Chapter Five
After the Storm

The Return to Italy

In early August Charles V left Germany for Italy, from where he proceeded to an expedition against the corsairs of North Africa. Contarini, too, began his return journey, planning to stop in his diocese of Belluno before continuing to Rome. When he arrived in Trent, a dispatch from Cardinal Farnese reached him with orders to accompany Charles V first to Milan and then to Lucca, where emperor and pope were to meet. Paul III was anxious to discuss events in Germany with the legate as soon as possible, and to receive a full report of the colloquy and diet.^[1] Thus Contarini had to subordinate his wish to visit Belluno to the duties of his diplomatic mission and resign himself to yet another journey.

The emperor was welcomed to Milan on 22 August with pomp and festivities, which Contarini described in a dispatch of the next day to Farnese.^[2] But the legate's mind was on other and more personal matters. In a blunt paragraph he mentioned that he had heard about being

[1] Farnese to Contarini, 9 Aug. 1541, ASVat, Arm. 64, vol. 20, fols. 133r-134r. Contarini's previous orders had been that wherever the pope might be he was to come to him immediately, for the pope wished to be informed about "many things that cannot be written conveniently" (molte cose, che male si possono scrivere ) (same to same, 3 Aug., fol. 131r).

[2] Milan, 23 Aug. 1541, ASVat, Arm. 62, vol. 36, fols. 145v-146r; printed in Reg ., 346-47 (Inedita, no. 84); and excerpted in Pastor, "Correspondenz," 500-501.

called a Lutheran in Rome, and asked that the pope suspend judgment until their meeting. His calumniators did not know Lutheran doctrine, he continued, and were also ignorant of what St. Augustine and St. Thomas taught. Luther himself thought that the accord on justification was contrary to his own doctrine: "Thus the Roman theologians are very wrong in condemning so hastily something they probably do not properly understand, and in burdening their fellow man to such an extent," was his conclusion.^[3]

Beccadelli reported that on his passage through Brescia the legate was asked by a friend about the "outrageous articles" to which he had agreed with the Lutherans. When Contarini protested, he learned that the source of this report was a letter of "a great cardinal," at the mention of whose name Contarini became extremely perturbed. According to his secretary's account, Contarini on that occasion not only denied that he had signed "outrageous articles" in Regensburg, but also declared that "without the authority of the church, he would not accept any doubtful articles or even the Gospel of St. John."^[4] Beccadelli quite obviously was defending his patron by depicting him as a "hero of the church and the faith," a type that would be developed more fully in the literature of the Counter-Reformation.^[5]

But even if the statement here attributed to Contarini is apocryphal, it expresses his real attitude. He had made the deliberate choice to subordinate himself in Regensburg to the magisterium of the church, narrowly and traditionally defined. Obedience to the pope was a matter of conviction as well as of honor to him. Always a team player, a diplomat who had risen through the cursus honorum of a Venetian patrician and filled with credit some of the highest offices in the Republic, Contarini internalized the virtue of obedience to an exceptional degree. A scant three weeks before his death he repeated solemnly, "I have always and inviolably kept my word and what I promised, and shall always do so, for I consider that keeping one's word and promises is the principal quality that belongs to a gentleman."^[6] The particular combination of ideas about the necessity of hierarchical order in the church and his own duty of obedience as a gentleman, so characteristic of Contarini, continued to lend him the inner strength that derived from a secure

[3] Reg ., 347 (Inedita, no. 84).

[4] Beccadelli, "Vita," 36-37.

[5] Fragnito, Memoria individuale , 121.

[6] To the Duke of Ferrara, 3 Aug. 1542, in Casadei, "Lettere," 274: "La fede mia et quello che prometto sempre ho inviolabilmente osservato et sono per osservare, reputando che il servare la fede et le promesse sij la precipua parte che deve essere in un gentilhomo.'

self-image. At times, however, it also circumscribed his field of vision, as we have already seen.

On 7 September the pope held a consistory at Lucca "because of the arrival of the Rev. Card. legate Contarini, who has returned from the Diet of Regensburg." This entry in the consistorial acts adds merely that "religious matters were discussed."^[7] The pope's attitude toward his legate remained favorable; Contarini is said to have "entirely satisfied those to whom he had to give an accounting of his actions."^[8] Pole assured Contarini on I September that he was spoken of "in most honorable terms" by Paul III and by others in the papal presence.^[9] Beccadelli reports that the pope supported Contarini, exhorting him "not to care about the vain gossip of ill-disposed people."^[10] Nevertheless, such gossip persisted for months after he had returned to Rome,^[11] making the continued defense of his actions in Regensburg necessary.^[12]

Although little of Contarini's correspondence from the remainder of 1541 has survived, what letters we do have contain indications of his somber but calm mood during this period. The emperor's defeat in North Africa aggravated the "wound," which he tried to heal by assiduously reading the Scriptures when time permitted.^[13] To Pole he wrote about his "low state," his discouragement and wish to be united perfectly with Christ, yet also about his inner peace.^[14] Despite, or maybe because of, his disappointments, Contarini became increasingly detached from the controversies that surrounded him, declaring unequivocally, "God, whom I want to serve above all, knows my mind and heart!"^[15]

[7] Reg ., 224-25 (no. 854).

[8] Paolo Sadoleto to Ludovico Beccadelli, Carpentras, 22 Oct. 1541, quoted in Fragnito, "Evangelismo e intransigenti," 25.

[9] To Contarini, Capranica, 1 Sept. 1541, Ep. Poli 3:31.

[10] Beccadelli, "Vita," 39.

[11] Sadoleto to Contarini, Carpentras, 6 Dec. 1541, in Monumenti Beccadelli 1(2):209.

[12] Contarini received a copy of the recess of the Diet of Regensburg and was perturbed about inaccuracies he found in it, especially the assertion that he had promised that a council would be held in Germany; see his letter to the Archbishop of Mainz, Lucca, 19 Sept. 1541, in Reg ., 349 (Inedita, no. 86); and ASVat, A.A., Arm. I-XVIII, 6461, fols. 93r-95r.

[13] Cristoforo Madruzzi to Contarini, Trent, 22 Dec. 1541, in Monumenti Beccadelli 1(2):210.

[14] Pole paraphrases a letter of Contarini to him that has not survived: Viterbo, 23 Dec. 1541, in Ep. Poli 3:44-45.

[15] To Farnese, Milan, 23 Aug. 1541, in Reg ., 347 (Inedita, no. 84).

That Contarini had suffered a personal defeat as a result of his mission to Regensburg is obvious. The same cannot be said of his role in the curia during the fall of 1541. It is easy to jump to conclusions about the political defeat and isolation of Contarini and the triumph of the intransigent wing among curialists. But was this the true state of affairs?

At the papal court Contarini was not ostracized or isolated from affairs but drawn into them—with precautions, so to speak. Immediately after the meeting at Lucca he was instructed by Farnese to precede the pope to Rome, there to join with Aleandro in working up a list of suggestions for Paul III in preparation for the announced council. In addition, the two cardinals were asked to draft "a formula to be used in preaching everywhere, in Germany as well as in Italy and elsewhere, in view of the fact that as regards preaching we are now far removed from the original sound practice."^[16] Farnese trusted the conservative Aleandro more than the outspoken Contarini who had recently irked him, as his responses to the legate's dispatches occasionally intimate. Still, he and the pope wisely decided to use Contarini's experience for the benefit of papal politics. Aleandro was already suffering from a stomach ailment and remained frequently confined to his bed (he was to die on 1 February 1542). This fact may explain Contarini's sole authorship of the Instructio pro praedicatoribus (Instruction for preachers), completed by 21 October.^[17]

This tract of a mere eight pages has received little notice from scholars. Yet it is of the first importance for understanding Contarini's thought after Regensburg. When juxtaposed with Contarini's first treatise on preaching, the Modus concionandi , it helps to answer at least partially the vexed question why the spirituali , and Contarini as

[16] Farnese to Contarini, Bologna, 5 October 1541, in Reg ., 385 (Anhang no. 12); and ASVat, Arm. 64, vol. 20, fol. 143v.

[17] This Instructio pro praedicatoribus is mentioned at the end of the "De concilii celebratione sententia Contareni cardinalis," in CT 4:208-9, which the editor dates around 15 October 1541. Pole acknowledged the receipt of the former in a letter to Contarini from Viterbo of that date; Ep. Poli 3(2):40, calling it "li scritti soi [Contarini's] della forma di predicate al popolo Christiano." Querini, the editor of Pole's letters, wrongly ascribed this treatise to Pole, who also began writing a tract on preaching that was not completed. Contarini's piece is printed as "Litterae Pontificiae de modo concionandi, MDXLII," in Ep. Poli 3(1):75-82. Contarini's autograph draft is in ASVat, A.A., Arm. I-XVIII, 64:61, fols. 114r-118v, and a fair copy on fols. 110r-113r. I cite the printed version corrected by the last-mentioned manuscript, entitled "Instructio pro praedicatoribus."

their most visible member, lost the impetus they had possessed until the spring of 1541, and why the leadership of the church passed to more conservative men. The significance of this little work requires that we examine its unusually complex context, which begins with a controversy about preaching in Siena in 1537.

When Hubert Jedin, the later historian of the Council of Trent, in the 1920s was gathering materials in the Neapolitan archives for his biography of the Augustinian Girolamo Seripando, he came across a collection of letters dealing with the impact of Protestant ideas on the audiences of preachers in Siena. In a series of Sienese public Lenten sermons in 1537, the Augustinian friar Agostino Museo of Treviso treated such topics as justification, the nature of grace, and redemption. Attacked as a Lutheran heretic by the Capuchin Giovanni da Fano, Museo was imprisoned.^[18] A year later he was solemnly exonerated by his two judges, Girolamo Aleandro and Tommaso Badia.^[19]

This episode provided the occasion for an epistolary exchange among spirituali which included discussions about the nature of preaching. Museo had argued that it was the duty of preachers to stress the Augustinian doctrine of predestination in order to counteract the "Pelagian self-confidence" which he thought widespread among ordinary people. Answering his opponents, he cited the church fathers as the sources of his theology, and decidedly rejected the label of Lutheran, given him by his critics, by exclaiming: "Why do [my enemies] call me a heretic? Was Augustine perhaps a disciple of Luther? If I have erred, I have done so with Augustine, with Paul, with Christ and the saints!"^[20]

A Sienese nobleman, Lattanzio Tolomei, reported the matter to Contarini, who at this point enjoyed high visibility and prestige in the curia as the chairman of the reform commission that drew up the Consilium de emendanda ecclesia . He was also the bishop of Belluno—an absentee bishop, to be sure, but one who was concerned about the welfare of his flock. The problem of what and how to preach to the people immediately caught his interest as a practical and pastoral, as well as a theoretical, issue.

[18] Valerio Marchetti, Gruppi ereticali senesi del Cinquecento (Florence: La Nuova Italia, 1975), 18-24.

[19] Hubert Jedin, "Ein Streit um den Augustinismus vor dem Tridentinum (1537-1543)," Römische Quartalschrift 35 (1927): 354-57.

[20] Ibid., 358-59.

In a long letter to Tolomei, Contarini took up the topics debated in Siena, most notably predestination.^[21] He considered Tolomei as someone on his own intellectual level with whom there was no need for hedging or constraint. Writing rapidly and citing his authorities from memory, he was impatient to find a middle way between two warring camps. First there were "those who in their pride and ignorance want to persecute Lutherans and be superior to them. They call themselves Catholics but in reality are Pelagians rather than Catholics."^[22] The second group, "having read some Augustine, and wishing to show that they know what others do not, go about putting foolish ideas into the heads of the people, preaching things which the people are not able to understand and which they themselves do not understand. They pervert the good way of preaching, which they should adopt, into infinite abuse and utter madness."^[23] Contarini sought a middle ground between these two positions, a "medietas" that was more diplomatic than theological. He explained to Tolomei his own view, essentially derived from St. Thomas, that God's foreknowledge should not be confounded with predestination,^[24] especially predestination to damnation, and tried to mitigate St. Augustine's harshness. When his arguments became feeble, he sought recourse in a version of St. Paul's exclamation "O the depth of the wisdom of God,"^[25] and retreated to advocate contemplation rather than explication of a mystery. God, the eternal present, bestows his grace on man in baptism. Man can only thank God for the beneficium he receives, and in return put all his trust in Christ.^[26]

Woven throughout this very personal and theologically unsystematic letter is the theme of the right way to preach to the people. Warning that the devil was using the pride and ignorance of preachers

[21] The text is in Stella, "Lettera del Cardinale Contarini sulla predestinazione," 421-41. It was written before 19 January 1538, when Contarini mentioned it in a letter to Cardinal Ercole Gonzaga (420). Stella showed that the Italian version preceded the Latin translation and corrected Hünermann, in Contarini, Gegenreformatorische Schriften , xxvii.

[22] Stella, "Lettera," 422.

[23] Ibid., 428.

