro Valle Camonica and ultimately become the owner of the museum collections.

The roles he held within the Associazione Pro Valle Camonica, along with his administrative and decision-making power over the museum, tacitly transformed the entire public patrimony into a private one.

To study the transmission process of Putelli’s inheritance up to the present day, one must consider multiple factors. These include assets and artefacts that Putelli owned or acquired clandestinely, as well as the acquisition of collections through a network of private donations from across the region. Putelli’s collections included early modern books, manuscripts, parchments, archaeological finds, paintings, ancient coins and local handicrafts.8

3. Romolo Putelli’s Public and Private Museum from Its Opening to Its Donation to the Fascist Government

Due to a phase of organisation and arrangement of the collections,9 the Museo Camuno first opened on 10 June 1923.10 The museum was developed into six thematic sections, each representing a significant portion of the collected artefacts. The sections were: Ancient art, Reproductions of Ancient Art, Modern Art, History, Ethnography and Natural Sciences.11 However, considering the modest size of the museum and the number of collected items, some materials were never displayed and remained in Putelli’s private ownership. They were either stacked or in crates.12 Reports on the preservation of collections and the museum were often contradictory. While highlighting the number of visitors to the Museo Camuno,13 reports, nonetheless, remarked upon a certain lack of interest from the community of Valcamonica14 and the precarious condition of the museum halls.15 Similarly, the inventories and the list of collected items seem to be contradictory and unrealistic. Specifically, Putelli provided exaggerated descriptions of the museum. In doing so, Putelli achieved his goal of self-visibility, aware that his role as director of the Museo Camuno was subject to public scrutiny. He was also eager to please both the Valcamonica community and scholars more generally.

Moreover, it is noteworthy that at that time, namely the 1920s and 1930s, Italy was under a fascist regime. Thus, Putelli, who came from a family of fascist sympathisers,16 thought to ingratiate himself with the political establishment by offering his expertise and even the museum collections to the fascist party. Between 1923 and 1926, Putelli made his first donation to the party. The unsuccessful outcome of this operation was due to some bureaucratic shortcomings.17 The most significant donation attempt was made on 28 April 1937.18 As in earlier cases, Putelli acted unilaterally and presented the museum collections as his property. This position marked a turning point in the history of the Museo Camuno and its collections, shaping its future and the preservation of its collections. The bureaucratic process of donation was not a straightforward operation, initially due to practical issues with property identification and the involvement of relevant offices. Space does not permit an exhaustive analysis of all the museum material. Here, I will focus my attention on some key events and, more specifically, on the museum’s bibliographic collections of incunabula and early modern printed editions, which have not been sufficiently addressed in contemporary scholarship.19

The donation of 1937 is described in detail in a letter that Putelli addressed to Benito Mussolini. In this letter, the priest expressed several demands, among which was that the collections remain united, that the museum be regarded as an institution of national importance, that it stays in Breno—or in Brescia—and that he be appointed its guardian and resident for life. If the museum were to remain in Breno, Putelli even promised to gift one hundred thousand lire to refurbish the rooms allocated to the museum and its collections.20 The conditions suggested by the priest were undoubtedly favourable to accepting the offer, and the process continued silently until December of that year, when the Superintendence of Medieval and Modern Art of Lombardy established that a designated inspector visit Breno.21

As the archival documentation on this case shows, the offices of the Superintendence of Medieval and Modern Art of Lombardy were not fully aware of the type of material Putelli was willing to donate. Following the first examination by an appointed inspector,22 Gian Alberto Dell’Acqua, Putelli wrote a series of letters to him.23 In these letters, Putelli explained the contents kept in his house-museum. Such materials included several paintings from the thirteenth to the twentieth century, sculptures, archaeological finds, ancient coins, furniture, and other handicrafts, forty-five incunabula, three hundred and fifty sixteenth-century books, and ten illuminated scrolls. In addition to the objects on display, a large amount of bibliographical material was stored in crates, whose value Putelli presumably overestimated.24 Despite the heterogeneity of the collections and the need for intervention by other institutions such as the Bibliographic Superintendence for incunabula and manuscripts, the donation could be accepted, provided that the less relevant part of the material was excluded from the donation.25

