The Choice of a Legate

The best-known and most fully documented episode of Contarini's life is that of his mission as papal legate to the religious colloquy of Catholics and Protestants at Regensburg in 1541, a role that has assured his inclusion in histories of the Reformation period and perpetuated his fame. His biographer Franz Dittrich, in fact, considered Regensburg to be the culmination of his subject's career and so devoted minute attention to it. Contarini has received almost uniformly favorable treatment as a champion of religious concord in a singularly contentious age and as a man of goodwill who refused to abandon the hope of unity among Christians. While no modern scholar has gone quite so far as to assert that "the work of concord . . . attempted at Regensburg . . . is one of the most decisive moments in the course of modern history,"^[1] the image of the idealistic legate bent on healing the scandalous division in the church is still virtually an icon. He has elicited much sympathy as a proponent of toleration and as a leading figure in the "party of the middle" during the confessional struggles of the sixteenth century.^[2]

[1] De Leva, "Concordia religiosa," 5.

[2] Friedrich Heer, Die dritte Kraft: der europäische Humanismus zwischen den Fronten des konfessionellen Zeitalters (Frankfurt: S. Fischer, 1959), offers one of the most explicit arguments for the strength of the "third force" of humanists who occupied a middle ground between doctrinaire Catholics and Protestants.

In reality, Contarini's legation is at most an instructive episode in the history of the German Reformation and of Charles V's reign. While it assumes a more central place when seen from the perspective of the papacy, the mission of Contarini did not significantly affect the diplomatic chess game between pope and emperor, or change the prevailing Roman attitude toward German Protestants. It did, however, serve as a catalyst for Contarini's ideas about the relation of Catholics and Protestants, and of individual Christians to religious authority. Another issue is whether the Roman "vote of no confidence in his conduct of affairs in Regensburg meant the defeat of his party in Italy, and with it the loss of any hope of Catholic ecumenical initiative for decades, if not centuries to come," as has been maintained.^[3] The examination of Contarini's part in the meeting at Regensburg should enable us to understand its importance for him personally, its effects on his supporters and sympathizers, and finally its influence on Rome's attitude toward the Protestants.

In the background to the colloquy of Regensburg was the dangerous buildup of tension between Catholics and Protestants in Germany after the Diet of Augsburg in 1530 and the continuing Turkish threat to Habsburg lands. Charles V, supported by Granvelle and Ferdinand of Austria, was hoping to end or at least mitigate the religious dissension in Germany in preparation for a campaign against the Turks that required the support of the Protestants. Thus he became the chief advocate of colloquies between theologians of the two confessions in 1539 and 1540. The idea was not new. In 1534 and 1539 colloquies were held in Leipzig,^[4] and in April of the latter year the German princes and estates agreed in the Frankfurter Anstand^[5] that a meeting without Roman participation should be held in the summer in Nuremberg. While that did not take place, another was called at Speyer in June 1540, transferred to nearby Hagenau because of an outbreak of the plague, then adjourned to Worms for the fall.^[6] When the meeting

[3] Peter Matheson, Cardinal Contarini at Regensburg (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972), 153. Ludwig von Pastor, Die kirchlichen Reunionsbestrebungen während der Regierung Karls V . (Freiburg i.B., 1879), 270, also writes about the "sudden fall" of Contarini's "party of the middle" (Partei der Mitte ) after Regensburg.

[4] For discussions of the colloquies of the decade preceding Regensburg, see Marion Hollerbach, Das Religionsgespräh als Mittel der konfessionellen und politischen Auseinandersetzung im Deutschland des 16. Jahrhunderts (Frankfurt: Lang, 1982), 108-54; and Wilhelm H. Neuser, Die Vorbereitung der Religionsgespräche von Worms und Regensburg 1540/41 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1974), 9-24. Both contain references to the older literature.

[5] The text is in Neuser, Vorbereitung , 75-85.

[6] For a fuller discussion, see Jedin, Trient 1:301-2.

finally opened on 25 November, Melanchthon and Bucer as heads of the Protestant delegation faced the controversialists Eck and Gropper leading the Catholics.^[7] Almost at the last moment Tommaso Campeggio, bishop of Feltre, was sent by Pope Paul III as his representative, but he was given no real power to maneuver. An observer rather than an active participant, he was charged with ensuring that the meeting at Worms did not usurp the competence of a general council. Several theologians accompanied him as advisors, foremost among them the Italian Dominican Tommaso Badia and his Dutch confrere Albert Pighius.^[8] He was quite overshadowed, however, by Giovanni Morone, nuncio to King Ferdinand, whose experience in German affairs was greater and whose diplomatic ability surpassed Campeggio's. The tension between the two men emerges from their correspondence^[9] as well as from the letters of the officious Pier Paolo Vergerio, self-appointed expert on the religious situation in Germany.^[10]