[24] Ibid., 434. Contarini explained his views further in a letter to Tullio Crispoldi, written shortly after the letter to Tolomei; see GC , 866-71. Again, the emphasis is on the impossibility of God's predestining anyone to damnation. For bibliography on Crispoldi, see Firpo and Marcatto, Processo 1:343-44n.214.

[25] Romans 11: 33. Contarini cites this verse from memory in two successive paragraphs, each time differently; see Stella, "Lettera," 431.

[26] For an interpretation different from mine of this letter and its place in Contarini's thought as well as in that of other spirituali , see Simoncelli, Evangelismo italiano , chap. 2, esp. 69-91.

and the common people as his instruments in the battle against truth, Contarini wished to see preachers draw back from tackling the sorts of questions he himself discussed so freely with Tolomei. They should join the Seraphim in calling "Holy, holy, holy" and St. Paul in admiring divine greatness, rather than speaking about "such high and profound matters" as predestination before the people.^[27] Paradoxical questions should not be vented, especially those that might give scandal.

We see here a double standard and an aristocratic point of view. Contarini and the spirituali felt themselves free to discuss the issues raised by northern reformers because they had the necessary education. A more problematic note appears, however, in a letter of Contarini to the theologian Tullio Crispoldi, where we read that his own knowledge of these issues derived also from direct religious experience, which was "clearer than the sun."^[28] Because, unlike Contarini, the people lacked education that would enable them to bring order to experience, preachers must not go beyond clear catechetical parameters in their sermons. They should deflect, channel, and neutralize the emotions aroused by popular misunderstanding of issues like justification, free will, and predestination.^[29]

Not all spirituali accepted this categorization of some questions as beyond discussion from the pulpit, or were prepared to deny the common people the right to discuss current theological issues. They were being talked about widely anyway, "in the piazze, in the taverns, even in women's laundries," as one bishop was to write with dismay.^[30] The most famous of the spirituali bishops at the time, Giberti, addressed this problem repeatedly in instructions for the clergy of his diocese of Verona in the 1530s. He encouraged an innovative and, to Rome, frequently suspect style of preaching, enjoining his clergy to give the people an "explanatio Evangelii" and teach what was contained in the Gospels without picking and choosing.^[31] Preaching was not to be primarily a weapon against heresy, but a method of instructing the

[27] Stella, "Lettera," 436.

[28] GC , 866.

[29] Predestination was listed among the "difficilia fidei" already in a brief of Pope Clement VII in 1532 which ordered that "the difficult questions of Catholic faith are not to be discussed before ignorant people; it is evident that predestination is among the most difficult matters of the Christian religion, and therefore not a proper subject on which to preach to the people, the majority of whom are ignorant and uneducated." Bartolomeo Fontana, "Documenti vaticani inediti contro l'eresia luterana in Italia," Archivio della R. Società romana di storia patria 15 (1892): 132.

[30] Prosperi, Tra evangelismo e controriforma , 241.

[31] Adriano Prosperi, "Di alcuni testi per il clero nell'Italia del primo Cinquecento," Critica storica 7 (1968): 157.

people. Thus in 1537, the year of the debates in Siena, Tullio Crispoldi preached in Verona on the Gospels, and Reginaldo de Nerli on the Pauline epistles. The latter, Giberti's collaborator, also compiled a summary of model sermons for the use of preachers in which he linked the explanation of gospel texts with specific theological problems that agitated the people, including faith versus works and justification.^[32] In a letter to Giberti, Cardinal Ercole Gonzaga remarked somewhat sarcastically that as a result of Nerli's sermons the common people went about preaching on predestination and screaming with crucifixes in their hands: "Christ, Christ!"^[33]

At first glance, Giberti seems to have diverged deliberately from the aristocratic line, being willing to bring the full New Testament to the people. However, this was to be done with very specific controls. Giberti's insistence on episcopal residence is well known; he considered it crucial not only as a step toward church reform, but also as a sine qua non for the establishment of the bond between bishop, clergy, and people. The bishop must instruct and supervise preachers, who ideally were loyal and trusted members of his household and of the diocesan clergy. They, in turn, were not to treat the common people as incapable of understanding the "difficilia fidei," but to offer them guidance in an orderly manner and within a tightly controlled setting, mindful of their own instructions by the bishop. If the laity were protected from the "Scylla and Charybdis" of widespread error, it would then submit freely to the authority of its spiritual leaders.

These concerns can also be found in the writings of Isidoro Chiari, a Benedictine monk belonging to the Cassinese Congregation and a close friend of many leading spirituali . In a treatise of 1537, which he sent to Contarini for comment, he took up many of the questions the cardinal had discussed in his letter to Tolomei.^[34] Chiari elucidated a difference between, on the one hand, scholars and the educated who could and should examine themes like free will, faith and works, justification, and predestination and, on the other hand, the "unlearned masses," imperita multitudo , who were incapable of understanding such issues. The latter perverted the doctrine of justification by faith, and their errors endangered all of society, leading to turmoil and

[32] Prosperi, Tra evangelismo e controriforma , 244.

[33] Quoted in Firpo and Marcatto, Processo 2(1):298n.5.

[34] Isidoro Chiari, Ad eos qui a communi ecclesiae sententia discessere, adhortatio ad concordiam (Milan, 1540). For a discussion of its main theological ideas, see Barry Collett, Italian Benedictine Scholars and the Reformation (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985), 102-12.

license. Ideas such as the priesthood of all believers, if spread among the people, would destroy order and hierarchy. One might conceivably even hear such arguments as "If the priesthood were extended to the female sex, and that were done with the approval of men, then there would be no reason why women could not exercise any ecclesiastical functions whatever."^[35] Chiari is explicit at the end of his treatise that discussion of difficult doctrines and biblical texts supporting them should be restricted to monasteries and intellectual circles, where it belonged, and removed from city squares and the common multitude.^[36]

Similar issues occupied other spirituali whom Contarini knew well, including Cortese. In the same spring of 1537, a Benedictine preacher gave a series of lectures on the Gospels and epistles to students at Padua. This Marco da Cremona, much admired by Pole and his circle, lectured to a large audience gathered in the monastery of Santa Giustina on the sensitive subjects of free will, predestination, and justification. He was promptly attacked by Dionigi Zanettini, suffragan bishop of Vicenza. When Contarini heard about the controversy, he intervened to prevent measures from being taken against Don Marco. He defended the Benedictine as "a man of most holy life and sound belief," whose enemies,

because Luther said various things about the grace of God and free will, . . . now oppose anyone who preaches and teaches about the grandeur of grace and human infirmity. Believing that they are contradicting Luther, they contradict Saints Augustine, Ambrose, Bernard, Jerome, and Thomas—in brief, moved by commendable zeal . . . they do not realize that they deviate from Catholic truth, move toward the Pelagian heresy, and cause disturbances among the people.^[37]

Cortese was worried about the uneducated, "li poveri idioti," whose beliefs and certainties were being shaken. Like Chiari, he wanted to see

[35] Quoted in Peyronel Rambaldi, "Ancora sull'evangelismo italiano," 955.

[36] Ten years later, after he became bishop of Foligno, Chiari changed his views somewhat, sounding more like Giberti. He envisioned the task of the bishop as imitation of Christ and the spreading of His word with the aid of loyal and docile preachers who would think of their "lectio" and "explicatio" of the Scriptures as equal in importance to their administration of the sacraments; see Boris Ulianich, "Scrittura e azione pastorale nelle prime omelie episcopali di Isidoro Chiari," in Reformata reformanda: Festgabe für Hubert Jedin zum 17. Juni 1965 , ed. Erwin Iserloh and Konrad Repgen (Münster i.W.: Aschendorff, 1965), 1:632-33.

[37] Contarini to an unknown addressee, Rome, 12 June 1537, in Reg ., 270 (Inedita, no. 20); and ASVat, A.A., Arm. I-XVIII, 6461, fols. 54r-55r. Fragnito, "II Cardinale Cortese," 439n.228, identifies the recipient of the letter as the vicar of the patriarch of Venice.

discussions of thorny questions restricted to small groups of intellectuals, preferably in a monastic setting, and to exclude common people from the debates.^[38] Contarini, however, approved of Don Marco's addressing students, since they belonged to a different category from the common people. Students had education, therefore could profit from erudite instruction. He thus broadened the group before whom the "difficilia fidei" could be discussed, believing university students capable of deriving great spiritual benefit from preachers like Don Marco, and minimized the dangers of disaffection or confusion.

This was the immediate background to Contarini's brief tract on preaching for the clergy of his own diocese of Belluno. Unlike Giberti, he was an absentee bishop who could not instruct and supervise the preachers in person. The issues that had emerged in the debates of 1537 left him sufficiently perturbed to write the Modus concionandi during the following year.^[39] In it he adopted the perspective of a bishop deeply concerned with the spiritual welfare of his entire and for the most part unlettered flock, which, unlike the Paduan students, was not able to comprehend theological disputes. How were preachers to help their people avoid falling into the heresy and confusion that plagued other Italian cities?

One answer was to revive the prescription of St. Francis that preachers should speak about virtues and vices, punishment and glory.^[40] Contarini thus counsels the preacher addressing simple people: "If you wish to stir your listeners effectively to penance, you must bring them to come to understand tightly for themselves both the excellence of virtues (even if they have to be treated one by one) and the ugliness of vices, together with the rewards which virtues bring and the punishments which are visited upon sinners by God's just judgment."^[41] But

[38] Fragnito, "Il Cardinale Cortese," 442.

[39] On 16 January 1539 Cardinal Ercole Gonzaga acknowledged its receipt in a letter to Contarini; see Friedensburg, "Briefwechsel," 194. Franz Dittrich, "Nachträge zur Biographie Gasparo Contarinis," Historisches Jahrbuch der Görresgesllschaft 8 (1887): 273, argues for 1540. For the dating of this tract by Simoncelli (Evangelismo italiano , 117-20), see Fragnito, "Il Cardinale Cortese," 441n.234.

[40] Frederick J. McGinness, "Of 'Vices and Virtues, Punishment and Reward': Authentic Preaching, Reform, and a Counter-Reformation Riddle," paper read at the Sixteenth-Century Studies Conference, St. Louis, October, 1990. I wish to thank Professor McGinness for a copy of his paper. He cites (13n.5) as the source of the Franciscan formula the Second Rule of St. Francis, in Seraphicae legislationis textus originalis (Quaracchi, 1897), 44.

[41] Reg ., 307 (Inedita, no. 42). The text is on pp. 305-9 and should be corrected by the autograph manuscript in ASVat, A.A., Arm. I-XVIII, fols. 161r-170v. A later hand added the incorrect date 1540. To Prof. McGinness's question of how Contarini knew this formula, I would answer that it was probably a result of his work on the commission appointed by Paul III in 1536 to examine the Capuchin order; see Father Cuthbert, O.S.F.C., The Capuchins: A Contribution to the History of the Counter-Reformation (New York and Toronto: Longmans, Green, 1929), 1:99; and Cargnoni, Costanzo, ed., I frati Cappucini: documenti e testimonianze del primo secolo (Perugia: Edizioni Frate Indovino, 1988-), 1:1185n.6. Contarini certainly was familiar with the Capuchin Constitution of 1536, which states that preachers should discuss vices and virtues, punishment and glory: "E secundo che 'l nostro padre serafico ne la Regula ci admonisce annuncient vitia et virtutes, poenam et gloriam cure brevitate sermonis " (ibid., 418). He was also informed about the preaching of the first Capuchins through a long letter addressed to him by Vittoria Colonna (ibid., 2:214-27).

that venerable formula was not sufficient to deal with the more difficult issues raised by the Protestant Reformation, the echoes of which resounded in the cities and even small towns of northern Italy.

The second and, for Contarini, much more important task was to search for an answer to the old problem of whether the gospel in its fullness could be preached to the people. He knew full well that Luther affirmed the ability of the baptized Christian to grasp the word of God. In the process of deciding where he himself stood, Contarini performed some curious mental acrobatics. Castigating preachers who used the pulpit to exhibit their learning, he enjoined them to imitate Christ in his humility. Pride was the root of all evil and disturbance, he declared: "Put away pride, put away display, then peace and concord will be everywhere! Therefore let our preacher put on the love of God and of the people, telling them those things which they are able to understand, and which lead to their edification."^[42] Although preachers must touch on justification in their discussion of sin, contrition, and confession, Contarini tried to limit their scope by warning that a detailed discussion of justification was not their task, but that of the doctors who taught theology in the universities.^[43]

Now follows a strange passage. Preachers, Contarini writes, must not detract from good works in any way or tell the people that man is justified without them. Even though this is true, if understood rightly, nonetheless the people cannot grasp it correctly. If this message were preached, they would become slack in doing good works. Nor will the prudent preacher preach that our will is weak and incapable of desiring the good unless moved by God. While this, too, is true, the ignorant people will only be induced to spiritual torpor upon hearing it, drawing the conclusion that man must passively wait for God to prod him.^[44] Similarly, predestination should rarely be discussed before the people,

[42] Reg ., 306 (Inedita, no. 42).