More than a year after the official donation proposal was made, the situation remained unresolved. The complex bureaucracy of the government and the need for on-site inspections in a peripheral and mountainous area that was difficult to access led Putelli to urge relevant offices to deal with the donation.26 He did so in an attempt to engage with national cultural circuits and challenge the local political interference of the Municipality and, possibly, the Associazione Pro Valle Camonica.27 In fact, in several instances, Romolo Putelli disagreed with the Municipality’s proposals for the arrangement of “his” museum,28 requiring a more decisive intervention by the fascist government, as the proposed donation would become of national importance.29 In a letter dated 11^th November 1938, Putelli expressed his frustration at waiting to transfer his properties to more elite circles.30 From this document, Putelli’s non-conciliatory personality emerged. He strategically used certain information to pressure the superintendent, including private offers to his collection and the inadequate treatment that the Municipality was allegedly reserving for him.31 On this occasion, Putelli allowed himself to be carried away by the magnitude of the events, adding that he had spent more than three hundred thousand lire to preserve the museum collections over the course of twenty years of work, thus omitting all mention of community donations. Putelli aimed to present himself as a diligent worker so patriotic towards his country and its leaders that he would be willing to forgo wealth. The narrative he attempted to convey was that of a devout individual crushed by circumstances unworthy of him, and consequently unbefitting of the fascist Italian State represented by his donated heritage. And this strategy worked, because Putelli was offered premises under construction and compensation until the new arrangement was ready.32

At the beginning of 1939, the Superintendence of Medieval and Modern Art, representing the Ministry of National Education, was ready to formalise the act of donation, excluding, at least for the moment, a few problems that had not yet been fully resolved, such as the heterogeneity of the heritage.33 Fatally, the official act was delayed and on 10 May 1939 Romolo Putelli died.34 This event further complicated the bureaucratic process.

4. From the Second World War and Beyond: The Fate of the Collections After Putelli’s Death

With Putelli’s death, the museum was closed, and the rooms and collections were sealed.35 The process related to the donation could continue,36 provided that the ownership of the property was verified37, that an objective value of the items was determined, and that the heirs38 of Putelli were involved39 so that the will of the deceased priest could be carried out.

Pending the official donation to the State, the entire collection was transferred to the premises of the old barracks, which belonged to the Municipality of Breno.40 This was the first of numerous transfers that Putelli’s collections suffered. This resulted in the loss of bibliographic material, including some incunabula (Panazza 1994, p. VIII).

Due to the limited interest and value identified by the inspectors, it was necessary to select material for disposal before the donation. For this occasion, the Bibliographic Superintendence was finally involved.41 The bibliographical inspector appointed after one year was Paolo Nalli, who, due to logistical reasons, found difficult to reach the locality of Breno for almost another year.42 Putelli’s long-standing practice and the conditions for preserving his heritage, which, as discussed, came from the Museo Camuno (an institution representing the culture, society, and history of Valcamonica), did not go unnoticed in the socio-cultural circles of Breno. This was the case of Araldo Bertolini, who in 1948 became the new president of the Associazione Pro Valle Camonica. Having received partially incorrect information, Bertolini made himself available to purchase a series of paintings that had been discarded from the donation.43 The Superintendence of Art Galleries in Lombardy promptly responded to him, emphasising that Putelli’s collections would form the core of a local museum owned by the State and based in Breno, and that only after the examination by the bibliographic inspector would the items of secondary importance be discarded.44 More than four years after the donation proposal, this document attests to the organisational confusion and circulating information regarding Putelli’s collections.