After sharp differences of opinion arose concerning matters of procedure, and after several fruitless meetings were held in January 1541, the emperor adjourned the colloquy to Regensburg, where an imperial diet was to convene. But the official meetings at Worms were not the whole story. Secret talks between theologians of both sides resulted in a curious document, the so-called Regensburg Book, which was to serve as the basis for discussion at the upcoming colloquy. Its formulation of articles of faith avoided controversy as much as possible. The imperial secretary and chief counselor of Charles V, Granvelle, was solidly behind it and declared it to be the work of Flemish theologians, now deceased, but such a mystifying explanation of its authorship in the end satisfied nobody. For once Melanchthon and Eck were of one mind: the former disliked the book because of its vagueness, while the latter was conspicuously violent in his denunciation of it.^[11]

Actually, the Regensburg Book was the result of secret conferences between Catholic and Protestant theologians.^[12] Composed by Gropper, then secretary to the archbishop of Cologne, with additions and

[7] Ibid., 374-77.

[8] For a complete list of participants, see NB 6:100-102.

[9] See, for example, Campeggio's letter to Farnese, Worms, 15 Dec. 1540, in ibid., 69; or very clearly in Morone's to Cervini, 10 Jan. 1540, ibid., 121.

[10] For Vergerio's role in Worms, see Schutte, Pier Paolo Vergerio , 139-52.

[11] "... Haveva fatto l'Ecchio le furie contro quel libro vituperandolo infinitamente" (Contarini to Farnese, Regensburg, 28 Apr. 1541, in Pastor, "Correspondenz," 369.

[12] Hastings Eells, "The Origin of the Regensburg Book," Princeton Theological Reviews , 26 (1928): 358. More recent is Cornelis Augustijn, "De gesprekken tussen Bucer en Gropper tijdens het godsdienstgesprek te Worms in December 1540," Nederlands archief voor kerkgeschiedenis , n.s., 47 (1965-66): 208-230.

emendations by Bucer,^[13] it contained twenty,-three articles in two parts. The first section dealt with points of doctrine such as creation, free will, the causes of sin, original sin, and justification, while in the second questions of sacraments, church organization, and authority were discussed. The work has a tentative and hesitant tone; one is struck by its effort to remain within the ever-diminishing area of shared beliefs.^[14]

Charles V was determined to do everything in his power to ensure that the diet and colloquy at Regensburg would be more fruitful than their predecessors. Exasperated by the indifference of the Catholic princes to the Turkish menace and hampered by mistrust on the part of Protestant rulers who feared an emperor strengthened by a possible victory over the Turks, he was unable to come alone to the aid of his brother, Ferdinand. He therefore intended to lay before the diet the magnitude of the Turkish danger and ask for help. But first he wanted religious concord as a result of which the situation within Germany could be stabilized and the division of the country into two armed camps averted.^[15] His aims and priorities in 1540 were clear.

Pope Paul III on principle opposed religious colloquies in Germany. He feared, with good reason, that a national diet presided over by the emperor which might ratify agreements between German theologians would leave little room for guidance from Rome and raise the specter of a national church. As an all-German solution became conceivable, the pope stated repeatedly that only a general council of the church convoked by himself was competent to deal with the doctrinal issues raised by Luther.^[16] The papal nuncio Giovanni Morone, who was present in Hagenau and Worms, was of one mind with the pope on this matter and let it be known that he was not in favor of colloquies. In his dispatches he stressed that for the emperor political questions were paramount and that he thought Charles V would use a religious accord

[13] Cornelis Augustijn, "Die Religionsgesprache der vierziger Jahre," in Die Religionsgespräche der Reformationszeit , ed. Gerhard Muller (Gutersloh: Mohn, 1980), 46; and Eells, "Origin," 371.

[14] The text of the Regensburg Book is in Georg Pfeilschifter, ed., Acta Reformationis Catholicae Ecclesiam Germaniae concernentia saeculi XVI , vol. 6 (Regensburg: F. Pustet, 1974), 21-88. This supersedes the version in Philip Melanchthon, Opera , vol. 4 of Corpus Reformatorum , ed. Karl Gottlieb Bretschneider (Halle, 1837), 190-238.

[15] For a succinct summary of Charles V's religious policies in Germany, see Heinrich Lutz, Reformation und Gegenreformation , 2d ed. (Munich and Vienna: R. Oldenbourg, 1982), 146-49 and his bibliography; Jedin, Trient 1, bk. 2, chaps. 3-5 and bibliography; and Matheson, Contarini at Regensburg , chaps. 1-3.

[16] For the pope's position, see Jedin, Trient 1, bk. 2, chaps. 6-7.

only to further his own purposes,^[17] which might be detrimental to the Catholic church.