[43] Ibid., 307.

[44] Ibid., 308.

and then only with great caution, since they would jump to wrong conclusions from this difficult teaching as well: either they would fall into despair or become overconfident. "From all this it can be seen clearly that we must definitely avoid discussing these deep questions before the ignorant people. Let the pious and prudent preacher therefore descend to the [level of] knowledge and capacity of the people, and treat of divine things in such a way as to be understood by the people and be able to instruct the sheep of Christ in charity. If he observes this principle of charity, he will certainly never go wrong," is his final advice.^[45]

Contarini sidestepped the tough issues by establishing a two-tier model of the Christian community, drawing a sharp horizontal line between the mass of believers and the educated elite of the church, much like the line that in another context separated patricians from the rest of the population in Venice. The ordinary people he considered incapable of dealing with ideas that, while true, would be likely to lead them to wrong conclusions because of their ignorance. Better not to discuss these dangerous concepts, he warned the preachers of Belluno. Contarini the bishop treated his people quite literally like sheep to be taken care of and shielded from unsettling doctrines.

An attempt has been made to establish a parallel between the Modus concionandi and Cardinal Cervini's instructions concerning preaching,^[46] and to argue that the two men "in facing a problem that was part and parcel of the confrontation between Catholicism and heresy in sixteenth-century Italy . . . developed very similar responses."^[47] Yet it is the differences, not the similarities, between the two sets of instructions that are striking and significant. Cervini espoused an outlook that clearly contradicted Contarini's two-tier model by directing preachers not to shy away from the complex doctrines brought to the fore by the Reformation, but rather to counteract them in such a way as to "preach and follow the doctrines which were declared in the Council of Trent."^[48] Two points are material here: first, Cervini wrote a decade or so after Contarini in the enormously changed atmosphere of the Counter-Reformation; second, the repressive apparatus of the reorganized Roman Inquisition was in place, and the Tridentine decree on justification had been promulgated. Justification by faith alone, the key doc-

[45] Ibid., 309.

[46] William V. Hudon, "Two Instructions for Preachers from the Tridentine Reformation," Sixteenth Century Journal 20 (1989): 457-70.

[47] Ibid., 468.

[48] Ibid., 465.

trine of Protestantism, was condemned. It simply will not do to retreat to a formulation of fifty years ago that "it might be more correct to say that [Contarini's text] reflects the theological uncertainty existing in the Catholic world at that time."^[49]

Contarini accepted justification by faith and thought it compatible with Catholic teaching; Cervini, in contrast, considered that tenet heretical. For Contarini, there was nothing to fear from theological discussions among the educated, whom he thought to be men of reason whose ideas could differ; for Cervini, conciliar decrees had put an end to speculation about some of the most debated issues of the age. Contarini was a paternalistic bishop who believed that he knew what was best for his flock^[50] and a Venetian aristocrat who had no doubt that the elite of society and the common people existed on different planes with different religious understanding; Cervini already thought like the leaders of the Counter-Reformation, for whom the division of religion into the faith of the learned and that of the common people was inadmissible. Finally, Contarini was still at home in the church of the Renaissance, whereas Cervini at the time he wrote his tract already belonged to the much more militant Catholicism of the Counter-Reformation.

In a letter to two friends also dating from 1537-38, Contarini discussed his views further. Again, the subject was preaching to the people about predestination. After explaining that he personally could not adhere to the strict Augustinian doctrine because it seemed to detract from God's mercy, he added:

As bishop, I want to preach to my people thus: "I tell you, my people, that there is no unconquerable defect in reprobates that is the cause of their damnation. . .. God does not fail them, but they fail God." If you should tell me that I preach badly, I would disagree with you. If you tell me that I preach well, and that you would say the same, then I would ask you whether your preaching and mine agrees with the doctrine you approve in your heart of hearts. If you answer no, but that you preach thus in order not to scandalize the people, I would part company with you, because we must not preach falsehood or that which goes against the sentiment of our heart.^[51]

[49] Ibid., 466. The term theologische Unklarheit was first used by Joseph Lortz, Die Reformation in Deutschland (Freiburg: Herder, 1940), vol. 1, pt. 1, chap. 5. A year later, in the preface to the second edition, he called this idea his "Grundthese," but emphasized that he had used it in reference to Germany, not Italy or Spain.

[50] Unlike Hudon, I agree with John Martin, "Salvation and Society," 209n.7: "Contarini's views were paternalistic, and he feared that the doctrine of salvation by faith alone would lead the people into error, encourage them to abandon good works, and possibly result in revolution, as it had in Germany."

[51] Jedin, "Streit um den Augustinismus," 368.

This passage has been interpreted as evidence that Contarini affirmed "the unity of the intellectual content of religion; no distinction or difference in truth was admissible between the people and the educated."^[52] Taken by itself, it seems reasonable to construe the passage this way. But in fact such an interpretation is not satisfactory, since the passage belongs to the wider context sketched above. Contarini was arguing here against preaching what one does not believe oneself. In the Modus concionandi , he endorsed the withholding of certain truths even though one believed them—quite a different matter. The last-cited passage warns against hypocrisy, not the passing over of controversial issues in silence. Going against the "sentiments of the heart" for Contarini was wrong, but silence under certain circumstances was the prudent, even preferable, course for preachers.

By October 1541, then, Contarini had written about preaching on several occasions. Yet the Instructio pro praedicatoribus was not just a summary of the main points found in the Modus concionandi or in passages of his letters that dealt with the topic. While some key phrases of the first tract reappear in the second, a comparison of the two texts reveals very marked differences. Internal evidence suggests that Contarini discussed the Instructio with Aleandro, whose voice can be discerned in it even though his name does not appear. The significant fact, though, is that Contarini was its author, as his autograph text shows. We must believe that he expressed his own ideas—or at least those he agreed with at this time—otherwise he himself would be guilty of "preaching that which goes against the sentiment of our heart."

In the Modus concionandi Contarini had given preachers "a precis [summa ] to be used as a guide in preaching the Christian gospel."^[53] Quoting Romans 3:20 that "the law gives us the full consciousness of sin," Contarini enjoined his preachers first to expound the commandments so that the listeners might learn to recognize and detest sin. Then the congregation should be told that they cannot turn away from sin by their own efforts, but only through the freely given grace of God.

We cannot obtain that grace except through faith in the blood of Christ: we receive this grace through faith, and with it ail good things come to us: the for-

[52] Adriano Prosperi, "Intellettuali e chiesa all'inizio dell'età moderna," in Storia d'Italia, Annali 4: Intellettuali e potere , ed. Corrado Vivanti (Turin: Einaudi, 1981), 188. I agree with Roberto Rusconi, "Predicatori e predicazione," in ibid., 988-89, that Contarini is among those advocating a double truth in preaching.

[53] Reg ., 306.

giveness of sin, charity, goodness, and all other virtues by means of which we rise from sin, which no longer has power over us unless we yield to it. For this reason we must assiduously pray to God from whom arise right desires, right counsels, and just works, that his mercy may stand ready to guide and perfect our actions. From him are all our good things. Let this suffice as a precis of the scope of preaching and teaching.^[54]

There is no word in this summa , as Contarini calls it, of absolution given to the faithful by priests. He deeply and consistently believed that we are justified and saved by faith in the merits of Christ on the cross, and enjoined the preachers of Belluno to stress the immensity of God's freely given saving grace. A Lutheran could have written the above passage; for all his criticism of Lutheran theology, Contarini clearly agreed with its central doctrine.

The Instructio pro praedicatoribus is very different in tone. Written at the behest of Paul III,^[55] it states that the pope considers it oppportune to establish rules for all preachers "without, for the time being [i.e., until the meeting of the forthcoming council], in any way repudiating official dogmas."^[56] A few lines later we read almost the same words—that preachers must not contradict established doctrines. First of all they should exhort their audience to do penance, "without which it is impossible to hope for the remission of sins through our Lord Jesus and through faith in his blood . . . nobody can begin a new life unless he repents of his old, or draw close to God through Christ and faith in him, unless he first dies to sin with Christ." The people should be taught that Christ is their only mediator, and that only through faith in his passion and resurrection is there forgiveness of sins.^[57] Twice more on the next page the phrase per fidem in sanguine eius is repeated, the second time added by Contarini in the margin of his autograph draft immediately following the statement that we obtain

[54] "Non tamen accessum habemus ad dictam gratiam nisi per fidem in sanguine Christi; per fidem impetramus hanc gratiam, cum qua proveniunt nobis omnia bona, peccatorum remissio, caritas, bonitas, omnes aliae virtutes, quibus resurgimus a peccato, neque peccatum amplius nobis dominabitur, nisi ei cesserimus. Quamobrem orandus etiam est assidue deus, a quo sunt recta desideria, recta consilia, et iusta opera, ut eius misericordia et praeveniat nostras actiones ac dirigat et perficiat, inde etenim sunt omnia bona nostra" (Reg ., 307).

[55] Dittrich states that it was published in 1542 under the title "Literae pontificiae de modo concionandi" (GC , 793) but gives no reference. In Reg ., 225-26 (no. 859), he states, again without a reference, that it was published as a papal brief. This is repeated in CT 4:209-10n.5, citing Reg . above as the source. I have not been able to find such a brief.

[56] Ep. Poli 3(1):76.

[57] Ibid., 77.

remission of our sins "through the sacrament of penance and the power of the priest to absolve."^[58] Nothing like this sentence, which links sacramental confession and faith in the merits of Christ, can be found in the Modus concionandi . Although there is no direct evidence of Aleandro's input, the text clearly is a hybrid of two conceptions of the process of justification, Contarini's and a much more traditional one that emphasizes the role of the priest.

The latter is even more evident in a long marginal insert on the following page of the autograph draft to the effect that the people should be taught that baptism and penance are two different sacraments, in which the merits of Christ's passion are applied differently. After a theological explanation that stresses the role of the priest in the sacrament of penance, the text continues:

All mysteries that the Catholic church and the orthodox religion hold with most certain faith concerning our Lord Christ can be taught to the people. Any sinner can obtain great consolation and trust from them, provided he is grafted into Christ^[59] through faith and love. At this point it would be pertinent to teach the people about what the orthodox church believes concerning faith, hope, and charity, and what is useful for the Christian to know, abstaining, however, from more difficult investigations and accommodating oneself to the capacity of the people.^[60]

Here can be seen the uneasy combination of emphasis on the importance of institutional Catholicism, on the one hand, and the language of individual Christusmystik of being "grafted into Christ," on the other, so congenial to Contarini's thinking. It is tempting to think that we have before us the result of discussions between him and Aleandro, and that we are hearing the voices of both men.

Besides the strong emphasis on the institutional church and its function in the spiritual life of the believer, there is another change in this tract relative to the earlier one. Gone is the "ignorant multitude" to

[58] ASVat, A.A., Arm. I-XVIII, 6461, fol. 116r.

[59] Contarini's terms inseri Christo and fides in sanguine Christi might have been derived from St. Bernard; see Rückert, Theologische Entwicklung , 79-80. However, Contarini uses them in the specific context of the Reformation period, knowing the significance given them by Protestant theologians.

[60] "Omnia etiam mysteria, quae Ecclesia Catholica, et Orthodoxa fides de Christo Domino nostro credit certissima fide, poterit populus doceri, ex quibus magnam consolationem et fiduciam quivis peccator capere [so in both MS versions: the printed version has percipere] potest, dummodo sit insertus Christo per fidem et caritatem. Ad hunc locum pertinebit docere populum, abstinendo tamen a difficilioribus perscrutationibus, et capacitati populi sese accomodando, de fide, spe, et caritate, quae sentit Orthodoxa Ecclesia, et quae Christianum hominem nosse operae pretium est" (Ep. Poli 3[1]:79).

which the Modus concionandi repeatedly referred, replaced simply by "the people" without an adjective, except in one place where we read "uncultivated people" (rudis populus ). The division of believers into two levels has been much mitigated. There is one faith for all, guarded and taught by the orthodox church, in which the people must be carefully instructed by trustworthy and educated preachers.

The unresolved tensions throughout this little tract are much more striking than in Contarini's first treatise on preaching. Now the preacher is instructed never to preach about good works without also talking about the merits of Christ, "on which all our works depend," and never to discuss the faith in Christ without treating penance and good works in the same sermon.^[61] As experience teaches (a reference to Germany), truth will be perverted to justify weakness of the flesh. The good preacher emerges as a sort of tightrope walker, always conscious that the assembled people can draw wrong conclusions from his words and therefore continually on the qui vive , as it were. A funambulist when discussing current—and, obviously, burning—theological issues, the preacher finally has firm ground under his feet when he teaches the people "those things which the Catholic and orthodox church has always been preaching to this day" concerning the five last things (heaven, hell, purgatory, resurrection of the dead, and last judgment).^[62] He should not omit instructing the people about the veneration of saints, the observance of fasts and of ceremonies and rites of the church, and finally, he should incorporate St. Augustine's dictum that to hope for remission of sins outside a united church is a sin against the Holy Spirit.^[63]

If this tract in fact expresses what Contarini thought in September 1541, as is argued here, then it offers strong evidence that he accepted the logical consequences of his choice made in Regensburg to obey absolutely the magisterium of the church, including its teaching about the necessity of ceremonies and rituals. In this respect the last part of the Instructio demonstrates a move to a much more conservative position than the one he held in 1538, when he said nothing about the utility of sacred rituals or forms of worship. Then he was one of the

[61] Ibid., 80.