On 19 September 1941, the report of the bibliographic inspector was completed. It highlighted a severe disorder, poor conservation, and hypothetical manipulation of the material. The small number of significant items—contrary to Putelli’s claims—prompted the intervention of an expert from the State Archive of Brescia. The inclusion of an additional public institution further delayed the process. The visit of the director of the State Archive of Brescia was brief and concluded with a proposal to transfer the archival collections to the State Archive of Brescia.45

Putelli’s heirs gave consent for the deposit of archival materials to be transferred to the State Archive of Brescia.46 However, they demanded that the provenance from Putelli’s inheritance be acknowledged. Nonetheless, the bibliographic collection was partially discarded and partially donated to a local library.47Additionally, part of Putelli’s inheritance was to be allocated to the local museum, except for some pieces of furniture that were donated to the Municipality of Breno. Despite these decisions not being in line with Putelli’s will, the relevant governmental bodies did not hesitate to carry out their plans.48

Just when the complex practice of donation appeared to be concluding, the escalation of the Second World War and the subsequent fall of the fascist government caused the entire matter to be forgotten. It was only in the post-war period that a small group of intellectuals began to show interest in Putelli’s inheritance again.49 Given the precarious conditions in which the collections were kept during the War, in 1947, they were moved to some rooms in Villa Ronchi, the seat of the Municipality of Breno (Panazza 1994, pp. VIII–IX). Thanks to a collaboration between the reconstituted Associazione Pro Valle Camonica and the Municipality of Breno, a committee was established to review the findings, organise the material, and prepare a comprehensive inventory report (Panazza 1994, p. XI). Traces of this inventory and a subsequent certificate dated 1956 were lost. However, in July 2024, I was able to find a document related to a section of this documentation. It is an inventory of the bibliographic material collected, which lists five hundred and sixty-four scrolls from the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries—catalogued by Alessandro Sina—and thousands of more recent items, twenty-one incunabula—or deemed such by the cataloguer—two hundred and ninety-one sixteenth-century books, and a further one hundred and forty-six early modern printed sources.50 These figures, at least concerning the bibliographical part of Putelli’s inheritance, slightly differ from the numbers listed in the previous paragraph.

One of the most interesting archival documents on Putelli and the museum is a hitherto unknown letter from Superintendent Teresa Rogledi Manni, in which she stated that she was not aware of the donation process and had not been informed about the developments of the affair.51

Putelli’s donation was not completed on time due to a long series of unforeseen bureaucratic obstacles, which, combined with the fall of the fascist government and the end of interference from the political bodies responsible for cultural heritage, created a blank slate in the immediate post-war period. During this time, the superintendents and the Municipality of Breno reorganised themselves to find the most suitable solution. The only issue that remained unresolved was the verification of property ownership. Putelli was never asked whether the collections belonged to him, although he did act and collect historical material at his own house for the Associazione Pro Valle Camonica. As a result, the Associazione was no longer regarded, and the collections became the property of the Municipality of Breno.

The entire collection reformed the Museo Camuno, which reopened to the public on 10 August 1958 at the premises of the Municipality of Breno.52 Putelli’s bibliographical material was merged into the early modern collections held at the Civic Library of Breno. This arrangement has indeed caused a problem for scholars trying to separate the two collections today. Despite the limited space and the loss of some materials, work on the new museum location only began in 2006. The inauguration of the current headquarters of the Museo Camuno took place on 7 March 2009, at the Palace of Culture in Breno.53 Subsequently, on 24 September 2012, the archival and library collections were relocated to a different department within the museum to ensure that they were placed in the best possible condition and preserved over time.54 Today, the Museo Camuno stands as a significant local historical landmark, although the bibliographic collections have yet to receive the scholarly attention they merit.55

It took over twenty years (1937–1958) to normalise the situation concerning Romolo Putelli’s inheritance. The engagement of the fascist party and the illegality of the priest’s donation solely resulted in the deterioration of the collections, as well as the loss and destruction of some of its significant items. Putelli’s wishes were honoured for as long as he was alive. Following his death, attempts were made to find a compromise between heirs and governmental institutions. However, it is noteworthy that Putelli’s religious sphere never overlapped with the political one, showing that his role as a priest was merely a job throughout a lifetime devoted to enhancing his reputation and self-visibility.