It was against this background that Contarini was chosen as envoy. He has been singled out as a "commanding figure," the "public champion of Evangelism in Italy,"^[18] who was paradigmatic of a whole generation. These statements imply the existence of a movement, with Contarini as one of its leaders. The movement in question is Italian Evangelism, that vexingly elusive phenomenon of sixteenth-century religious history in the peninsula. At present there is no consensus concerning its definition, and the debate about its nature reflects divergent trends in Italian, European, and American scholarship of the last two generations.^[19] What in 1953 was a name for "the last Catholic reform movement before the Council of Trent and the first ecumenical movement after the schism of the Reformation"^[20] has by now become so complex that it is possible to wonder, as one historian has done, whether Evangelism might not be a mere historiographical construct.^[21] The usefulness of the term and its meaning need to be rethought if it is to be rescued from purely nominalistic involutions. To what extent was it a distinct movement with a religious and political program?

The evidence for Evangelism as a movement depends primarily on the writings of a small number of well-known figures, on their correspondence, and on statements made in inquisitorial proceedings. Conclusions have been drawn on the basis of selected passages from their letters, and their personal religious stance has been explained by citing their supposed membership in a movement. The attribution of ideas held by some individuals to their friends or correspondents raises serious methodological problems.^[22] Without resorting to fanciful interpretations of sources, we can start with the fact that a general religious

[17] Morone's dispatches have been published by Franz Dittrich, "Die Nuntiaturberichte Giovanni Morone's vom Reichstage zu Regensburg 1541," Historisches Jahrbuch der Gorresgesellschaft 4 (1883): 395-472, 618-73; and in NB , vols. 5-6.

[18] Philip McNair, Peter Martyr in Italy: An Anatomy of Apostasy (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967), 12.

[19] See Elisabeth G. Gleason, "On the Nature of Italian Evangelism: Scholarship, 1953-1978," Sixteenth Century Journal 9 (1978): 3-25.

[20] Eva-Maria Jung, "On the Nature of Evangelism in Sixteenth-Century Italy," Journal of the History of Ideas 14 (1953): 512.

[21] Susanna Peyronel Rambaldi, "Ancora sull'evangelismo italiano: categoria o invenzione storiografica?" Società e storia 5, no. 18 (1982): 935-67.

[22] Andrea Del Col's acute observations on this point are useful; see Rita Belladonna and Andrea Del Col, "Per una sistemazione critica dell'evangelismo italiano e di un'opera recente," Critica storica 17 (1980): 272.

outlook was shared by a specific group, the spirituali ,^[23] who on closer examination turn out to be few in number and for the most part associated in one way or another with either Contarini or Pole, especially during the latter's residence in Viterbo as papal governor between 1541 and 1545.

This outlook included but was not restricted to "the positive reaction of certain spiritually-minded Catholics to the crucial doctrine of justification by faith "^[24] as "discovered" by Luther or as formulated by others. While acceptance of justification by faith was characteristic of the spirituali , they differed concerning its implication. At one end of a continuum there were some who saw no basic conflict between this key theological belief and the teachings of the Catholic church, while on the other end we find men and a few women for whom irreconcilable differences with the old church were the inevitable result of adhering to sola fide as a central doctrine. Still, the term Evangelism to denote that which united them, their basic religious program, is useful and should be retained. It has become a convenient shorthand designation for a whole cluster of ideas and aspirations found in varying combinations in different people over most of the sixteenth century.^[25] Foremost was the focus on ethical and moral reform of the individual Christian who encountered God's word in the Bible, specifically the Gospels and Pauline epistles, and responded with faith and trust in the divine mercy through which man had been given the incalculable benefit of Christ's death on the cross. Beyond that Evangelism was certainly

[23] For the use of the term in contemporary sources, see Gigliola Fragnito, "Gli 'spirituali' e la fuga di Bernardino Ochino," Rivista storica italiana 84 (1972): 780-81 (reprinted in her Gasparo Contarini , 255-57); also Prosperi, Tra evangelismo e controriforma , 285-86, 314. The term is not easily defined; it referred to the juxtaposition of carnal and spiritual man, but could be used in an ideological and political sense as well. See also the letter of Marcantonio Flaminio to an unknown correspondent, 12 Sept. 1542, in Flaminio, Lettere , 130: ". . . Signor mio, risvegliamoci horamai, et consideriamo che siamo christiani, cioe figlioli di Dio et non servi del mondo, creature spirituali et non carnali; conserviamo dunque il nostro decoro, et come legitimi figlioli di Dio et superiori alla vilta della carne, habbiamo uno animo grande et generoso che resista valorosamente a tutti gli impeti del mondo, della morte, del demonio et dello inferno." See also the thoughtful observations concerning the term spirituali by William V. Hudon, Marcello Cervini and Ecclesiastical Government in Tridentine Italy (De Kalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 1992), 161-74.

[24] McNair, Peter Martyr , 8.

[25] Schutte, "The Lettere Volgari ," shows the persistence of Evangelism after 1542. John Martin, "Salvation and Society in Sixteenth-Century Venice: Popular Evangelism in a Renaissance City," Journal of Modern History 60 (1988): 205-33, shows that Evangelism was not restricted to the educated elite.

