The Practical Cardinal
The best-known aspect of Contarini's curial career before his mission to Germany in 1541 is his work on the reform commissions, and their failure has led to a distorted image of him as an outsider battling entrenched interests in Rome. While there is some truth to this view, it should be stressed that Contarini was no impractical dreamer among seasoned curial hands, or the proverbial Venetian sheep among Roman wolves. He took an uncompromising stand on the nature of papal power, but he did not break with those of his colleagues who thought otherwise. His diplomatic training stood him in good stead, and on the whole he managed to retain the goodwill of men with whom he disagreed. Pucci's sharp words about Contarini's manner are an exception; in other quarters there was general praise for his kind ways. The pope and his ever more important grandson, Cardinal Alessandro Farnese, were not alienated by Contarini's occasional criticism, as when he openly disapproved of a pageant organized during the carnival of 1539 by Paul III to please Margaret of Austria, the wife of his grandson Ottaviano.[187] Toward both men Contarini consistently maintained a respectful attitude whatever his private reservations may have been, and they reciprocated by displaying their esteem for his person.
Contarini participated actively in the day-to-day business of the college of cardinals, involving himself in numerous practical problems. His career had a large and perfectly ordinary component of routine activity, and there is no reason to think that he considered himself or was regarded by others as an outsider. Paul III put him on committees other than those dealing with reform, for example one "for matters pertaining to the council" made up of nine cardinals.[188] Contarini wrote about it to Cardinal Gonzaga: "We have met together many times. [Lorenzo] Campeggio is in charge of German problems [gravami ], and I of theological matters [materie della fede ]. Therefore I have formed a separate [sub]committee of theologians and we often meet together. If everyone has good will there won't be many issues."[189] Nothing is known about these meetings (they are not
[187] Report of the French ambassador Grignan, Rome, 19 Feb. 1539, in Guillaume Ribier, Lettres et memoires d'estat, des roys, princes, ambassadeurs, et autres ministres, sous les regnes de François premier, Henry II et François II (Paris, 1666), 384.
[188] On 7 January 1537; see CT 4:142.
[189] Rome, 8 Feb. 1538, in Friedensburg, "Briefwechsel," 188 (letter 20).
mentioned in the very few surviving letters of Contarini from 1538) or about the theologians he consulted. But the fact that the pope gave him discretion to chair such a subcommittee and drew him closely into the preparations for the council is indicative of the confidence Paul III felt in him.
Contarini's other offices in the curia included the important position of treasurer, or camerarius , of the college of cardinals for the year 1540, in which post he succeeded a notable curial insider, Cardinal Simonetta.[190] He had the assistance of two clerks of this college in the discharge of his responsibilities. One of his main functions was to oversee the division of the collective income of the cardinals; but although the dates on which this was done are recorded, the sums involved are not mentioned.[191] He was succeeded as camerarius by Carafa, elected for 1541.[192] That both these prominent reformers held this high elective position argues strongly against their being considered outsiders by their colleagues.
Further proof of Contarini's good standing with Paul III was his inclusion in the papal train at the meeting in Nice between Francis I and Charles V in May and June 1538. Again, extant documents do not indicate the extent of Contarini's involvement in the diplomatic negotiations for a ten-year truce between the Habsburg and Valois rulers; yet he fully supported any effort by Paul III to bring about peace and considered the pope as potentially the most effective peacemaker among European princes, as we have seen. Contarini was regarded highly at both the French and imperial courts. Francis I spoke with him at length, and the king's sister, Margaret of Angoulême, literally overwhelmed him with her affectionate greeting and kisses;[193] meanwhile, Charles V asked him to explain his position regarding war against the Turks to the Venetian government, thus to act as a trusted intermediary.[194] Paul III empowered him to negotiate with the Signoria regarding the perennially troublesome question of taxation of church property.[195] All these instances show that Contarini was an important and respected member of the papal court; the idea that he was on its fringes is simply not tenable.
[190] ASVat, Fondo Concistoriale, Acta Camerarii, vol. IV, fol. 24r.
