Gladly, but I’ve already pointed out the Dominicans were the responsible party as outlined in Newman. The specifics:Phaeded and Mike, Corio's History should not be dismissed as irrelevant either. Who do you think ordered the burning of the followers of Guglielma? If you write I am wrong about something, you should also be so kind to correct me with a better documented alternative to what I proposed.
Far from burning the “heretics” themselves, the Visconti themselves got caught up in the witch hunt as followers of Manfreda, per a later Dominican tribunal instigated on behalf of the Pope:Two decades after Guglielma's death, the activities of her apostles came, inevitably, to the attention of a Dominican tribunal charged with conducting inquisitions in Milan. In a lengthy trial extending from July through December of 1300, the year of jubilee, these inquisitors interrogated at least thirty-three citizens, including Saramita and Maifreda, both of whom paid for their doctrine with their lives. (7) A second nun, Sister Giacoma dei Bassani da Nova, was also burned at the stake, while many others were sentenced to wear penitential crosses and pay hefty fines. Guglielma herself was posthumously condemned on the basis of a confession almost certainly extracted by torture from Saramita. The Dominicans were less interested in ascertaining her genuine beliefs than in expunging her cult, which they could do only by exhuming her body--a desecration that would have been unlawful were she not a proven heretic. Having created the evidence they required, the inquisitors proceeded to have Guglielma's tomb dismantled, her images destroyed, her disciples' writings consigned to the fire, her bones burned and their ashes scattered, her memory utterly damned.
The only reason we know any of this is because of the DOMINICAN record, acting on behalf of the Pope. All of this was when the anti-papal Age of the Holy Ghost movement was at its peak.The restored Matteo Visconti embarked on a policy of territorial aggression so relentless that Pope John XXII, taking advantage of Henry's death in 1317, deprived Matteo of his imperial title, reassigned it to one of his Guelph allies, and summoned Matteo to the curia at Avignon to answer a series of charges. Matteo refused, incurring excommunication and giving further cause of war. But the Visconti armies defeated the papal troops, so John XXII resorted to new spiritual weapons. In February 1321 he summoned Matteo to Avignon once more, this time to be tried by an inquisitorial court on charges of sorcery and heresy. The outcome was of course a foregone conclusion. On February 23, 1322, the pope placed Milan under interdict and declared a "crusade" against Matteo Visconti and his sons, promising a plenary indulgence to all who would take up arms against them, and a month later, the Visconti were again found guilty of contumacious heresy. (68)…. In the midst of such accusations, we find detailed and plausible charges that both father and son were compromised by their involvement with "the heretic Maifreda" and her partisans. (69) Their association with the Guglielmites forms part of a larger pattern of anticlerical and anti-inquisitorial activities. Among other things, Matteo is accused of violently arresting and detaining clerics, interfering with the pope's messengers, "impeding the office of inquisition" in many places, (70) imprisoning the bishop of Vercelli, imposing unlawful taxes on churches, intruding unworthy persons as superiors of religious houses, disrupting a crusade sermon, and bribing Saracen kings to take arms against John XXII. Guilt by association figures prominently: Matteo's grandmother was allegedly defamed for heresy, as was his uncle Ottone, the late archbishop of Milan. Another witness claims that the heresiarch Fra Dolcino was on such intimate terms with Matteo Visconti that Dolcino raised an army at his command. As for his relationship with Sister Maifreda, an informant testifies that "during the trial against Maifreda and her heresy, many things would have been said and discovered against the faith if they had not been dismissed for fear of Matteo, who then ruled Milan; they were not disclosed because those who knew of them did not dare reveal them for fear of Matteo." (71) Another witness declares on the basis of hearsay that Matteo petitioned for the release of several persons defamed for heresy during this trial, including one Guido Stanfeo. According to another charge, he "petitioned for the liberation of the heretic Maifreda when she had already been arrested and handed over to secular judgment." Finally, during his lordship Matteo promoted and took as counselors men who were well known for heresy. Among these were "Francesco da Garbagnate, who belonged to the sect of Maifreda and was signed with the cross for this; ... also Andrea [Saramita], the burned heretic; Albertone da Novate, Ottorino da Garbagnate, Felicino Carentano, Franceschino Malconzato, all signed with the cross." (72) An Augustinian lay brother called Fra Pezzolo claimed that Galeazzo, who would have been quite young in the movement's heyday, "belonged to the sect of Maifreda the heretic" and served as her doorkeeper. On the testimony of another witness, Galeazzo would have been signed with the cross in 1300--that is, made to wear the yellow crosses of a heretic on his clothes as a badge of shame--"if his father Matteo had not made him go to the inquisitor's feet with laces around his neck so he would spare him." (73)
As for the spurious history of Guglielma now dated earlier to 1492, the same motivation of court intrigue explains the production of that revisionist history in light of someone in power attached to the beliefs of Guglielma, its just that the players have changed:
Phaeded[Gian Galeazzo was] born in Abbiategrasso, he was only seven years old when in 1476 his father, Galeazzo Maria Sforza, was assassinated and he became the Duke of Milan. His uncle, Ludovico Sforza, acted as regent to the young duke but quickly wrested all power from him and became the de facto ruler of Milan for some time … Concerning Gian Galeazzo's death in 1494 (Pavia), Italian historian Francesco Guicciardini had to say in his La Historia di Italia (The History of Italy):
The rumor was widespread that Giovan Galeazzo's death had been provoked by immoderate coitus; nevertheless, it was widely believed throughout Italy that he had died not through natural illness nor as a result of incontinence, but had been poisoned... one of the royal physicians...asserted that he had seen manifest signs of it. Nor was there anyone who doubted that if it had been poison, it had been administered through his uncle Ludovico Sforza's machinations...