[62] It is possible that this recommendation should be read as reflecting an Ignatian accent. Contarini might have gone through the Spiritual Exercises under the guidance of Loyola a year or two before he wrote this. There is no conclusive evidence that he did, despite the assertions of Angel Suquìa, "Las reglas para sentir," 381; and GC , 407.

[63] Ep. Poli 3(1):82.

spirituali against whose emphasis on salvation by faith alone Agostino Steuco had written in Pro religione christiana adversus Lutheranos .^[64] Steuco, appointed prefect of the Vatican Library in 1538, and certainly known to Contarini, was insistent that the Lutheran view of justification destroyed piety, without which men would "return to their original beastly nature."^[65] He thought that Luther's rejection of Catholic rituals and ceremonies undermined social and ecclesiastical order, and endangered the very bonds of civilized society. Steuco "always associates the need for religious rituals, sacred surroundings and pious activities with the vulgares —meaning the ordinary Christian—while he repeatedly states that only a few men—the wise—are capable of maintaining their piety and worshiping God Without the benefit of exterior religion."^[66]

What had once been the conservative position on the necessity of rituals, fully and carefully articulated by Steuco, became much more comprehensible to Contarini after his return from Germany. Shocked by the disorder there, he came to agree with the view that external constraints were necessary to counteract the human tendency to lawlessness. Like Steuco, he believed that only a few possessed the kind of deep religious yearning that moved them to seek union with God, the supreme good, without the need for ceremonies.^[67] The vast majority of men had to be shepherded and supported through life with the aid of instruction, sacraments, and ritual. This explains Contarini's full agreement with the recommendation for preachers at the end of the Instructio . He was not going "against the sentiments of [his] heart"; rather, he now accepted the full implications of the position he had espoused by submitting himself to the teaching authority of the church.

When Pole in Viterbo received Contarini's Instructio pro praedicatoribus he hedged in answering, just as he had done with the Epistola de iustificatione . He resolutely refused to respond in writing and to take a stand, for he was not able to agree with the tract and obviously did not want to offend Contarini. He found an elegant way out by recalling Plato, "who, when it became necessary to communicate with another about things divine, preferred to do so by means of a living letter." Pole was going to follow Plato's example and use Beccadelli as his "living letter" to Contarini, ostensibly because he feared to bore

[64] Published in Bologna in May 1530. I owe this reference and information about Steuco's views to Dr. Ronald Delph, whom I should like to thank for allowing me to read his unpublished paper on Steuco and quote from it: "From Venetian Visitor to Curial Humanist: The Development of Agostino Steuco's Counter-Reformation Thought," read at the Sixteenth-Century Studies Conference, St. Louis, October 1990.

[65] Ibid., 3.

[66] Ibid., 8.

[67] Ibid., 10.

Contarini with his own writings.^[68] This labored explanation of his silence on the subject of the Instructio reveals the growing differences between the two men. To Pole, Contarini had turned his back on the spirituali and sought the shelter of rigid orthodoxy in the heat of battle over central doctrines.^[69] Pole almost baited Contarini by describing the circle of his friends in Viterbo who enjoyed the "holy and useful company" of Pietro Carnesecchi (burned for heresy in 1567) and Marcantonio Flaminio (later suspected of heresy), who was giving Pole and most of his familia a taste "of that food which does not perish."^[70] That "food" certainly was not a reading from the lives of saints, as Contarini knew full well. The increasingly radical theological positions espoused by Pole and his circle, the "ecclesia Viterbiensis," made them the leaders of the Catholic intellectual avant-garde in Italy by the end of 1541. But their history during the following years is another subject.

Contarini's Instructio reveals his own mind after Regensburg; it also suggests why the spirituali were no longer a major force in the Catholic church as the lines separating it from Protestantism became ever more clearly drawn. The doctrine of justification by faith alone had momentous implications for the entire structure of the church and the hierarchy, embracing also ritual, ceremonies, theology, and the position of the laity. Justification by faith, as Protestants understood it, simply could not be integrated into sixteenth-century Catholicism without quite literally destroying it. Some spirituali , including Contarini, had tried to bridge the chasm between two ways of conceiving Christianity. In the one, the church was the mediatrix between man and God and dispensed the means of salvation. In the other, man stood before God with only his faith in the cross and the merits of Christ to offer him hope of salvation.

Contarini's solution, when faced with the problem of teaching the people the enormous complexities of doctrines like justification, free will, and predestination, was to counsel a retreat into silence. His way of addressing these issues was to urge a stop to "vain disputes" and to stress the necessity of charity, mildness, and good example; he made no attempt to grapple head-on with the hard theological and moral questions involved. Of course, Contarini cannot be faulted for not offering a solution to problems with which the church had struggled

[68] To Contarini, Viterbo, 26 Oct. 1541, in Ep. Poli 3(2):41.

[69] For a detailed and polemical discussion of the growing tension between Contarini and moderate Evangelism, on the one hand, and Pole and radical spirituali , on the other, see Simoncelli, Evangelismo italiano , chap. 2.

[70] To Contarini, Viterbo, 9 Dec. 1541, in Ep. Poli 3(2):42.

intermittently almost from its beginnings. What he can be faulted for is his inability, perhaps also his unwillingness, to understand that the Catholicism of his time and justification sola fide could not be harmonized.

A passage from an unexpected quarter throws sharp, cold light on our subject. Antonio Gramsci, the influential twentieth-century theoretician of the Italian political left, observed:

The strength of religions, and of the Catholic church in particular, has lain, and still lies, in the fact that they feel very strongly the need for the doctrinal unity of the whole mass of the faithful and strive to ensure that the higher intellectual stratum does not get separated from the lower. The Roman church has always been the most vigorous in the struggle to prevent the "official" formation of two religions, one for the "intellectuals" and the other for the "simple souls." This struggle has not been without serious disadvantages for the Church itself, but these disadvantages . . . only serve to emphasize the organisational capacity of the clergy in the cultural sphere and the abstractly rational and just relationship which the Church has been able to establish in its own sphere between the intellectuals and the simple. The Jesuits have undoubtedly been the major architects of this equilibrium.^[71]

In this instance, Gramsci saw correctly. What the spirituali , for all their goodwill and personal excellence, could not do, the Jesuits later could. They and the other leaders of the Counter-Reformation church defined clear norms and emphasized the reality of a single faith for all, with the clergy as its guardian. The Protestants set themselves the objective of opening to all Christians access to the full word of God. But the spirituali made distinctions between the faith for the mass of believers and that of the educated elite. Their hesitations and ambiguities do credit to their anxiety and subtlety, but precluded their leadership in a contest for the souls of the mass of the people, the imperita multitudo whom they cherished but also disdained. The winners were those who articulated the belief that there was one church for all, with the same doctrines for the high and the low.

In Another World: Bologna, 1542

On 27 January 1542, Paul III appointed Contarini legate to Bologna. On 25 March the new legate made his solemn

[71] Selections from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci , ed. and trans. Quintin Hoare and Geoffrey Nowell Smith (New York: International Publishers, 1971 ), 328-29.

entrance into the city,^[72] where he was to reside until his death five months later. In contrast to the dearth of Contarini's correspondence from the preceding fall, a wealth of his letters from the Bolognese period has been preserved,^[73] enabling us to follow his activities almost day by day.

Bologna, with over fifty thousand inhabitants, was second only to Rome in importance among the cities of the papal state. At the head of its government was the cardinal-legate whose "primary duties were justice and information."^[74] In addition to being the chief judicial officer with power over life and death, he was the link between the central and local governments, responsible for gathering and transmitting back to Rome information about all aspects of city life. Bologna's civic institutions included various appointive and elective councils, with the highest prestige attached to a hereditary senate of forty nobles, the Reggimento, which in theory governed together with the legate.^[75] In actuality, the power to govern Bologna was not evenly balanced: the senate was the dominant force in local affairs, with the legate as a supervisory rather than commanding official.^[76]

Two conflicting views have been advanced about Contarini's appointment to Bologna—that he was chosen for "the most important and at the same time most honorable legation of the entire papal state"^[77] because the pope wanted to make manifest his continuing trust in him, or that he was sent into exile^[78] in a provincial city. While neither

[72] Reg ., 231 (no. 885).

[73] A total of 225 letters written by Contarini between 25 March and 17 August 1542 have been published by Alfredo Casadei, "Lettere del Cardinale Gaspero Contarini durante la sua legazione di Bologna."

[74] I am grateful to Prof. Laurie Nussdorfer for allowing me to read and quote her unpublished paper "Civic Institutions and Papal Control in Sixteenth-Century Rome and Bologna," presented to the Sixteenth-Century Studies Conference, St. Louis, October 1986. The quotation is from p. 3.

[75] Mario Fanti, "Le classi sociali e il governo di Bologna all'inizio del secolo XVII in un'opera inedita di Camillo Baldi," Strenna storica bolognese 11 (1961): 157. I thank Prof. Nussdorfer for this reference.

[76] Paolo Colliva, "Bologna dal XIV al XVIII secolo: 'governo misto' o signoria senatoria?" in Storia della Emilia Romagna , ed. Aldo Berselli (Bologna: University Press of Bologna, 1977), 2:13.

[77] GC , 798. Dittrich here echoes Beccadelli's "Vita": the pope "creò il Cardinale Legato di Bologna, ch'è la più honorata Legatione, che la Chiesa habbia nel Stato suo" (Monumenti Beccadelli 1[2]:39). Pastor, "Correspondenz," 352-53, also accepts Beccadelli's view, calling the legation to Bologna "the most honorable and important that the pope could bestow" (diese Legation war die ehrenvollste und bedeutendste, welche der Papst zu vergeben hatte).

[78] For example, by Simoncelli, Evangelismo italiano , 45, 115, and passim. Giorgio Cracco in his review of the "Lettere" considered Contarini's legation to Bologna as "an administrative office not of prime importance, [which] signified an intense humiliation [for Contarini] and the victory of the conservative faction of the curia" (in Bollettino dell'Istituto di storia della società e dello stato veneziano 3 (1961): 307.

view, taken by itself, is satisfactory, the two are not mutually exclusive. Politically, the initiative in Rome had passed to the more intransigent cardinals. After his return from Germany, Contarini had no power base and no strong constituency at the papal court. His vision of church reform did not coincide with that of the men who did have power in the curia and who were trying to close ranks in the crisis besetting the church by fighting heresy through legal and institutional means, including the inquisition and eventually the index. Though personally admired, he was no longer able to function as a planner of Roman strategy because of his own lack of success. Appointing him to Bologna was a shrewd tactical move by Paul III, who thereby avoided the semblance of dropping Contarini. As legate, the latter would have a conspicuous and honorable^[79] but circumscribed part in papal government, at a safe distance from the milieu in which he had become increasingly ineffective.

Contarini had barely reached Bologna before he was plunged into the midst of affairs. He had to deal immediately with cases of violence, involving vendetta, homicide,^[80] and the murder of two Florentine students in a brawl.^[81] Local quarrels, disputes among families, assaults, and lawsuits claimed his time.^[82] As the mouthpiece of the pope, he had to announce to the Bolognese senate a rise in the extremely unpopular and resented salt tax, and to negotiate with the senators and other magistrates who tried to get it reduced or paid in a lump sum.^[83] Although the legate's task was to transmit the pope's decisions in this dispute, we get a glimpse of his sympathies in a letter to Guido Ascanio Sforza di Santa Fiora, grandson of Paul III and papal chamberlain, to whom he mentioned the poverty of the peasants on the nobility's estates and the rise in taxes, adding: "I would not like us to oppress them too much."^[84]

[79] Pole to Contarini, Viterbo, 29 Jan. 1542, expressed his delight at the unexpected appointment: "Sia laudata la bontà divina, la quale così expressamente nelli honori di V.S. Reverendiss. vole monstrare, che tutti vengono dalla mano soa, essendoli conferiti a un tale tempo, quando o non era causa di aspettare tanto, o pocha speranza, come ho notato neli altri honori de V.S. Reverendiss. praesertim Ecclesiastici, & in questo adesso non so quando le persone potevano havere manco causa di expectare per le resone, che sa V.S. Reverendissima" (Ep. Poli 3[2]:49). Paolo Sadoleto called the Bolognese legation "honorable"; see Fragnito, "Evangelismo e intransigenti," 27n.23.

[80] Casadei, "Lettere," 85 (no. 5).

[81] Ibid., 91 (no. 12).