[191] Ibid, fol. 31v:
[192] Ibid., vol. V, fol. 22r.
[193] Beccadelli, "Vita," 29.
[194] Ibid.; Cicogna, Delle inscrizioni veneziane 2:231.
[195] The nuncio Verallo to Cardinal A. Farnese, Venice, 9 Aug. 1538, in Gaeta (ed.), Nunziature di Venezia 2:183.
Among Contarini's practical concerns during his years on the curia was the administration of the diocese of Belluno. There is no way of reconciling his position as absentee bishop with his earlier pronouncements on episcopal residence and his unequivocal condemnation of pastors who abandoned their flocks, including the sharp words on the subject in the Consilium de emendanda ecclesia written while he himself was an absentee bishop. Did he remember what he had written twenty years earlier about absentee bishops?
They really feel they are adequately fulfilling their duties if they hand over the government of their city to a procurator while they receive the income. They swell the train of some great figure in the Roman curia, and concern themselves with matters of statecraft and war, but as to the people over whom they rule they do not so much as send a messenger to find out whether they are making progress or going backward in their practice of the Christian religion, and they completely neglect the poor of their flock. Is this what it means to be a bishop? Is this the imitation of Christ's disciples and the observance of gospel precepts?[196]
The author of these words was bishop of Belluno for over five years, during which time he paid a single visit to his diocese in the summer of 1538. Evidently he accepted the bishopric for financial reasons: it increased his revenue by over a thousand ducats a year and after his death passed to his nephew Giulio, illegitimate son of his brother Ferigo, thus remaining in the family.[197] We see Contarini behaving here remarkably like those whom he had castigated, but with one important difference. He chose serious and able vicars for Belluno, among whom Girolamo Negri stands out, and to that extent showed concern for the spiritual welfare of his flock. But the fact remains that his actions contradicted his words, a discrepancy that did not go unnoticed by his contemporaries. Even his adulatory biographer Dittrich could do little more than note that Contarini "did not suspect, as he wrote this [the passage about absentee bishops quoted above], that he too would be among the bishops to whom it was not granted to reside in the midst of their flock. Of course, his work on the curia and later during his legation to Germany served the interests of the whole church to such
[196] Opera , 412-13. See also Prosperi, Tra evangelismo e controriforma , 303, for Giberti's preoccupation with residence as shown in his testament.
[197] ASVat, Fondo Concistoriale, Acta Misc., vol. VIII, fol. 318v. Nilo Tiezza, "I vescovi di Belluno Giulio e Gaspare Contarini e il Concilio di Trento," Dolomiti 2, no. 6 (1979): 7-10, exaggerates both Contarini's role as bishop and his influence, and offers no new information.
an extent that he could justifiably have a tranquil conscience."[198] Dittrich refused to see that for Contarini financial considerations outweighed scruples in this case; he concentrated on the advice and guidance Contarini gave Negri, and the clergy and people of Belluno, rather than on his absenteeism.
What emerges from Contarini's letters to Belluno is another illustration of his temperament and outlook. He highly prizes peace and concord among the citizens, and he is most anxious to restore order in what must have been a particularly dissolute cathedral chapter. At the same time, he realistically realizes the limits of his power to check abuses. A continuing source of disturbance lay in the scandalous goings-on of a convent of nuns just outside the town. Contarini's two earlier experiences with disorderly convents, Corpus Domini in Venice and S. Mafia Maddalena in Verona,[199] had shown him how difficult it was for civil or ecclesiastical authorities to deal with recalcitrant nuns who were supported by their families. Now he was faced by a nunnery exempt from his jurisdiction. All he could do was issue an edict against those who frequented the convent without his or Negri's permission and declare them excommunicate.[200] This measure failed to have the desired effect, however, and the matter dragged on, creating unrest in the town that drew a reproof from Contarini and finally his threat to call on the Venetian government for assistance.[201]
There is no doubt that Contarini was solicitous for his diocese and concerned for the clergy and people.[202] But the fact remains that he never had pastoral experience there except for his single visit of two months. His letters, thus, are an extension of De officio episcopi rather than the fruit of direct involvement. They convey his self-image of a paternal spiritual guide, but this, however admirable, gives no basis for
[198] GC , 414.