"dogmatically manifold,"^[26] while emphasizing the practice of Christian virtues and the imitatio Christi . It had a common doctrinal nucleus from which its adherents then fanned out in various directions. One meaning of the term, then, refers to the core of beliefs held by the spirituali .

Evangelism also refers to a movement, if this term is used with care. Criticism of ecclesiastical institutions and proposals for church reform had been persistent themes of Italian religious thought during the first three decades of the sixteenth century.^[27] Of the many plans and projects for the reform of abuses and church doctrines, only a small fraction surfaced at the Fifth Lateran Council. During the 1520s and 1530s we find individuals and groups in Rome, Venice, Verona, Mantua, and other places reading the Bible, the fathers, and also Protestant works and pondering the relation of sinful man to merciful God. But of a recognizable movement there is as yet no evidence. Only after Contarini was made cardinal in 1535, to be later joined by Sadoleto, Pole, Fregoso, Cortese, Badia, Morone, and even Bembo, was there a focus in Rome toward which reform-minded men and women could look with hope. In that sense it is true that "it is not possible to speak of Evangelism prior to the elevation of Contarini to the cardinalate and the appointment of the commission from which the consilium de emendanda originated."^[28]

The cluster of prelates who had produced the consilium was visible proof that aspirations for reform were no longer confined to scattered individuals or a few study circles, but that reform had become an issue at the very center of the Catholic church. When some of the most vocal advocates of reform were appointed to the commission of 1536, Evangelism assumed a more definite physiognomy. It now could be described as the shared outlook and aims of a small but conspicuous brotherhood of intellectuals, many of whom held high positions in the church. Besides their stress on the necessity of individual reform—the Pauline metanoia —most saw an urgent need for institutional reform and revitalization. An exception would be those who followed Juan de

[26] The phrase is Manfred Welti's: Kleine Geschichte der italienischen Reformation (Gütersloh: Mohn, 1985), 20.

[27] Gleason, "On the Nature of Italian Evangelism," 21-22.

[28] Massimo Firpo, "Juan de Valdés e l'evangelismo italiano: appunti e problemi di una ricerca in corso," Studi storici 26 (1985): 752 (reprinted with slight modifications in his Tra alumbrados e "spirituali": studi su Juan de Valdés e il valdesianesimo nella crisi religiosa del '500 italiano [Florence: Olschki, 1990], 127-53). Jedin, Trient 1:335, thinks that 1536 was an important date for the formation of a visible "firm center" of reform in Rome, although he defines Evangelism more broadly than does Firpo.

Valdés in having no special concern for the institutional church because they detached themselves from its external framework and ceremonies, which receded almost to the category of adiaphora .^[29]

Dividing Evangelism as a movement into "right" and "left" wings, meaning respectively the group interested primarily in institutional reform and the philo-Protestants, correctly points to its diversity but also introduces an inappropriate analogy with modern political parties.^[30] Similarly, proposing the existence of a "politics of Evangelism" suggests a cohesive group or party that planned its strategy with definite objectives.^[31] The movement was in fact never cohesive or strong enough to constitute a long-term successful pressure group in the curia. What gave it prominence in Rome in the late 1530s was the caliber of its members, who undoubtedly were among the most attractive, educated, and spiritual figures at the papal court and who had correspondents and friends in Italian cities ranging from Venice to Naples, especially during the years of Valdés's residence there. It is possible to speak of Evangelism as a "party of reform" for about half a dozen years after 1536, if that term is not given a rigid definition but is applied to a network of men and a few women held together by bonds of friendship, sympathy, mutual support, and, in some cases, notably those of spirituali cardinals and bishops, collaboration in attempts to reform the church.

In this brotherhood linked by ties of friendship and sympathy Contarini had a prominent place. Aleandro, in a letter of 1539, called him "one of the main supports of the Holy Church."^[32] Even allowing for some hyperbole, this sentiment was shared by others and was more than flattery. Pole saw in Contarini's elevation to the cardinalate the direct intervention of God finally coming to the rescue of his church; as he put it to Contarini, "You did not rise to this position by chance or through human favor, but because of the call of him whose bride is the church and who knew best which men's service she needed. He could not be ignorant of what you are able to shoulder."^[33] Letters from

[29] Firpo, "'Ioanne Valdesio è stato heretico pessimo': forme, esiti e metamorfosi dell' 'heresia' valdesiana," in Tra alumbrados , esp. 43-84.

[30] Welti, Kleine Geschichte , 16, 22.

[31] Paolo Simoncelli, Evangelismo italiano del Cinquecento: questione religiosa e nicodemismo politico (Rome: Istituto Storico Italiano per l'Età Moderna e Contemporanea, 1979), passim.

[32] "... Una delle principali columne di santa chicsa," Reg ., 378 (Appendix, no. 8).