[82] Ibid., 256-57 (no. 167); and Ep. Poli 3:ccl-ccli.

[83] Casadei, "Lettere," 101 (no. 33) and 106-7 (no. 45).

[84] "Non vorrei che troppo noi gli oppressimo . . . "(ibid., 252 [no. 156]).

Even though the subject of almost all his letters is official business, Contarini's private thoughts and personal concerns find expression in many. His inner peace is evident; despite the recent disappointments, he does not write as an embittered or hostile man, but as one who has accepted the will of God in his own life. This quality shows itself at the very beginning of his legation in a letter to Alfonso Avalos, marquis del Vasto, the Spanish governor of Lombardy, a missive that illuminates Contarini's attitude of this period:

I sincerely thank God in his goodness, the fount from which all good things come, for having deigned to enlighten the mind of Your Excellency with his light and for infusing his Holy Spirit in your breast, having regard not only of your private good (which I have at heart virtually as much as I do my own), but even more of the good of innumerable others who will share and enjoy the gifts and talents given you from above. These are the true interior reformations which only God can bring about, and not merely the exterior reformations which men can effect. Blessed be God, and Jesus Christ be thanked without end.^[85]

The note struck here and repeated in other letters is one of resignation to the course of events, which may not be comprehensible to men, or controllable by their efforts, but which have an inner meaning known only to God.

His belief in a divine plan for the church and the world gave Contarini tranquillity. Rather than fretting about the past, he now devoted himself to fulfilling his duties to the best of his ability. "I am overwhelmed by affairs, and from morning to night am always [giving] audiences and [involved in] business matters,"^[86] he wrote to the legate of the eastern part of the papal state, Rodolfo Pio di Carpi. Three weeks later, he struck a wistful chord: "Here I am [engaged] in continuous business affairs and [lead] a life very different from that in Rome, but provided that it is done well, which I try to do as much as I am able, all is for the praise of God."^[87] The mention of his presumably

[85] ". . . Molto ringratio la bontà divina, fonte donde ha origine ogni bene, che si havesse degnata de illuminare la mente di V.ill.ma S. del lume suo, et infundere nel suo petto il suo santo Spirito, non solamente considerando il bene suo privato, il quale però mi è a cuore poco meno del mio proprio, ma più il bene de infiniti altri, li quail sono per essere participi et di godere di questo dono et talento dato a lei di sopra. Queste sono le vere riformatione interiore, quale solo Dio puole fare, et non solamente exteriore, quale possono fare li homeni. Sia benedetto Iddio, et senza fine ringratio Iesu Christo" (29 Mar. 1542, ibid., 87 [no. 9]).

[86] "Io sono pienissimo di facende, et dalla mattina alla sera me ne sto sempre in audienze et negocj . . ." (2 Apr. 1542, ibid., 94 [no. 19]).

[87] "Io sono qui in continui negoci, vita molto diversa da quella di Roma . . ." (to Carpi, 20 Apr. 1542, ibid., 110 [no. 50]).

more leisurely life in Rome was the expression of a passing mood. More typically, Contarini reported: "Praised be God, I am well, and do not lack business affairs here, of which I gladly take care, and which do not oppress me at all."^[88] Again, he wrote to Carpi: "Through the grace of God, I am well, engaged in continuous and not unpleasant work, for which I have the great help of the vice-legate [Benedetto Conversini, bishop of Iesi]."^[89] And to Sadoleto, with whom there was no need for reticence, he remarked: "As usual, I attend to government affairs, devoting myself entirely to the active life, in which I have no other aim than to do my duty for the honor of God and of our lord [the pope] who has honored me with this charge. If I am up to it, let the Divine Majesty be thanked for that; if I fail, may He pardon my fault. Rest assured, Your Reverence, that there is no lack of goodwill, thanks be to God."^[90] These are not the expressions of a beaten-down person, but of a serene and above all resigned man whose deep trust in God is as evident as is his sense of duty to his earthly lord and to the church. A careful reading of Contarini's letters from Bologna makes sweeping generalizations about his exile, alienation, or bitterness impossible.^[91]

The vita activa , the life of action about which Contarini wrote, included matters familiar to him from the time of his career in the government of Venice. As a young man, he had dealt with problems of flood control in the Po basin. Now he faced disputes between subjects of Ferrara and Bologna over attempts of the latter to divert and channel the river Reno, causing floods and damage in Ferrarese territory.^[92] Despite his diplomatic experience, Contarini was not able to negotiate a settlement on this matter with the duke of Ferrara; it remained a nagging issue for his successors.

A recurring topic in many of his letters is Contarini's worry about

[88] "Io, Iodato Dio, sto bene, et qui non mi mancano facende le quali esequisco volentierj nè mi gravano punto . . ." (addressee missing, ibid., 237 [no. 125]).

[89] "Io per la gratia di Dio sto bene all'usato in continue et non dispiacevoli occupationi, nelle quali ho un gran solevamento della persona di mons. Vicelegato . . ." (ibid., 253 [no. 158]).

[90] "Io all'usato attendo alli negoci di questo governo, tutto volto a questa vita attiva, nella quale altro obietto non ho che satisfare all'honor di Dio et di N.S. che mi ha honorato di questo carico, nel quale, se bastarò, sia da ringratiarne sua divina Maestà, et mancando, da perdonare alla mia imperfettione. V.S. r.ma stia pur sicura che buon volere, ringratiato Dio, non manca" (5 July 1542, ibid., 256 [no. 165]).

[91] Contarini's secretary, Ludovico Beccadelli, was of a different mind about his stay in Bologna, disliking the pressure and the kind of business there, and even referring to it as "this hell"; see Fragnito, "Gli 'spirituali,'" in Gasparo Contarini , 298n.139.

[92] Casadei, "Lettere," 116 (no. 62), 122-23 (no. 75), 127 (no. 84), 222 (no. 96), and 246 (no. 143).

another looming Habsburg-Valois conflict. Paul III decided to remain neutral and prohibited the recruitment of soldiers for either side in the papal state. The enforcement of this prohibition was not easy for the legate, since it required prompt, reliable information from all parts of the Bolognese territory as well as manpower that he did not have. Contarini's request for an increase in the number of Swiss soldiers in Bologna was not granted, despite his argument that they were necessary for the maintenance of order.^[93] His fear of war is evident, especially since he knew that the French were trying to use Mirandola as a power base in northern Italy.^[94] He regarded peace everywhere, whether among families in Bologna or in Italy and Europe generally, as an immensely desirable good. In the last letter of this collection, written when his final illness had already begun its course,^[95] he expressed his willingness to go on yet another mission to Spain in the cause of peace.^[96] His worry and pessimism about Germany notwithstanding,^[97] Contarini was trusting that God would help "poor Christendom" and that some good might result from his own efforts.^[98] To that end, he repeated what he had said when he embarked on his journey to Regensburg—that something which seems impossible to men is possible to God.^[99] This attitude of quiet surrender to God's unfathomable ways is very striking in Contarini's last letters.

Yet there was no passivity in the exercise of his office. His diocese of Belluno continued to occupy his thoughts, as did the long-postponed visit to his flock, which in the end was never to take place.^[100] As vice-protector of several religious communities, including the Benedictines

[93] Ibid., 244 (no. 139).

[94] Ibid., 123-24 (no. 76), 125 (no. 80).

[95] On 17 August 1542 he wrote to Cardinal Farnese that he was indisposed since the day before; see ibid., 284 (no. 223).

[96] Ibid., 285 (no. 225).

[97] His personal disappointment aside, Contarini was pessimistic about the course of German events: "Prego Iddio che non lasci rovinare quella provincia di Germania, come par che sia per fare, che con quella il resto della Christianità staria pur troppo male" (ibid., 275 [no. 205]). He saw clearly how critical the situation in Germany was: "dalle cose di quelle parti [Germany] pende tutta la salute della Christianità" (281 [no. 218]).

[98] Ibid., 284 (no. 224).

[99] The tone of Contarini's letter to Cardinal Farnese of 11 August is striking. He expresses thanks for the love the pope has shown him by appointing him once again to the emperor, "an undertaking which I know to be only a little less difficult than the extremely difficult one to the Lutherans in Germany," adding: "as for the hardship of the journey, I do not regard it as much, having dedicated my remaining years to the service first of God, then of His Holiness. To me it suffices to obey promptly" (ibid., 282 [no. 219]).

[100] Ibid., 248 (no. 146), 251 (no. 153), 257 (no. 167), 260 (no. 176), and 275 (no. 205).

of the Cassinese Congregation and the Franciscans, Contarini wrote many letters of counsel and direction. They reveal some of his characteristic attitudes, as, for example, this to the friars of the monastery of St. Anthony in Padua, whose discord about an election he tried to end: "We do not want to command you, [since] we desire that your reformation be entirely voluntary and proceed from you, as we see that you, too, desire, and we wish even more than you do that it be more than voluntary, because nobody can be good if he is not good from his own will."^[101] Contarini did not in the least change his mind that persuasion was distinctly preferable to coercion, with good example as the most effective means for moving men's hearts: "We see clearly that the life we members of the clergy lead has given great scandal to the Christian people, and from it have arisen the many tumults and troubles we now face. Our duty is to realize this and return to a life that will edify the people by our example, and to remedy the scandal that has already been caused," he wrote to the Franciscans in Venice.^[102] Even plainer is his assertion that the wrath of God was provoked to a great extent by the life of bad secular and regular clergy,^[103] and that their decadence affected everyone.

Contarini's tolerant attitude, so striking in 1541, remained unchanged. Even as the inquisition was being reorganized in Rome, he remained extremely wary of labeling someone's views as heretical. When the Augustinian hermit Giuliano da Colle, who preached the Lenten sermons of 1542 in Parma, was accused of spreading heresy, Contarini warned that "great caution is necessary before [articles of faith] are condemned as heretical."^[104] At a time when the curia was becoming increasingly suspicious of the Capuchine general Bernardino Ochino, the legate invited the friar to Bologna and expressed his pleasure at the thought of being in Ochino's company.^[105] Another

[101] Ibid., 118 (no. 68): "Non vogliamo commandarvi, desiderando che la vostra riformatione sia in tutta voluntaria et che venga da voi come vedemo che desiderate et noi più che voi desideriamo che sia più che voluntaria, chè niuno puote essere buono se non è buono per voluntà."

[102] Ibid., 129 (no. 90): "Vediamo chiaramente che il vivere di noi religiosi ha dato grande scandolo al populo christiano, donde sono nasciuti tanti tumulti et travagli come toccamo con mano. Nostro debito è di ricognoscerci et redurci ad una vita in edificatione del populo con lo exempio nostro che ricompensi al scandolo già dato."

[103] Ibid., 96 (no. 24).

[104] Letter of 18 April 1542 to Badia: "Et circa questo io sono del'istesso parer vostro, ciò è che ci bisogni gran consideratione prima che si dannino [gli articoli] per hereticj" (ibid., 105 [no. 42]). For da Colle, see Pietro Tacchi-Venturi, Storia della Compagnia di Gesù in Italia , 2d ed. (Rome: Civiltà Cattolica, 1950), 1(1):465-66.

[105] Casadei, "Lettere," 93 (no. 18).

suspect of heresy, Filippo Valentini, was appointed Contarini's auditor and therefore a member of his household. These instances confirm his openness to theological questions that were being discussed with passion on all sides, as well as his sympathy with the thought of spirituali more radical than himself, some of whom later embraced Protestantism.

Daily involvement in government affairs left Contarini little time for literary activities during the months in Bologna. Beccadelli mentions that the legate "wrote for his private study many beautiful annotations to all the epistles of St. Paul, and the Catholic epistles, on which he was still at work when death supervened."^[106] These annotations were included in Contarini's collected works as Scholia in epistolas Divi Pauli .^[107] It is not possible to establish when he began the Scholia or commented on specific epistles, since so far no manuscript of this work has come to light. Judging from internal evidence, it was probably composed gradually as the result of his reading and meditation on the letters of St. Paul. It is tempting to examine above all his comments on Romans, and to read them in the light of the discussions about article 5 in Regensburg, though at present to do so would be methodologically indefensible. The only support for such a reading is tenuous at best: a sentence in a letter of Cristoforo Madruzzi, prince-bishop of Trent, mentioning that Contarini had written about healing his wound caused by the emperor's defeat in Africa with study of the Bible.^[108] Nothing else supports the supposition that this study was focused on St. Paul, or that its result was the Scholia .

There is little secondary literature on this work and its sometimes contradictory theological ideas. Dittrich surmises that Contarini's purpose was "to highlight the rich content of the Pauline epistles and make it accessible to wider circles," adding that "therefore he purposely omits the learned apparatus, strives for the greatest possible brevity, clarity, and comprehensibility, and avoids almost all references

[106] Beccadelli, "Vita," 59: "Scrisse anchora per suo studio particolare molte belle Annotationi sopra tutte le Epistole di San Paolo, et Catholiche, le quali tuttavia haveva in mano, quando della morte sopravenuto fu." Pole's friend Alvise Priuli in a letter to Beccadelli dated from Viterbo, 13 March 1542, refers to Contarini's "brief exposition" on the epistles of St. Paul. See Maria Cristina Pauselli, "Note sugli Scholia di Gasparo Contarini ad Efesini e Galati," Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 83 (1992): 132 n. 18.