[199] In February 1537 Pole was sent as papal legate to France, and Giberti accompanied him. During the latter's absence Contarini was entrusted with the government of the diocese of Verona; see Prosperi, Tra evangelismo e controriforma , 170-71. For Contarini's indignation at the behavior of the nuns of S. Mafia Maddalena, see Reg ., 266-67 (Inedita, nos. 32, 33). The text should be corrected by ASVat, A.A., Arm. I-XVIII, 6461, fols. 5lr-52v. Contarini called on the doge of Venice to punish male relatives of the nuns who offered armed resistance to the bishop's agents seeking to restore order in the convent.
[200] Reg ., 298-99 (Inedita, nos. 32, 33). Again the text should be corrected from ASVat, A.A., Arm. I-XVIII, 6461, fols. 69r-v, 68r-v.
[201] ASVat, A.A., Arm. I-XVIII, 6461, fol. 92v; and Reg ., 302 (Inedita, no. 38).
[202] See GC , 411-22; and Reg ., 268-70 (Inedita, nos. 18-19), 297-304 (Inedita, nos. 31-40), and 305-9 (Inedita, no. 42).
judging how effective he would have been in a small diocese with complex social and economic problems.[203] His letters to Belluno, although incomplete, form a great contrast to his correspondence as papal legate in Bologna in 1542, where he dealt with very down-to-earth matters.[204] The former are mini-sermons, while the latter are succinct business letters.
In accepting a bishopric Contarini was merely inconsistent, given his own previous statements on the subject of absentee bishops. But another, more serious example of his accommodation to existing practices at the curia is not so easily explained and presents a challenge to the modern imagination. Beginning in November 1535 and continuing throughout almost the entire time he was working on the reform commissions, trying in vain to change the practices of the dataria and the poenitentiaria and vigorously attacking prevailing ideas concerning compositions, he himself was receiving a monthly pension of 260 scudi from the income of the dataria . The pension was increased to 500 scudi in April 1541, when he was papal legate in Germany. His close associate in reform efforts in Rome, Gianpietro Carafa, also received a pension of 100 scudi a month from the dataria beginning with June 1537, which was increased to 200 scudi in November; the same holds for Reginald Pole, who had joined the dataria pensioners for the first time in December 1536 with 100 scudi a month.[205]
The hard facts from the account books help to illuminate the narrow parameters within which the commissions for reform of the curia could be effective. Figures make it possible to understand better Paul III's vacillation and his ultimate neutralizing of the commissions. He cannot be interpreted as turning his back on reform at the curia for political reasons alone, reasons that included a profound desire not to split the college of cardinals into sharply opposed factions and not to play into the hand of Protestants. By a fortunate chance the registers, or libri mastri , of the dataria are preserved for the entire reign of Paul III,
[203] Ferruccio Vendramini, Tensioni politiche nella società bellunese della prima metà del '500 (Belluno: Tarantola, 1974).
[204] Alfredo Casadei, "Lettere del Cardinale Gaspero Contarini durante la sua legazione di Bologna (1542)," Archivio storico italiano 118 (1960): 77-130, 220-85.
[205] For Contarini, see BAV, Vat. lat. 10600, fols. 74r, 77v, 79v, 81v, 83r, 85r, 87r, 89v, 91v, 93r, 94v, 96r, 99r, 100v, 102v, 104r, 106r, 108r, 110r, 111v, 114r, 115v, 116v, 119r, 121v, 124r, 126v; 129r, 131r, 133v, 135r, 143v, 116v (at this point the foliation begins again with 116, which follows 145), 119v, 123r, 126v, 128v, 132r, 134r, 137v, 140r, 142v, 145r; Vat. lat. 10601, fols. 46r, 49r, 55r, 59r, 61v, 64r, 68r, 70v, 73v, 77r. For the first payment to Pole, see Vat. lat. 10600, fol. 100r; to Carafa, fol. 109v.
permitting a summary of income and expenditures from that key office.[206] They permit insights into papal finances such as Contarini and his supporters never had, since the books were meant only for the datario and the pope.