[33] Reg ., 80 (no. 270); and Ep. Poli 1:428. A few months later, in April 1536, Pole in a letter to Alvise Priuli compared Charles V with Theodosius, and Contarini with St. Ambrose, for God had called Contarini like a new Ambrose to heal the church; see Reg ., 86 (no. 283); and Ep. Poli 1:451.

friends and acquaintances repeatedly expressed the hope that God would use Contarini for the purification and rebuilding of his church,^[34] or even as an instrument in a grand plan.^[35]

Untarred by deals or by jockeying for ecclesiastical position, power, and influence, Contarini in 1536 and the years that followed certainly was an encouragement to those who had almost despaired of reform in the church. In addition to his probity he brought to his high office a certain measure of detachment, and did not use his position as an excuse for immediate involvement in curial politics or the quest for benefices. Nino Sernini, agent of Cardinal Ercole Gonzaga in Rome and a keen observer of the papal court, reported to Mantua soon after Contarini's arrival the prevailing impression of the new cardinal as a man devoted to learning who was not interested in practical affairs^[36] — a first impression that was proved wrong quite soon by Contarini's participation in the various reform commissions, as we have seen.

One year after his appointment he was definitely perceived as the champion of reform among the cardinals. Though he was not the leader of any group in the usual sense of the word, he emerged as the most influential spokesman for reform, which pitted him against the majority of his colleagues in the Sacred College. As he encountered resistance and hostility he became more outspoken and political, and of course more conspicuous. The eyes of sympathizers and enemies alike were on him. While Contarini did not exactly hold the tiller like a pilot steering the church, this view of him became an important part of his image, especially among the spirituali .^[37]

Prelates who were concerned primarily with disciplinary reform of the church, but without advocating doctrinal changes, did not hold such a favorable view of Contarini. By 1541 these men included Mar-cello Cervini, tutor and advisor of Cardinal Alessandro Farnese, the pope's grandson, and also Carafa. The latter, having parted company with Contarini over the reform of the dataria and poenitentiaria , displayed no sympathy for Contarini's irenic attitude or his endeavors on behalf of religious concord in Germany, and subsequently failed to

[34] See the letters in Reg ., 76-78 (nos. 255,256, 258, 260, 266).

[35] Marcantonio Flaminio to Contarini, in Flaminio, Lettere , 26-27 (letter 3): "Questo non resterò già di dire, che tutti gli homini da bene hanno fissi gli occhi della mente in quella [i.e. Your Excellency], perchè cognoscendo et affermando ognuno ch'el suo cardinalato non è proceduto da homini, ma da Dio, meritamente si crede che sua Maiestà voglia usarla per instrumento di qualche effetto novo et segnalato."

[36] "[Contarini] è tenuto più homo da studii che da negotii" (quoted by Solmi, "Fuga," 82).

[37] Ferrero and Müller (eds.), Carteggio delle lettere di Vittoria Colonna , 127 (letter 76).

support him in the college of cardinals. Much more serious, even sinister, was his early mistrust of spirituali like Pole, Morone, and the poet Marcantonio Flaminio, on whom he gathered incriminating evidence even before the reorganization of the Roman Inquisition in 1542.^[38] It is possible that Contarini, Fregoso, Badia, and Cortese, had they lived longer, would all have been treated like Morone, who was imprisoned in 1557 by the inquisition. In Carafa's view, spirituali were suspect of heresy precisely because of their uncertainty in doctrinal matters that he considered to be above discussion and of their willingness to entertain novel ideas. To him, they seemed like a cancer in the body of the church.^[39] Thus, already in the late 1530s one can discern an increasingly sharp difference in Rome between, on the one hand, a group that wanted institutional reform without any change in traditional Catholic teaching and, on the other, the spirituali , who looked to men like Contarini and Pole for inspiration in their search for a more vital, personal, and unconstricted Christianity, in addition to reform of the institutional church.^[40]

Did old curial hands, including Pope Paul III, perceive the spirituali as a "party"? A century ago the Italian scholar Giuseppe De Leva made the intriguing suggestion that the pope, prompted by Carafa and Aleandro, chose Contarini as legate to Regensburg in a deliberate attempt to disgrace him and his sympathizers, knowing that the mission was bound to fail.^[41] With Contarini discredited, the initiative for reform of the church could then be seized by the conservative narrow constructionists of institutional reform, and the plans of the spirituali shunted aside. More recently, the same hypothesis has been advanced at greater

[38] Massimo Firpo and Dario Marcatto, "Il primo processo inquisitoriale contro il cardinal Giovanni Morone (1552-1553)," Rivista storica italiana 93 (1981): 85-86 and passim. Carafa made friends of Contarini uneasy, even fearful, already in the 1530s, as can be seen, for example, in a letter of Cortese to Contarini of 22 June 1536, which mentions that Carafa had found Flaminio possessing or reading books by heretics without permission to do so; see Alessandro Pastore, Marcantonio Flaminio (Milan: Franco Angeli, 1981), 94. Cortese requested Contarini to obtain for him a license from Paul III to read books by Protestants, and was especially worried about Carafa's reaction unless he had permission. See also Gigliola Fragnito, "Il Cardinale Gregorio Cortese," Benedictina 30 (1983): 429. For a suspicion that Cortese was tainted with heresy, see Firpo and Marcatto, Processo 1:86.