[107] Opera , 435-530.

[108] ". . . Et quum in calce litterarum suarum D. V. Rma. scribat, se huic vulneri, quando tempus supersit, studio sacrarum litterarum mederi, non opus est, ut multa verba consolatoria in medium afferam" (Trent, 22 Dec. 1541, in Monumenti Beccadelli 1[2]:210). Dittrich, GC , 839, suggests without any further evidence that the result of these studies might be the Scholia .

to the theological movements and disputes of his time."^[109] If Contarini meant to help readers without a theological education, he fulfilled his intention very imperfectly, since his choice of verses to be annotated reflects the flow of his own ideas rather than an attempt at a systematic explanation of the main themes found in the epistles. In the absence of other information, we are left with Beccadelli's statement that the Scholia was the result of Contarini's private study, meant primarily for himself.

What insistently occupied his thoughts was justification, about which he did not change his mind after Regensburg. Dittrich has singled out the many passages of the Scholia where this topic is mentioned,^[110] and even a casual reading of the text shows Contarini returning to it again and again. The annotations of Romans, as might be expected, contain repeated statements about our justification by faith (per fidem , 1:6), through faith in the blood of Christ (per fidem in sanguine Christi , 3:24), and through the imputation of Christ's justice and his merits (4; 5:12). Sometimes Contarini summarizes an entire epistle or a chapter, as, for example, 2 Corinthians 5: "Christ's justice is given to us and imputed to us. That is the essence";^[111] or in his introduction to Hebrews (which he accepts as Pauline): "All saints were wholly justified by faith and through faith. That is the essence."^[112] In Ephesians 1:3 we read: "Everywhere Paul tries to show that we are grafted into Christ through faith and charity."^[113] Such statements abound in the Scholia , tantalizing the reader. But they are disembodied, as it were, since we lack any information about their context. They remain pieces of a puzzle still to be assembled and understood.^[114]

If the genesis of the Scholia and the exact time of its composition are not known, the contrary is true for a small work written in June 1542, the Catechesis sive Christiana instructio .^[115] An abundance of precise information about its context exists, beginning with the letters of Mo-

[109] GC , 839.

[110] Ibid., 840-42.

[111] Opera , 469.

[112] Ibid., 515.

[113] Ibid., 483.

[114] Hünermann, Theologische Entwicklung , uses the Scholia cautiously for the same reason: its relation with Contarini's other works is unclear, as is its chronology. Pauselli, "Note sugli Scholia, " is the most recent and detailed examination of Contarini's annotations to Ephesians and Galatians. It compares his exegesis with those of some of his contemporaries, both Catholic and Protestant, as well as with selected patristic sources, especially St. Augustine, without, however, establishing lines of dependency, and concludes that he was eclectic (pp. 152-53).

[115] Opera , 533-545, now superseded by the edition in Firpo and Marcatto, Processo 3:190-221. The printed editions are discussed on pp. 47-61, and the manuscripts on pp. 61-70.

rone's vicar in Modena, Giovanni Domenico Sigibaldi, who reported the spread of heretical ideas in his diocese to the absent bishop.^[116] While Morone was on his diplomatic missions in Germany, Sigibaldi worried already in 1540 that the whole city was infected with heresy, like Prague, and that "in shops, on street corners, in houses, and so forth, everyone (as I hear) disputes about faith, free will, purgatory, the Eucharist, and predestination."^[117] Controversies among preachers contributed to the volatile religious atmosphere in Modena; Augustinians were especially suspected of introducing "novelties" such as doubt about the existence of purgatory.^[118] In the winter of 1540-41 conflicts between various groups in the city intensified, the secular authorities now becoming involved.^[119] Morone's vicar was not the man to deal firmly with an increasingly complex problem as the circle of men suspected of heresy grew wider. It came to include the so-called Academy of Modena, an informal group of intellectuals who met for common reading of classical texts and discussions of scientific and philosophical subjects that of course included the religious issues of the day. Among these men the writer Ludovico Castelvetro, the physician Giovanni Grillenzoni, the priest Giovanni Bertari, and Contarini's auditor Filippo Valentini stand out.

Massimo Firpo has discussed the growing religious tensions in Modena in some detail and shown that Morone repeatedly counseled patience, charity, and humanity in dealing with those suspected of unorthodox views in general, and with members of the Academy in particular.^[120] When he was finally able to return to his diocese in May 1542, he was shocked to find not only that heresy had made serious inroads among the people, but also that the Academy had played an important role in the spread of heterodox ideas. "In this the common opinion of the entire city concurs," he reported to Cardinal Farnese.^[121]

Against this background Morone conceived the idea of requesting members of the Academy to draw up a confession of faith. After they sought various pretexts for avoiding to do so, Morone tried to

[116] The most recent and fullest examination of the background to the Catechesis is by Firpo, "Spirituali."

[117] Ibid., 47.

[118] Susanna Peyronel Rambaldi, Speranze e crisi nel Cinquecento modenese (Milan: Franco Angeli Editore, 1979), 212-22, discusses the religious unrest due to preachers.

[119] Firpo, "Spirituali," 48-50.

[120] Ibid., 55-57. Morone's attitude toward those suspected of heresy was very similar to that of Contarini.

[121] Quoted in ibid., 59n.58.

convince them to subscribe to a catechism that had been printed on Giberti's order in Verona in 1541. That attempt proved unsuccessful, and the accademici , in turn, suggested texts that Morone found unacceptable.^[122] Eventually he turned to Contarini for help and counsel on how to ascertain what the members of the Academy actually believed "concerning purgatory, the sacrifice of the mass, the real presence of Christ in the sacrament of the altar, adoration of the host, auricular confession, the legislative authority of the church, intecession and invocation of saints, and the glory of the blessed."^[123] The friendship, closeness, and even affection that had developed between the two men made it easy for Morone to confide in Contarini, and for the latter to take a sincere interest in the affairs of his younger, always deferential, but also more practical colleague.^[124] Morone paid a brief visit to Bologna during the first week of June, bringing Contarini information in person about the situation in Modena. Within a few days Contarini completed and sent to Morone a confession of faith, the "Articuli orthodoxae professionis," which appeared under the title Catechesis sire Christiana instructio in Contarini's collected works of 1571.

Although this little work, consisting of forty-one questions and answers, was ostensibly written for general use and even translated into German,^[125] it was actually intended for the Modenese accademici . They are not mentioned in the work, for Contarini did not want to single them out for censure and so alienate them further. Instead he adopted the transparent strategy of addressing the issues they had raised and giving broad definitions of articles of faith in the hope that the accademici would accept them, remain in the church, and make interference in Modena by Roman authorities unnecessary.

The first question asks what it is to be a Christian, and Contarini offers a very simple reply: "To be a Christian is to be a member of Christ, incorporated into him through faith and the sacraments

[122] Ibid., 62-64.

[123] Morone's detailed letter to Contarini of 21 May 1542 is printed in Ep. Poli 3:cclxvii-cclxxi; and in part in Firpo, "Spirituali," 60-61n.63; and Fragnito, "Gli 'spirituali,'" 268n.41.

[124] The growth of their friendship and the changes in Morone due to Contarini's influence are remarkable. The solicitous and kind tone Contarini adopted in his correspondence with Morone is exemplified in Casadei, "Lettere," 113 (no. 57), 120 -21 (no. 73), and 224 (no. 100). In writing to his friend Ermolao Barbaro on 5 July (ibid., 256 [no. 166]), Contarini mentioned Morone, "with whom I am joined by a love and affection as great as it is possible to express."

[125] Christoph Monfang, Katholische Katechismen des sechzehnten Jahrhunderts in deutscher Sprache (Mainz, 1881 ), includes this version.

of faith."^[126] From the beginning, the necessity of the sacraments is stressed. The definition of the term sacraments is entirely traditional: they are "visible signs of invisible grace." Contarini refers to the authority of St. Paul and Thomas Aquinas,^[127] affirms the existence of seven sacraments, and proceeds to define each. He treats the Eucharist extensively, linking its discussion with that of the mass. As he had done in Regensburg, so he now also upholds the teaching of the Fourth Lateran Council: "After the consecration there is not the substance of bread and wine under the visible signs, but thc true body and blood of Christ, as is manifest by the opinion of the entire church and all the doctors."^[128] What is immediately striking here, of course, is the omission of the word transubstantiation , on which Contarini had insisted so vehemently in Germany. There he had defended a solemnly promulgated dogma which the Lutherans denied. Now he was addressing men whom he regarded as fellow Catholics in the hope of keeping them in the fold despite their mistaken ideas. He presumed the existence of a broad consensus between himself and them, and therefore made his formulations as noncontroversial as possible, consistent with his preference for gentle persuasion instead of coercion.

The Modenese arc further instructed about the nature of the Eucharist as Contarini takes on specifically Protestant tenets. He affirms the presence of Christ's body and blood in the host, deriving from this the necessity of its adoration;^[129] states that "the mass, as all ancient and modern doctors teach, is a sacrifice"; and emphasizes the utility of offering the mass for the living and the dead.^[130] As he had done with the Eucharist, however, so now in discussing the mass Contarini gives a definition into which it was possible to read a number of meanings. To the question concerning the manner in which the mass is a sacrifice, he replies that

the mass is a sacrifice of praise, a sacrifice of thanksgiving: it is a sacrifice because it is the remembrance of that unique sacrifice by which Christ offered himself to the father for us through the Holy Spirit; it is also a sacrifice because it is the oblation through which we offer Christ and his sufferings (as Augustine says in Book Ten of The City of God , and by which we offer the entire

[126] Firpo and Marcatto, Processo 3:190.

[127] Ibid., 192 (question 5).

[128] Ibid., 196 (question Il): "Post consecrationem non est sub sensibilibus illis signis substantia panis seu vini, sed verum corpus Christi et eius sanguis, quod perspicuum est et sensu totius ecclesiae et doctorum omnium."

[129] Ibid., 198 (question 15).

[130] Ibid., 199 (question 16), 200-202 (questions 18-20).

church through Christ to almighty God, in order that through Christ we may draw close to Him, the supreme good of all goods.^[131]

Obviously, this politic if diffuse statement avoided forcing the reader to choose between the mass as sacrifice or as memorial service.

Seven articles are devoted to the sacrament of penance. The Modenese accademici were familiar with the sharp differences in the views of Catholic and Protestant theologians on this subject. Contarini is seeking to base his explanation on an uneasy blend of elements from the New Testament, Thomas Aquinas, and canon law. Beginning with the lapidary definition of penance as the sacrament "whose form and perfection is the absolution by the priest,"^[132] he goes on to instruct the reader that it derives its power "from faith in the sufferings of Christ, as St. Thomas says. For, as the Apostle [Paul] says in several places (as in Eph. 1:7), the remission of sins and reconciliation with God does not happen except through Christ and his merits, to whom we are joined through faith as we accept the spirit by whom we are either made a new creation, as in baptism, or raised again and given new life, as in the sacrament of penance."^[133] Neither Romans 1:17, the great Protestant proof-text for justification by faith, nor Contarini's own unchanged views of twofold justification are mentioned. Clearly, he was steering the Modenese away from the controversies about justification by referring to the views of St. Thomas. But in the very next sentence faith in the merits of Christ as the keystone in reconciling man and God appears, opening the possibility for the Modenese to accept Contarini's formulation.

He also insists, however, on the juridical character of penance when he defines the priest as judge in article 25, or discusses satisfaction in a remarkably diffuse article 26. His conception of the church as a visible community governed in an orderly fashion by law can be seen in the

[131] Ibid., 199-200 (question 17): "Missa est sacrificium laudis, est sacrificium gratiarum actionis, est sacrificium quia est memoria unici illius sacrificii quo Christus se pro nobis obtulit patri per spiritum sanctum; est etiam sacrificium quia est oblatio qua offerimus Christum eiusque passionem, ut inquit Augustinus in decimo De civitate Dei, et totam ecclesiam per Christum Deo omnipotenti, ut ei inhaereamus per Christum tanquam supremo omnium bono."

[132] Ibid., 204 (question 23): "Sacramentum poenitentiae, cuius forma et perfectio est absolutio sacerdotis."

[133] Ibid., 204 (question 24): "Unde vim habet sacramentum poenitentiae? Responsio. A fide passionis Christi, ut dicit beams Thomas. Nam, sicuti dicit Apostolus in pluribus locis ut in epistola ad Ephesios c. I, [7 ], remissio peccatorum et reconciliatio cum Deo non fit nisi per Christum et eius merita, cui coniungimur per fidem ut accipiamus spiritum per quem vel nova creatura efficiamur, ut in baptismate, vel resurgamus et reviviscamus, ut in sacramento poenitentiae."

next few articles, which clarify such issues as the validity of confession made to a layman or to a priest other than one's own parish priest, absolution given by a sinful and personally unworthy priest, or the existence of purgatory. In each case straightforward and traditional answers are given, as might be expected of a man for whom the necessity of institutions to guide and supervise human society was self-evident and beyond doubt.