5. The Memory of Priest Alessandro Sina

Alessandro Sina was born in Zone on 7 March 1878 to Defendente and Lucia Salvalai. He studied at the seminary in Brescia, where he was ordained a priest on 1 June 1901. His priestly activity was closely connected to Valcamonica. He served as a coadjutor for three years in Prestine; for two years he served as a spiritual treasurer in Loveno, and then for five years as a parish priest in Loveno-Grumello. Between 1911 and 1915, he was a coadjutor at Beata in Piancamuno. Afterwards, he served as a parish priest in Qualino for fifteen years and, from 1930, he was coadjutor and rector of St. Mary in Esine.56 Moreover, he distinguished himself as a notable scholar57 and was appointed to the board of directors of the Associazione Pro Valle Camonica, partner of the Ateneo of Brescia, a member of the Historical Society for Lombardy, and an honorary inspector for the Monuments of Valcamonica.58 He was also awarded the Medal of Merit in 1919 for assistance to the military families.59 The friendships with notable individuals such as Paolo Guerrini and Romolo Putelli enabled Sina to contribute to and publish in numerous magazines. These included Brixia Sacra, La Valcamonica and Illustrazione Camuna. Sina also authored some of the most significant studies on the religious history of Valcamonica.60

Among the activities that most distinguished Sina was politics. Before the rise of fascism, he was involved in the Movimento Cattolico Camuno and the Lega Cattolica, also becoming secretary of the Lega Camuna for the defence of trade unions and workers. Although he held religious roles of relative importance, Sina devoted his life to studying and serving the community, both politically and socially. However, it was during the era of fascism that Sina solidified his political stance. Like other priests, he emphasised hospitality and care, as well as assistance to the Fiamme Verdi of Tito Speri, a partisan unit, thereby making a noteworthy contribution to the Resistance.61

As an expert transcriber and reader of manuscripts, as well as a member of a commission purposefully established to fulfil this task, Sina spent his final years working on the reorganisation of the archival and library collections of the Museo Camuno.62 He died in Esine on 27 February 1953, mourned by the entire community.63 He did not leave a will regarding his book collection, which he had amassed over decades of diligent study.

6. Was the Memory of Alessandro Sina More Important than His Assets?

At his death, Sina did not leave any testamentary disposition. His collection of bibliographic materials,64 accumulated over decades of scientific activity, was inherited by his niece, Lucia Panighetti Sina. Within a few months, several options for the destination of Sina’s assets were presented to the heir. The public interest in acquiring the priest’s inheritance was unexpectedly high. The interest in acquiring this scholarly collection was linked to the memory of the individual who assembled these items, namely Alessandro Sina. The news of the negotiations’ offers and counteroffers was also discussed in local media outlets, establishing a significant and stable presence. In November 1953, it appeared in the Giornale di Brescia, the leading newspaper of the city of Brescia and its province. The parties involved were diverse and originated from both the public and private sectors of Valcamonica and Brescia; resolving the conflict required the intervention of the bibliographic superintendent Teresa Rogledi Manni.

Part of the documents generated during the negotiations concerning the acquisition of Sina’s assets was published in one of the numerous conference proceedings commemorating his memory.65 However, the new sources discovered through research at the Archival and Bibliographic Superintendence of Lombardy enable a more coherent reconstruction of the story, which is discussed both in private correspondence between the parties and publicly in the Giornale di Brescia.

In November 1953, this newspaper published an article,66 confirming the acquisition of Sina’s collections by the Accademia Tadini in Lovere.67 This was done through the involvement of Director Gino Scalzi, a friend of Sina, with the purpose of establishing a comprehensive academic library.