[39] Firpo and Marcatto, "Primo processo," 138.

[40] For the contrast between concepts of reform held by the two groups, see Alberto Aubert, "Alle origini della Controriforma: studi e problemi su Paolo IV," Rivista di storia e letteratura religiosa 22 (1986): 315-21, 327-38.

[41] De Leva, Storia documentata 3:412. Capasso, Paolo III 2:144, takes issue with De Leva's view. Capasso regularly interprets the actions of Paul III favorably, and defends him against the imputation of double-dealing.

length by Paolo Simoncelli.^[42] In his view Roman diplomacy expertly used Contarini and the spirituali to keep face with Charles V by sending a legate he requested who was known for his conciliatory stance, since the emperor's top priority was accord with the Protestants. All the while the pope and his closest advisors sabotaged Habsburg religious policy, having no intention of allowing serious negotiations between the two religious groups in Germany. In sum, according to Simoncelli, they did all they could to undermine the emperor and his brother abroad and to remove the spirituali from a position of prestige at home.^[43] Contarini was used very cynically as protagonist of a religious policy that had no support at the Roman court, only to be "burned" and discarded when he proved no longer necessary for the diplomatic web spun by curial intransigents.^[44] In this interpretation, Contarini and his sympathizers were perceived by intransigents at the papal court as a coherent group and a party advocating what to their opponents were unacceptable positions. That they were consciously thrown to the wolves in a premeditated move by those who saw diversity within the church as a danger if not outright heresy proved how crucial it was for conservatives to isolate and weaken them.^[45]

This argument hinges on the supposed perception of the spirituali as a pressure group with a definite agenda, which was made ineffective through a Machiavellian strategy. But who could be considered their chief enemies in 1540, when Contarini was first appointed to his German legation, and in 1541, when he was finally sent? Carafa comes to mind immediately, but he was not yet an influential figure at the papal court. The second man mentioned by De Leva was Aleandro, who on close examination does not emerge as an intransigent curialist in 1540. While he may have been playing his own political game, he supported Contarini, at least in public. In a curious letter, Aleandro stated that as an expert on German affairs he was pressed strongly (combattuto ) by the pope and many others for forty days to accept the legation himself. After reporting that he refused on account of his age and ill health (about which he provided some graphic details), he continued: "Today I broke four or five hefty lances on behalf of the appointment of the cardinal [Contarini] who is most suited for the enterprise [in question]. I did it gladly, not only because of his virtues, but also to do

[42] Simoncelli, Evangelismo italiano , 227.

[43] Ibid., 236-37.

[44] Ibid., 239.

[45] See Aubert, "Alle origini," 325-26, for Carafa's view of diversity, and dissent.

honor to his fatherland, and on many [other] accounts."^[46] A month earlier, however, Cardinal Farnese had written from the imperial court quite plainly that Aleandro would not be accepted there if he were sent.^[47] One wonders whether the importuning that Aleandro describes corresponded to reality; Paul III trusted the opinions of his grandson and would hardly have insisted on a legate who was likely to be rejected by the emperor. In the same letter, Aleandro adds a puzzling note: "While [Contarini] was praised by all after being openly proposed by the pope, and the appointment was approved, yet in private, where deals are made, he was much attacked."^[48] Aleandro stressed that he came to Contarini's defense and that he was instrumental in swaying Paul III to appoint the Venetian cardinal as legate.

How truthful he was is difficult to determine without some corroborating evidence, of which we find just a bit in a letter sent seven months later to Aleandro by Contarini's close friend and confessor Tommaso Badia, then in Germany: "Among the consoling news I received from Rome, the most special was that I heard that the holy and affectionate friendship between Your Reverence and Card[inal] Cont[arini] not only continues but is growing daily. [It is] most useful to the Sacred College and edifying to Holy Church."^[49] Granted that this evidence is not conclusive, still, it militates against adding Aleandro to the opponents of Contarini in 1540, or to those who plotted to discredit him, unless Aleandro was entirely double-faced.

Carafa had no voice in the appointment of Contarini, and Aleandro was probably not among Contarini's enemies at that particular point. There remains Cardinal Marcello Cervini. His loyalty to the pope

[46] Aleandro to Leone Maffei, Rome, 21 May 1540, in NB 5:258-59.

[47] Farnese to Pope Paul III, Ghent, 26 Apr. 1540, in ibid., 201; see also 197.