Contarini the former Venetian statesman did not deny his deep respect for a hierarchically ordered society when discussing ritual, ceremonies, and manmade regulations. While acknowledging that Christ gave his followers no rules on these matters, Contarini derives their necessity from reason. Article 35 explains that proper order and obedience to authority must exist in the church for the good of all its members, and article 37 makes reference to an array of patristic writers and doctors of the church in support of the Christian hierarchy and the monastic life. But Contarini is careful not to define the latter as a good work. The monk is likened to a traveler who strains all his forces in the ascent toward his goal, which is the perfection of charity.^[134]

The cult of the saints, "the most living and noblest members of Christ,^[135] is endorsed, with the veneration of their images justified by reference to the decrees of the Seventh Ecumenical Council in 787, which declared them to be "as the books of the uneducated"^[136] because they move believers to the veneration and imitation of those depicted. This article contains a rare mention of art by Contarini. Indeed, his attitude toward art generally is almost puritanical and makes one wonder what he thought about the great artists of his time, about Raphael or Michelangelo, whose works he had certainly seen: "We cannot approve of the practice of those who use pictures and images of the saints to set off the skill of the artist and offer vain or even base delight to those who look on the images, and do not have a basis in the church's teaching for allowing these images but in fact abuse the church's teaching in order to give lascivious or secular delight."^[137]

[134] Ibid., 216 (question 37).

[135] Ibid., 218 (question 38): "Sancti sunt viventia et nobilissima membra Christi. . . ."

[136] Ibid., 219 (question 39): "In septima Synodo, sub Constantino et Hyrene, decretum fuit imagines tanquam libros idiotarum esse, ut aspectu etiam doctos moveant et excitent ad venerationem et imitationem optimorum hominum, in ecclesia admittendas et venerandas, non quidem ut eis veneratio defferatur, sed sanctis per eas."

[137] Ibid.: "... non probandum censemus eorum usum qui in picturis et imaginibus sanctorum, ut artificis peritia ostendatur et delectatio vel vana vel turpis ex earum aspectu videntibus offeratur, nullam habent rationem institutionis ecclesiae in imaginibus admittendis, immo ea abutuntur in lasciviam vel inanem oblectationem."

Two articles address specific matters that had been disputed in Modena. Article 31 concerns whether Christians who have died rise up to heaven immediately or wait until the resurrection of their bodies. Contarini answers that those who have died "freed from the bonds of sin and washed in the blood of Christ from the stains of sin" immediately reached blessedness in soul and spirit.^[138] The mention of this esoteric issue indicates that he knew the opinions of Camillo Renato, a Sicilian Franciscan who preached in Modena in 1540 before his imprisonment and trial for heresy and eventual escape to Switzerland. Among Renato's teachings was that physical death is followed by "the provisional death or sleep of the soul" until the last judgment and the resurrection of the body (psychopannychism),^[139] which Contarini considered erroneous.

The final article was probably written against the opinion of the Modenese priest Giovanni Bertari, who held that someone who prays without understanding what he is saying sins and blasphemes.^[140] Contarini recognizes that praying in a language which is not understood shows good intentions, and that the simple people should be encouraged to say prayers even if they do not understand them—meaning, of course, prayers in Latin. Still, he makes the commonsense statement that it is preferable and more useful to comprehend the prayers one recites.^[141] A heartfelt "The end. Praise be to God!" concludes this work.

The history of Contarini's articles leading to their acceptance and signing by the Modenese accademici after the cardinal's death has been told expertly and in detail by Massimo Firpo.^[142] Our concern here is with the significance of the articles for understanding Contarini's thought. Besides furnishing yet another proof of his irenic and conciliatory approach to dissenters or doubters, they offer evidence of his political sensitivity in the extremely delicate situation of the spirituali at almost the precise moment when the Roman Inquisition was

[138] Ibid., 209 (question 31): "Qui ex hac vita decedunt soluti a vinculis peccati et abluti in sanguine Christi peccatorum maculas . . . confestim ad beatitudinem perveniunt animo et spiritu . . ."

[139] See George Huntston Williams, "Camillo Renato (c. 1500-?1575)," in Italian Reformation Studies in Honor of Laelius Socinus (1562-1962), ed. John A. Tedeschi, Proceedings of the Unitarian Historical Society 14, pts. 1 and 2 (1962-63): 133; according to Williams, Renato presumably held before his trial "that the souls of the saints and the others justified have not yet entered heaven and will not enter in fact until after the last judgment . . . and do not yet enjoy the delights of paradise nor the vision of the highest God."

[140] Firpo and Marcatto, Processo 3:220n.171.

[141] Ibid., 221.

[142] Firpo, "Spirituali," 80-111.

being organized. Both he and Morone tried by all means possible to avoid a major eruption of heresy-hunting in Modena, and they were aided in this by two prominent Modenese, Cortese and especially Sadoleto, who ultimately played a key role in persuading the accademici to sign the articles.^[143]

In his dealings with the Academy, Contarini assumed the role of mediator rather than that of its protector. On several occasions his patience was tried, as when he wrote to Morone: "It seems to me that I see in them [the accademici ] such an arrogance and pride, mother of all evil, joined to great ignorance, that I think very ill of them . . .. I do not believe that they can be brought back by humanity and courtesy."^[144] Another time, when he was irritated by what he considered their quibbling over the fine points of Latin instead of engaging in discussion of substantial issues, he burst out: "I care little about being censured, especially in what concerns the Latin and Ciceronian language, which I have forgotten already many years [ago], and I do not think any more about it."^[145] Despite these annoying instances, though, his basic aim remained unaltered: to keep in the Catholic church a troubling and troubled group of intellectuals who were attracted to Protestant ideas.

This episode depicts where Contarini stood in 1542. His attitude toward the accademici was in conformity with the more inclusive Catholicism of Renaissance prelates rather than that of the men who became champions of the Counter-Reformation. The church to him was a mother, "mater ecclesia," able to encompass an enormous variety of people and opinions provided they agreed with broad, comprehensive articles of faith that left many specific questions open. His mentality was not that of the inquisitor or the intolerant guardian at the gate, scrutinizing the minutiae of a man's convictions. Contarini the aristocrat persisted in his assumption that there was such a thing as a common ethos among the educated elite of Italy. To its members, including the Modenese accademici , he attributed the same goodwill that he himself brought to discussions of religious issues. But as had happened in Regensburg, so now, too, he was mistaken in thinking

[143] GC , 809-10, 816-17; Douglas, Sadoleto , 165-67; Firpo, "Spirituali," 100-102.

[144] Letter of 13 July 1542, Reg ., 353 (Inedita, no. 89); text corrected by Firpo, "Spirituali," 84: ". . . a me pare vedere in costoro una tale arrogantia et superbia, madre di ogni male, adiuncta cum grande ignorantia, che penso di loro ogni male; . . . né penso che per via de humanità et gentilezza si possino raquistare."

[145] Firpo, "Spirituali," 83: "Poco mi curo d'essere censurato, massime nella lingua latina et ciceroniana, che già molti anni mi ho scordato né più vi penso."

that men would be willing to stop arguing about doctrine for the sake of peace and concord. Ironically, this attitude separated him not only from the conservative members of the curia and the college of cardinals, but also from the more radical spirituali , whether in Modena or in Viterbo with Pole.

Less than a decade after Contarini's death Francesco Negri, a Protestant exile from Italy, wrote bitingly about men "who seem to have founded a new school of Christianity arranged according to their fashion, where they do not deny that justification of man is through Jesus Christ but then do not want to admit the consequences that necessarily follow from this."^[146] Negri's criticism goes to the heart of what troubled some of the spirituali about Contarini. There is no doubt that Pole, while continuing to profess his friendship and devotion, tried to avoid a showdown over theological questions. Instead he repeatedly turned a deaf ear to Contarini's requests for replies to his writings, especially those dealing with justification and related issues. How do we interpret Pole's unwillingness to support Contarini or to debate his ideas? Why did he retreat to bland phrases about his hope to discuss the issues orally at some other time?^[147]

One modern answer, given with verve by Paolo Simoncelli, posits a breakup of the spirituali after Regensburg into a moderate wing led by Contarini and a radical one with Pole at its head. In this view, an ever-widening rift developed between the two groups with every new doctrinal challenge, from the article on justification to the catechism for the Modenese in 1542, and finally to the thorny issues of penance and atonement.^[148] Contarini is presented as a figure increasingly isolated between the intransigent curialists on the one hand and the radical spirituali on the other, a man of moderation when such a stance was no longer possible in the charged religious atmosphere following his "defeat" of 1541. Although he supposedly tried to draw nearer the group of Viterbo both politically and doctrinally, he ultimately proved to belong to the orthodox rather than the radical side, since unlike the radical spirituali he accepted Lutheran premises without their conclusions.^[149] Basically, we are back to Negri's statement.

[146] Francesco Negri, Della tragedia . . . intitolata Libero arbitrio , 2d ed. (n.p., 1550 [actually 1551 ]); cited by Firpo and Marcatto, Processo 1:248n. 13.

[147] Simoncelli, Evangelismo italiano , 105-6, 120, 122-23.

[148] Ibid., 113-24.

[149] Ibid., 126. For a somewhat different view, see Tommaso Bozza, Nuovi studi sulla riforma in Italia , vol. 1:Il Beneficio di Cristo (Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 1976), 80, who thinks that Contarini belonged "to the left wing of the church."

I would like to argue for a somewhat different interpretation of the evidence by positing greater closeness between Contarini and Pole, as well as a less sharp division of the spirituali into the two groups described by Simoncelli. My evidence will be Contarini's last treatise, "Cardinali Polo de paenitentia" (To Cardinal Pole Concerning Penance), written the month before his death.^[150] In this short work he "admitted" the consequences mentioned by Negri, and tried to explain his views. Contarini was neither stuck in some "moderate" position from which he was unable to budge, nor did he think of himself and Pole as moving along such different theological tracks that a gap had opened between them which he had to bridge by seeking to draw closer to the English cardinal. In Pole he continued to see a kindred spirit whom he believed to share identical concerns for reform of the church. Because he died unexpectedly after a brief illness, he had no time to give his ideas definitive shape. Although his last little work can in no sense be considered his testament, it is emblematic of the views he held at the end of his life, in the particularly delicate situation of the summer of 1542, and deserves closer examination.^[151]

The occasion for the composition of "De poenitentia" were the queries and reservations Pole had expressed about the articles touching on penance, apparently above all article 25,^[152] of the catechism for the Modenese which Contarini had sent to Viterbo. Pole returned his comments and annotations to Bologna, together with the request for a fuller explanation of Contarini's ideas about penance. Unfortunately, this letter of Pole's is lost, as is his reply to "De poenitentia.^[153] The relation between the two cardinals during these months has to be reconstructed for the most part from Contarini's treatise. He addresses Pole as a friend who, like himself, accepts justification by faith and is facing the necessity of deciding what the implications of this belief are on the pastoral level. Unlike his previous retreat into exclamations about the riches of the wisdom of God, Contarini now is at pains to work out a coherent and convincing position. He stresses his closeness

[150] The treatise was written after 22 July 1542; see GC , 820. Pole acknowledged its receipt on 8 August; Ep. Poli 3:60; and Firpo, "Spirituali," 75.

[151] Text in Reg ., 353-61 (Inedita, no. 90). Contarini's autograph in ASV, A.A., Arm. I-XVIII, 6461, fols. 132r-144r, is used here to correct the printed version, which has paenitentia rather than poenitentia as in the manuscript.

[152] Firpo, "Spirituali," 74.

[153] In a letter of 27 August, three days after Contarini's death, Pole's friend Alvise Priuli asked Beccadelli to keep the last letters of Pole and Vittoria Colonna to Contarini; cited by Firpo, "Spirituali," 76n. 113.

to Pole, whom he sees struggling with problems that both would like to discuss further: "I see that Your Reverence wishes a fuller explanation from me, which I likewise would like from you about that which you say concerning satisfaction toward God, the church, and one's neighbor."^[154]

Contarini begins by stating that the Lutherans have built everything on the foundation of their faith, which is the belief that Christ by his passion has given full satisfaction to God for all our sins: "Whoever is grafted into Christ through faith has remission of his sins and full satisfaction for them, because that [the satisfaction] of Christ becomes his." From this the Lutherans deduced that no other satisfaction was necessary; all else, like purgatory or indulgences, they considered only as means of exacting money from the people, and saw religious vows as mere hypocrisy.^[155] As this teaching spread to Italy, it met with two different reactions. Those who defended the church opposed this doctrine and stressed the necessity of works to such an extent that they contradicted the very basis of Christian belief, while those who accepted it became Lutherans and presumptuously abandoned the teaching of the Catholic church, "believing their wits more than the opinion of all modern theologians as well as the ancient authors." Contarini and Pole should flee these alternatives: "I exhort both of us to steer clear of this Scylla and Charybdis, and to pass safely between them without abandoning the teaching of the church, but believing in it more than in our own wits."^[156]

This is a reiteration of the same principle Contarini had embraced in Regensburg, that the magisterium of the church must take precedence over personal opinions. But what did the church teach about penance that Christians must believe? This tract includes one of the most frequently cited passages in all of Contarini's writings, one that has often been lifted out of context and used as evidence for his full agreement with the key Lutheran doctrine of justification by faith alone: "The foundation of the Lutheran edifice is most true, and we must not contradict it in any way, but must accept it as true and catholic, indeed as the basis of the Christian religion."^[157] Yet upon reading further we find his affirmation that the doctrine of justification sola fide , the basis of not just the Lutheran but the Christian edifice, is solidly rooted in Catholic theology, especially that of St. Thomas. The Lutherans have done nothing more than dress this ancient teaching of the church in

[154] Reg., ,354.