The registers show first of all that if fees for compositions had been abolished, as Contarini proposed, the pope would have lost almost half of the dataria revenues,[207] and the door would probably have been opened for an attack on the other half, derived from the sale of offices. This income was the basis for the pope's running expenses, of which monthly pensions to members of his immediate family formed a large part. For the years 1540-41, for example, pensions to members of his family amounted to 81,438 gold scudi, or more than one-quarter of the total income of the dataria , whereas sums for charity came to a meager 6 percent of the total. In addition, Paul III gave his family extra sums for unusual expenses or costly presents. Thus for January 1540, for example, we find these entries: to the master of the household of Ottaviano Farnese, the pope's grandson, 1,500 scudi; to his wife, Margaret of Austria, 500 plus 700 more for the purchase of a pearl.[208] Among the entries for January 31 is this: "On the last day of the month, 600 gold scudi to his Lordship Ottaviano Farnese, prefect of Rome, to spend for his pleasure during this carnival."[209] By contrast, Michelangelo, then working on the Sistine Chapel, is listed for an occasional 100 scudi. Another cluster of entries in March for clothing, extraordinary expenses, and the households of Ottaviano and Margaret comes to a total of 1,647 scudi.[210] Almost every month large, even exorbitant sums are listed, as in January 1541, when Margaret received 4,000 scudi, or July, when 4,600 scudi went to Ottaviano.[211] To these amounts were added others from different sources. Thus two account
[206] Seven volumes are preserved, covering the period 1 March 1531-7 February 1550, and 1 March 1554-31 March 1555. While not unknown, they have never been analyzed in detail. The best recent study, by Litva, "Attività finanziaria," makes extensive use of them for statistical purposes without, however, offering the systematic examination of payment records that would be of particular interest to historians. Hallman, Italian Cardinals , also uses the libri mastri extensively as part of her evidence, though not as the focus of her inquiry.
[207] From 1534 to 1564 the annual average of dataria revenues was 141,500 gold scudi. The annual median derived from compositions was 63,000 scudi, while that from the sale of offices was 78,300 scudi.
[208] BAV, Vat. lat. 10601, fol. 52r.
[209] Ibid., fol. 53v.
[210] Ibid., fols. 57v, 58r, 59r.
[211] Ibid., fol. 104v. Hallman, Italian Cardinals , 151, has calculated that the subsidies to Ottaviano and Margaret from the dataria came to 23,246 scudi in 1539, 25,747 scudi in 1540, and 34,833 scudi in 1541.
books of the secret treasury during this period list twenty-three persons bearing the surname Farnese among the recipients of monetary gifts.[212] Only a thorough prosopographical study, yet to be done, would reveal the extent of patronage to the pope's relatives, in-laws, and dependents of various sorts.
Paul III was the center of an extensive network of dependents whose income and social station derived from him. Indeed, nepotism was a key reason for the pope's inability to accept the proposals of reform-minded cardinals, for to do so would have threatened the complex structure that in the eyes of Italian society of the time involved absolute obligations. Nepotism and patronage formed part of the ideas, norms, and patterns of behavior involved in familial pietas, the safeguarding and advancement of family wealth, honor, and prestige expected especially of powerful family members.[213] For the papal clan nepotism was the crucial vehicle for building fortunes and ascending in the social scale. The libri mastri of the dataria give us evidence of the process by which the wealth of the Farnese was accumulated—to be supplemented, of course, by other and more important records, such as lists of the benefices conferred on the family of the reigning pope. When Contarini called on Paul Ill to reform the curia without worrying about loss of income, he had no precise conception of what such a loss would have meant for the Farnese and how inconceivable it was for the pope to accept his radical proposals.
Barbara Hallman has argued that sixteenth-century Italian cardinals before the Council of Trent were enmeshed in the problems of accumulating, maintaining, and passing on to their families wealth derived from the church and that therefore any reform touching their vested interests was bound to fail. Reform efforts are thus thought to have been limited to areas that did not threaten property, such as matters of doctrine, education, or the suppression of heresy. These observations are helpful in elucidating an important aspect of the Roman situation
[212] Léon Dorez, La cour du Pape Paul III d'après les registres de la Trésorerie secrète (Paris: E. Leroux, 1932).