[48] Ibid., 259. The Italian text is not clear, and admits of different interpretations: ". . . et sappi V.S. [Maffei] che, sì come da poi la aperta propositione di N.S. [Paul III, to appoint Contarini] fu da tutti molto laudato egli et approbata questa commissione, così in secreto, ove si danno li syroppi preparatorii, hebbe molto contrasto." I thank Professor Rita Belladonna for help with this passage. That Contarini had enemies also appears from a sentence in the dispatch of Marco Bracci, the Florentine agent in Rome, of 31 May 1540: "May God grant that he [Contarini] achieves something good and does not make an accord with the Lutherans, since he is a blood-brother of Lucifer" (quoted by Pastor, Geschichte der Päpste 5:272n.5. I wish to thank Professor Paolo Simoncelli for verifying this quotation in ASF, and informing me that Bracci gives no further explanation of his meaning.
It is likely that the opponents of Contarini belonged to the pro-French group in the curia and the college of cardinals, and therefore worked against religious concord in Germany, which would have strengthened the Habsburgs.

[49] Worms, 28 Dec. 1540, in NB 6:95; and Red ., 139 (no. 525).

earned him the trust of the Farnese family. In 1539 he accompanied Cardinal Farnese to Flanders, and subsequently he was appointed legate to the imperial court, where he resided from May to October 1540. A man of great religious seriousness, he had the reputation of being a supporter of reform in Carafa's sense rather than Contarini's. His former pupil Cardinal Farnese is reported to have characterized him as "more of a Theatine than Chieti [Carafa]."^[50] If that was the case, then his hesitations about a religious colloquy become comprehensible. He wanted to make sure that Contarini as legate would have no independence and that everything was remanded for decision to the pope and the college of cardinals, as he emphasized to the emperor.^[51]

Cervini in several letters reiterated that the pope must proceed with extreme caution in dealing with the emperor and the Protestants.^[52] There is nothing in his dispatches against Contarini personally, about whom he usually speaks in neutral tones. On several occasions he reports that Contarini is viewed favorably by Charles V and his advisors, for example on 10 August 1540: "If it seems [suitable] to His Holiness to send a legate to the colloquy, as it does to His Majesty, the Rev. Cardinal Contarini has already been designated [for the mission]. I see that he pleases everybody wonderfully well [mirabilmente ]. It would be well to send him soon, and with him persons who are learned in theology, especially in exegesis, in canon law and councils [of the church]."^[53] Cervini reports without disapproval Granvelle's statement that Charles V would like to see no fewer than three legates to the colloquy, and concludes: "with all [due] respect [I would like to] add that if in the meantime a real reform were undertaken, as I hope, we could expect greater results, since in truth we can defend anything better than our abuses."^[54]

These are hardly the sentiments of a mere conservative who did not want to rock the boat. Cervini was no sycophant, and at times he wrote things that were blunt indeed. His wish for reform of the church at this point was secondary to his main concern, which was to uphold the honor of the papacy and give firm support to the political aims of

[50] Quoted in NB 5:269n.1, from a letter of Leone Maffei to Cervini, Rome, 4 June 1540.

[51] Cervini to Cardinal Farnese, Bruges, 25 June 1540, in ibid., 313. For Cervini's negative view of religious colloquies, see esp. his letter to Farnese, Brussels, 5-6 Sept. 1540, in ibid., 389.

[52] Ibid., 315; also same to same, Bruges, 3-4 July 1540, ibid., 329.

[53] Same to same, from Leiden, in ibid., 367.

[54] Ibid.

Paul III. In a very real way Cervini was the mouthpiece of the pope and his grandson. He comes closer than anyone to "using" Contarini in the sense suggested by Simoncelli.^[55] Convinced that the religious colloquies favored by the emperor would have no results, he wanted to ensure that a good front would be put on Catholic participation in what he considered an essentially hopeless enterprise. He obviously was not interested in Contarini's success as such, and had no sympathy for a conciliatory approach to Protestants. The dispatches he sent back to Rome show his realization that the initiative in German affairs lay with the emperor and that the papacy had to respond to the policies proposed by the Habsburg brothers. Thus he encouraged the appointment of Contarini for weighty reasons, not just as an attempt to discredit him. In his opinion, such an appointment was the best response to the emperor's explicit wishes for a reasonable legate whom he could trust. Although Cervini himself did not trust Contarini fully, he realized the Venetian cardinal's usefulness for the pope, and he was unconcerned about Contarini's likely loss of prestige in discussions with the Protestants, which would probably prove unsuccessful.^[56] That he felt somewhat uneasy about Contarini, however, can be seen from his repeated urging of Cardinal Farnese to set strict limits within which the legate was to operate.^[57]

An early mention of Contarini as possible legate was actually made by Cardinal Farnese, and its context is clear. In a long letter to the pope dealing with political issues he expressed his concern about the effects that meetings between Protestants and Catholics might have on the interests of the papacy. Anticipating the possibility of sending a legate, Farnese urged Paul III to dispatch Contarini to his bishopric of Belluno, or Pole to Verona, "or others like them to similar places, who ostensibly are going on business of their own. Thus, having them close

[55] See esp. Simoncelli, Evangelismo italiano , 250-57.