The article criticised this decision, noting that Sina’s inheritance had attracted the attention of other potential buyers, such as the Municipality of Breno, the Associazione Pro Valle Camonica, and some private individuals in the valley. The following day, Ugo Baroncelli, the Director of the Queriniana Library in Brescia, published a comment on the news, expressing regret on behalf of the entire province for losing the assets and memory of a prominent Brescian scholar and priest.68 He also called for politicians and superintendents to intervene to prevent the matter from reaching a conclusion. Moreover, Baroncelli contacted the bibliographic superintendent for Lombardy, informing her of the newspaper articles and notifying her that in Valcamonica the acquisition of Sina’s inheritance by the Municipality of Breno was believed to have been finalised.69 The superintendent was inclined to plead the case, requesting that the collections be kept in Breno.70

With the superintendent’s support, Baroncelli became involved in the matter to explore all possibilities. From personal interviews with the heir, he discovered that some members of the Associazione Pro Valle Camuna and scholars from the valley had acted like «birds of prey», forging municipal documents to obtain at least part of Sina’s inheritance. It was for this precise reason that the heir chose to decline further negotiations with the public authorities of Breno. As an alternative to the Accademia Tadini, the heir would have regarded the acquisition of the inheritance by the Queriniana Library as a more suitable Brescian institution for the conservation of bibliographic material.71 The actions of Ugo Baroncelli were immediately followed by a telegram from Superintendent Teresa Rogledi Manni to Sina’s heir, requesting that negotiations with the Accademia Tadini be suspended.72

The official offer from the Queriniana Library was sent to the Superintendent on 16^th November 1953, including a summary of the events of the preceding days.73 Baroncelli mobilised, with the support of the citizens of Valcamonica, the Mayor of Breno and the Assessor for Public Education of Esine, against the loss of Sina’s inheritance. Baroncelli never regarded the Accademia Tadini as dishonest and unprofessional. For this reason, he also suggested a joint purchase: all the assets would be transferred to the deposits of the Queriniana, except for the most important units, which would be allocated to the academy. Under this proposal, the bibliographic supervisor organised a meeting with all involved parties—the heir, superintendent, Accademia Tadini, Queriniana Library, Municipality of Breno—on 24 November 1953.74

The days leading up to the meeting on 24 November were chaotic and marked by circulating information that was only partly reliable. On 19 November, Oberto Ameraldi, a municipal councillor of Esine, formally communicated to the superintendent that in October, the successful bid was submitted by the Municipality of Breno instead of the Accademia Tadini, whose intermediaries did not operate with complete transparency.75 A conflict of interest clearly influenced the dissemination of this information, as Ameraldi was a distant heir to part of Sina’s collections—specifically, the documentary collection of the Jansenist Guadagnini from Esine.76 Indeed, Ameraldi attempted to retain part of Sina’s inheritance. On 24 November, an article was published in the Giornale di Brescia that spread the information about Ameraldi.77 It criticised the hidden interests behind the auction among public bodies, as well as the heir, who, according to sources, would have increased economic demand due to the involvement of parties beyond the Municipality of Breno. Finally, this article recognised the Queriniana Library as a guardian of Sina’s heritage and memory.

Regarding the meeting on 24 November, I have found no documents about it. However, other sources indicate that the Municipality of Breno, as already evident, was excluded from the competition in favour of the Queriniana Library.78 Furthermore, the Accademia Tadini would not have abandoned the agreement already established with the heir on 4 November; however, it would nonetheless consider Baroncelli’s proposal with a somewhat critical attitude towards the situation.79 An excerpt from the previously mentioned article provides insight into the conclusions of the affair (D. V. 1973, p. 95). This highlights a contract dated 28 November 1953, in which the Municipality of Brescia, represented by the Queriniana Library, purchased the entire collection of Sina, incorporating it into its holdings.

Less than a month later, the controversy over the acquisition of Sina’s collection resumed in the Giornale di Brescia.80 Araldo Bertolini harshly criticised the decision to move the inheritance to the city, arguing that the cultural loss for the valley would have occurred anyway. The response to the accusations against Baroncelli was promptly included in the same article, which included a further hostile reply to Bertolini by Enrico Tarsia (D. V. 1973, pp. 91–92). Sina’s heir subsequently discussed the criticisms of Bertolini (D. V. 1973, p. 94). According to the heir, the senseless dispute driven by personal interests of figures like Araldo Bertolini has tarnished the memory of Alessandro Sina and his work, and has turned his heritage and the associated bureaucratic practice into the «tale of the village». Extended exposure to public opinion would result in an ongoing wave of criticism directed towards individuals who did not receive the outcomes they desired from the situation.