[213] For the best analysis of nepotism as a sociocultural phenomenon, see the studies of Wolfgang Reinhard: "Äanterlaufbahn und Familienstatus: der Aufstieg des Hauses Borghese," Quellen und Forschungen aus italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken 54 (1974): 328-427; "Nepotismus"; and "PAPA PIUS: Prolegomena zu einer Sozialgeschichte des Papsttums," in Von Konstanz nach Trient: Beiträge zur Geschichte der Kirche von den Reformkonzilien bis zum Tridentinum. Festgabe für August Franzen , ed. Remigius Bämer (Munich: Schöningh, 1972), 262-99. Although it deals with a later period, there are many valuable general observations in the same writer's Papstfinanz und Nepotismus .
and offer one answer as to why no sweeping, comprehensive Catholic reform occurred during the pontificate of Paul III. But it is necessary to go still further. The Italian cardinals do not bear the main responsibility for the failure of reform. They, along with the popes, the entire curia, indeed anyone of social and economic consequence in Rome, from these men's dependents down to the simplest clerks of the offices and tribunals, were part of a specific society that had evolved over the centuries, taking its final shape under the Renaissance popes. Only a revolution could have changed that society suddenly and drastically, an upheaval akin to the restructuring of institutions and patterns of property holding in the areas or states that became Protestant. In the Catholic church of the 1530s, that sort of change was unthinkable. The only other alternative was that which was actually realized: gradual change from within the existing system, far-reaching and sweeping in its effects but masked by the rhetoric of continuity with tradition.
During his years at the papal court Contarini and his supporters should be seen against the actual circumstances of the Roman ecclesiastical society to which they belonged, rather than set apart in a category labeled "reformers." Historians have judged Contarini by his writings and his efforts for reform of the curia, which certainly formed a sharp contrast to the inertia and obstructionism of most cardinals at the time. But his tracts on institutional reform were entirely theoretical, consistently exploring the principles according to which popes ought to act and culling arguments to support his views from philosophy and theology. If we examine what Contarini actually did as cardinal, not only what he said, it becomes much more difficult to distinguish him from the others. Granted that he and his friends were working toward an ideal and that as advocates of reform they were admirable men. But they were also practical and understood that, given the system, radical changes were not very likely. Pending the hoped-for but far distant reform, they still had to live, and they showed no qualms about receiving income from the sources that were available, sources their contemporaries did not consider unusual, let alone unacceptable. Contarini and Carafa, with no substantial family wealth on which to draw, depended on what the pope granted them. While on the theoretical level they worked for reform of the dataria , in practice they were its pensioners. Neither man should be accused of hypocrisy, nor should Pole, who behaved similarly. They simply did not think in our categories but accepted the standards of their world, separating quite neatly what existed in reality from what should have existed but
was confined to theory. Contarini's technical pluralism after he was appointed administrator of the see of Canterbury is further proof that what he condemned in his writings could nevertheless be part of his actual practice. He was not Mr. Smith going to Washington, but a man with a good grasp of how government and fiscal affairs were conducted in actuality, and he benefited from the system to which he belonged without what most Italian contemporaries would have regarded as too many scruples. Fundamental change in church government had to come from the top, from the pope himself, and not from reform commissions that were empowered to do no more than make recommendations. Meanwhile, reform commissioners had to live too.
In a very clear way the ineffective commissions and the unsuccessful reform of the dataria expose some nuts and bolts of the concrete situation at Rome, practical matters that should be given greater weight than they have been by historians attempting to elucidate the nature and limits of reform within the Catholic church. We are faced by pieces of a puzzle that demands a clearer explanation than has yet been given of both the thought and ideas of advocates of Catholic reform. Together, the pieces offer clues to the much larger question of why the church and the popes moved so slowly in matters of reform, and why that reform was so cautious and gradual when it finally did begin.