[56] In a letter to Farnese, Brussels, 12 Sept. 1540, Cervini is quite explicit about the likely failure of religious colloquies, at the same time counseling the pope to send Contarini if a colloquy were to be held, "so that it could never be said that Your Holiness was the cause of any trouble." He thinks that a way of preventing the colloquy and the diet would be through the marriage of Vittoria Farnese, the pope's granddaughter and a member of the French house of Lorraine, presumable because a Franco-papal rapprochement would deflect the attention of Charles V from Germany; see NB 5:399. Cervini does no more than a strong supporter of the pope would have done by advising Paul III to send a man most acceptable to the emperor if a colloquy proved unavoidable. He showed no special interest in Contarini as an individual, he simply happened to be convenient at that moment. In that sense he, like all successful diplomats, was anxious to make use of whatever would be helpful in achieving his objectives.

[57] For example, in his letter from Utrecht, 14 Aug. 1540, in ibid., 369. See also Hudon, Marcello Cervini , 37-38.

to Germany, they would always be ready to go to the meeting in Speier [where the colloquy was to be held] when Your Holiness orders it."^[58] To make sure that there would be no delay, they should be provided beforehand with instructions and be prepared to set out immediately. To Cardinal Farnese's mind the interests of Rome had to be safeguarded by keeping close watch on the course of events in Germany and by making sure that papal representatives were present. Since Morone and Cervini were not trusted by the emperor and his brother because of their negative views of religious colloquies, he suggested other, more acceptable candidates. Soon afterward the papal nuncio Poggio wrote that the first secretary Granvelle, speaking for the emperor, had let it be known that Charles V would be pleased if Contarini were sent.^[59] By the end of April 1540, Contarini was repeatedly named by Cardinal Farnese as one of the most suitable potential legates from the perspective of the Habsburgs,^[60] while Charles V was reported to consider Contarini as his friend and a man of integrity.^[61] In addition, the Venetian cardinal was included among the handful of men at the Roman court acceptable to the Protestants.^[62]

The appointment of Contarini quite clearly came about in response to the reports of papal envoys regarding the emperor's wishes.^[63] The available evidence does not suggest the existence of a concerted plan

[58] Letter of 17 April 1540, ibid., 180.

[59] Poggio to Paul III, Ghent, 24-25 Apr. 1540, in ibid., 198.

[60] Farnese to Paul III, Ghent, 26 Apr. 1540, in ibid., 201; and 26 and 27 Apr., ibid., 205.

[61] Cervini to Farnese, Bruges, 25 June 1540, in ibid., 313. The emperor had singled out Contarini on a previous occasion, when they met in Bologna in 1530, treating him as a friend; see Albèri, Relazioni , 2d ser., 3:162.

[62] Bernardo Sanzio to Farnese, Worms, 15 Dec. 1540, mentions several other possible candidates for the office of legate; see NB 6:67. A week later, on 23 December, the nuncio Tommaso Campeggio reports that the Protestants have confidence in Contarini, Sadoleto, Pole, and Fregoso; ibid., 90.

[63] A. Farnese, in a letter to Poggio from Rome, 8 Jan. 1541 (BAV, Chigi L. III. 65, fols. 121v-122r), expresses this clearly: "Ma perchè, come per altre mie ho scritto a V.S., la fede che N. S ha nella prudentia et religione di S. M et il desiderio grande che la tiene di satisfarle, è stata quella sola cagione, che ha mosso S. S di mandare al Colloquio con speranza che tanto piu S. M debba esser pronta alla difesa della fede Chr et autorità della Sede Ap quanto S. B piu si sforzasse di contentaria. . . . La persona del legato sarà Mons mio R Contarino, il quale oltra allo havere quelle conditioni et di lettere et di prudentia che S. M ha detto ricercarsi in questo caso è stato ancora approvato da lei come amico et confidente." On 28 January, Farnese wrote again to Poggio: "Mons mio R Contareno questa mattina col nome di Dio è partito di Roma per il viaggio suo alla Dieta, alla quale N. S 10 ha deputato Legato. Il che S. S ha fatto con quella intentione et animo che ho scritto per le altre a V.S., cio è piu per satisfare al desiderio et iuditio di S. M Ces che per nessuna altra cagione" (ibid., fol. 137v). The first letter is summarized in NB 6:182-84, and the second on pp. 188-89.

to undercut the spirituali through Contarini's mission, or to discredit him and his friends. Contarini's prestige was certainly used in a calculated fashion, and arguably with callous disregard of his personal success or failure, to the advantage of the papacy. Cardinal Farnese, Cervini, Morone, even Aleandro realized that Contarini's reputation as a learned and good man interested in reform could serve the Catholic side well.^[64] But they thought of him first and foremost as a diplomat in the service of the papacy, not as a proponent of his own views in a religious colloquy. His personality, had earned him the emperor's good opinion, which was a decided advantage for Rome,^[65] as was the fact that he had become familiar with the German situation already during his residence at the imperial court and continued to be informed about it in his correspondence with Catholic scholars, especially Cochlaeus and Eck.^[66] All these reasons explain the choice of Contarini better than a hypothetical plot against him and his supporters.