Noting that the Queriniana Library had received Sina’s inheritance, it remains unclear the extent of this patrimony and its economic value. Analysis of the receipt registers of the Queriniana Library from April 1951 to February 1967, shows the presence of a flow of receipts named «Acquisto Biblioteca Sina», «Biblioteca Sina», «Fondo Sina».81 These were concerned with the acquisition of approximately two hundred and sixty printed editions, mostly contemporaneous with the priest, including some items from the seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries.82 The material is mainly related to Sina’s studies, especially ecclesiastical history. Although the most significant component of Sina’s collection was the documentary/manuscript section, it remains unclear what his librarian nucleus is, because the number of identified items is limited. Indeed, some works cited as part of the inheritance acquisition are missing from the registers and the online catalogue.

The purchase of Sina’s collections was a topic of heated debate among local political offices, the community and public opinion. The media coverage that characterised November 1953 influenced the events, hastening decisions that caused discontent for some of the parties involved. Much of the resonance is linked to Sina’s memory and the necessity to keep his commemoration in the province of Brescia. Although Sina did not leave a will, his heir played a vital role in identifying the risks to the deceased’s inheritance and devising a solution that would theoretically safeguard the collections.

7. Common Characteristics but Different Resonance, Historical Contexts and Political Influence

The events surrounding Putelli’s and Sina’s collections capture a social, cultural, and political snapshot of Italy before and after the Second World War. The connection between valuable items amassed over decades of work and public and private interests is inseparable. Furthermore, the story of the two priests’ inheritance illustrates how a peripheral region like Valcamonica is rich in events and stories related to those discussed throughout this article. However, despite their numerous similarities, the evident differences in their administration, treatment, and perception of the two priests’ collections are unmistakable.

As discussed, the administration of the donation process, initially undertaken by Putelli and subsequently by his heirs and public officials, was intricate. The heterogeneity of the collections and Putelli’s will—whose declaration of the estate as private property was not transparent—clashed with Italy’s complex political situation and wartime disruptions. Although the abandonment of the material led to deterioration and dispersion, what is surprising is that, at the end of the conflict, Putelli’s collection did not receive the recognition it deserved, considering the amount of valuable material it contained. On the contrary, the inheritance was received quite casually and tacitly, without actually clarifying all the public aspects of the acquisition in the 1950s. After many decades, a definitive arrangement for Putelli’s collection was finally established. Although it currently stands as a flagship of Valcamonica and Breno, the preserved material continues to mend the turbulent public-institutional process.

In contrast, Sina did not draft a will, likely due to his perception of his assets as resources for scholarly endeavours rather than as superficial ornaments, as was the case with Putelli. Although Sina’s inheritance did not include incunabula or illuminated scrolls, the media and political battle that emerged in the post-war period to claim Sina’s belongings and memory was undoubtedly more significant and impactful than that related to Putelli’s collections. Although Sina’s collections are housed in one of Brescia’s most important public institutions, the Queriniana Library, part of the priest’s bibliographical legacy is now fragmented and dispersed across the institute’s extensive and diverse collections. Compared to Putelli’s collections—conserved under the name Raccolta Putelli—Sina’s are more difficult to view in their entirety.

A reflection on the differing perceptions and treatment of the two collections can arise from the political stance of the two priests. While Sina was widely remembered and the subject of periodic conferences in his honour, academic interest in Putelli’s legacy only emerged in the last decades of the twentieth century. The neglect in which Putelli was left during the early post-war decades—characterised by a process of cultural erasure of fascism—affects his bibliographical collections, which nonetheless deserve greater attention. Therefore, it is reasonable to argue that if Putelli’s collections had been regarded not as his political legacy but as an asset of Valcamonica and Brescia, they would not have suffered such a significant loss of rare items, including incunabula and sixteenth-century printed editions. Sadly, politics and religion could not be separated in the lives of influential local figures such as priests Alessandro Sina and Romolo Putelli.