[155] Ibid.

[156] Ibid., 355.

[157] Ibid., 358.

new words and boast that they alone have understood correctly what St. Paul wrote.^[158]

Because he did not consider justification by faith a Lutheran innovation but rather an ancient doctrine, Contarini saw no dilemma for the Catholic who held fast to it, as he himself did without uncertainty or doubt. But Pole realized what some of the attendant problems for Catholics were, if Contarini's summary correctly represents what Pole wrote: "I see that you say that the sinner is completely reconciled with God by Christ, and that there is no need to add anything of ours, and then you say that he has offended the church and himself; the offense against himself is nothing other than the offense against natural law written by God in our hearts. Strengthened by the words of Your Reverence I have undertaken to elucidate [further] what you have said and what I have."^[159] Judging from this passage, Pole raised the question of how far sin was an offense not only against God, but also against the church and one's own nature.

Having decided against employing the language of scholastic philosophy,^[160] maybe because he knew that Pole did not like to use it, Contarini in his treatise nevertheless adheres to the substance if not the terminology of Thomistic doctrine. He explains that because sin is a threefold transgression, it requires more than one kind of satisfaction. The sinner can simultaneously offend against divine, natural, and human law. The benefit of Christ's suffering on the cross has given satisfaction for transgressions against divine law, but what about transgressions against the the others? For example, adultery offends against all three kinds of law, as does murder.^[161] Contarini considers a most significant divergence of Protestantism from Catholicism to be the Protestant teaching that stops short of requiring appropriate satisfaction for sins. While recognizing the right of civil authorities to impose punishment, the Protestants have skipped over the norms of natural law and all that follows from them, including the doctrine of purgatory. The mistake of the Protestants distorts the ancient and accepted doctrine of

[158] Ibid., 354.

[159] Ibid., 360-61:". . .vedo, ch'ella dice, che il peccatore per Christo e perfectamente reconciliato cum dio, ne vi bisogna che vi pongamo del nostro, poi dice che ha offeso la chiesia et se stesso; l'offensione di se stesso non è altra che l'offensione della lege naturale scritta nelli nostri cuori da dio, pero confirmato io dalle parole di V.S. mi son posto a fare questa dechiaratione delli sui detti et delli mei."

[160] "Io riferiro la doctrina di San Thomaso, ma non usero gia il modo suo di parlare, et la dilatero piu di quello che e stato facto da lui" (ibid., 356).

[161] Ibid., 358.

penance in the Christian church, which has always taught that only God forgives our sins through the merits of Christ but that punishment due to sin remains. The sinner must render satisfaction for the transgressions of the positive law of church and state and for offenses against his neighbor. This is necessary because of God's justice.^[162]

Repeating his conviction that Catholics and Lutherans shared the crucial doctrine of justification by faith, Contarini ultimately finds the Catholic answer to its consequences in a Thomistic view of atonement. He plainly states toward the end of his treatise where he stands: "We have explained how to guide ourselves in accepting and rejecting the Lutheran structure by basing our treatise on the doctrine of St. Thomas, that is, by following his guidance."^[163]

He was not "stranded intellectually" because of his inability to "bridge the gap between two doctrines which led in contrary directions," as a sensitive and thoughtful scholar maintained.^[164] To him, the two doctrines were compatible. Contarini was schooled in the theology of St. Thomas, but also in the political world of Venice, and in "De poenitentia" he combined categories of ideas drawn from both spheres. We have repeatedly seen his conviction that a hierarchical order was necessary for all aspects of human society, whether religious, ecclesiastical, or civil. Applying this thinking to sin, he had no difficulty conceiving it as an act that simultaneously offended a number of norms in descending order of gravity. On the highest level, that of Christian reality, sin was an offense against God for which no human action could merit God's forgiveness. The sinner's hope was in the benefits of Christ's death rather than in any action he could perform himself.^[165]

But as one descended from that level to the realms of ecclesiastical and civil society and the moral universe of each individual, sin assumed a different import, depending on its context. As a matter of justice,

[162] "Questa paena l'homo reconciliato cum Dio per li meriti della passione di Christo et per virtu della absolutione del sacerdote resuscitato in Christo per il spirito de Christo, che ha de novo recevuto, la patisse o qui over in purgatorio, patientemente laudando dio et amando piu la iustitia de dio, che il suo commodo" (ibid., 359, corrected with ASV, A.A., Arm. I-XVIII, 6461, fol. 114v).

[163] "Hor dechiarato che habiamo, a quale modo ci devemo governare in acettare et reiicere questo aedificio luterano, fundando questo nostro discorso sopra la doctrina di San Thomaso, cioe prendendo lo indice da lui" (ibid., 360).

[164] Fenlon, Heresy and Obedience , 65.

[165] Reg ., 358: "Per Christo perfectamente etiam siamo liberati dalla obligatione et reato della paena aeterna, ne qui ci bisogna opere nostre ne compagno alcuno, a solo Christo havemo questa obligatione, da lui solo devemo cognoscere questo beneficio."

divine and secular, satisfaction had to be made at each level of transgression. This was a matter not of theology but of equity. Contarini's categories of thought were scholastic, even if his language was not, but they were also political. As a Venetian magistrate, he had dealt with criminal transgressions without doubting that they required satisfaction if the authority of the state was to be preserved. So, too, atonement for breaking the norms of natural law to him was a self-evident necessity. Men were not free to disregard the laws of reason and society because Christ died for all on the cross; forensic justification of the sinner still required that the demands of justice be met.

Pole understood this argument. But he did not think in scholastic terms, and he was obviously loath to engage in a debate that would call his friend's intellectual assumptions into question. Maybe Pole could intuit that Contarini's explanation was not only intellectual but deeply personal as well, combining the thoughts of a Catholic and a Venetian statesman. Pole's unwillingness to explain his views fully might be attributed to his realization that he and Contarini, whom he did not want to alienate, quite literally spoke different theological languages. Pole was not interested in his friend's hierarchical ordering of the consequences of sin or his entire logical and Thomistic argumentation. He offered another way, that of applying "two rules, of Scripture and of experience,^[166] to the questions under discussion. It is obvious that his ideas pointed to a much greater scriptural orientation and subjectivism than did Contarini's—a fact that later on did not escape the inquisition.^[167]

It would be a mistake to view Pole in the summer of 1542 as some sort of crypto-Protestant who distanced himself from the "moderate" Contarini because of doctrinal disagreements. Both men, after all, remained in the church and submitted themselves to its teaching. Their differing ways of dealing with the implication of sola fide had a great deal to do with their political aims as proponents of reform and their respective temperaments. Contarini was more open, direct, and anxious for consensus among the spirituali , while Pole was more subtle, circumspect, and even enigmatic. When he became the leading figure among the spirituali after Contarini's death and curial conservatives came increasingly to mistrust him and his circle, these qualities stood him in good stead. He was also the better theologian of the two. If

[166] To Contarini, Viterbo, 1 May 1542, in Ep. Poli 3:53.

[167] Fenlon, Heresy and Obedience , 67-68.

one accepted the structure of Contarini's argument, which moved from theology to philosophy through reasoning by analogy, then it was possible to agree that he had reconciled the necessity of penance with justification by faith alone. But Pole was more aware than Contarini of the theologically unsystematic way in which this reconciliation was accomplished. His criteria of "Scripture and experience," although not spelled out, ultimately offered more intellectual freedom to the Christian than Contarini's uneasy alliance of sola fide and scholastic reasoning.

Contarini's biographer Franz Dittrich, an apologist for Catholicism in the Kulturkampf of nineteenth-century Germany,^[168] throughout his volume insists on the absolute Catholic orthodoxy of his subject. In discussing "De poenitentia," however, he is constrained to admit that Contarini's explanation of satisfaction "does not entirely agree with Catholic dogma."^[169] Dittrich's reason for this statement lies in Contarini's "protestantizing conception of justification," which downplays human cooperation with divine grace, and his continued use of such phrases as "per fidem in sanguine suo," which are open to misunderstanding.^[170] Dittrich measures Contarini's orthodoxy by the standards of Tridentine decrees, which is methodologically inappropriate. "De poenitentia," which satisfied neither Protestants nor Catholics, is a signal example of Contarini's religious thought. He had found a personally acceptable solution that because of its hybrid nature could not be transposed to the pastoral level. Here, maybe better than in any other single piece of writing, we see the Achilles' heel of the spirituali . Not of the "radical" or "moderate" spirituali , but of all those spirituali who did not want to break with the Catholic church.

Contarini's reputation has stood high ever since his death 450 years ago. Contemporaries eulogized him as a virtuous and learned man,^[171]

[168] Kurt-Victor Selge, "Conclusione del convegno," in Cavazzana Romanelli (ed.), Gaspare Contarini e il suo tempo , 243-44.

[169] GC , 822.

[170] Ibid., 823: "Erscheint schon diese unhaltbare Begründung der katholischen Satisfactionstheorie als die Folge einer zu grossen Annäherung an den protestantischen Rechtfertigungsbegriff, so beweist auch im übrigen diese Abhandlung, daß Contarini trotz aller Erfahrungen, die er gemacht, trotz alles Widerspruches, den er gefunden hatte, seinen protestantisirenden [sic ] Rechtfertigungsbegriff in nichts geändert hat."

[171] The early eulogy by the Venetian patrician Michele Barozzi (1535-59), in VBC, Cod. Cicogna 2978/28-I, was an extravagant humanistic piece "in praise of famous men" and gives little idea of how precisely Contarini was remembered by men who knew him. It is doubtful that it was delivered before the Venetian Senate, as Hackert thinks (Staatsschrift , 1). For other early mentions of Contarini, see Giancarlo Morel, "Gasparo Contarini negli appunti del Mazzuchelli," Atti dell'Accademia delle scienze di Torino 108 (1968-69): 279-303.

while later historians, both Catholic and Protestant, developed the image of the cardinal as a spiritual, serious, and irenic churchman intent on healing the schism in Western Christianity. In a nineteenth-century novel we find him in the character of a wise but crafty Catholic who almost succeeds in converting the young German Protestant hero;^[172] in another guise he appears, unexpectedly enough, in a forgotten, or at least hitherto unrecorded, opera entitled Contarini .^[173] The most recent Italian scholarly works interpret him, as we have seen, as the leader of the spirituali , whose unsuccessful mission to Regensburg supposedly marked his personal defeat together with that of the moderate and conciliatory proponents of reform at the papal court. A recent American work, by contrast, goes so far as to state that his appointment in 1535 marked the beginning of the Counter-Reformation.^[174]

In these pages, another image of Contarini has emerged. First, he should not be cast in the mold of a major theoretician of Catholic reform. An examination of his writings shows that he was not an original thinker in either philosophy or theology. His most characteristic theological insight about the centrality of justification by faith had its basis not in theory but in his personal experience. Although he never wavered in this belief, he did not succeed in expressing it in such language and With such reasons as to convince those who did not share his deeply personal theological ideas. Most of his writings were pièces d'occasion rather than carefully crafted works, and they failed to sway readers who began with different theological premises.

Second, the "defeat" of Contarini as the result of the colloquy of Regensburg has been overdramatized. Had his mission been perceived in purely negative terms by Pope Paul III, it would be very difficult to explain the appointment of not just one but three spirituali cardinals in June 1542, all of them friends of Contarini. Morone, Badia, and Cortese were men whose voices strengthened the politically liberal element in the college of cardinals. It is inconceivable that a pontiff as

[172] Friedrich von Uechtritz, Albrecht Holm: eine Geschichte aus der Reformationszeit (Berlin: Verlag von Alexander Duncker, 1852-53). "Contarini" is the the title of chap. 3, 1(3):231-71. At the end Contarini, although a powerful cardinal of the Roman church, trembles at the thought of being suspect to the inquisition.

[173] By Henry Hugo Pierson (1815-73), in Chambers's Biographical Dictionary , ed. Wm. Geddie and J. Liddell Geddie (Edinburgh and London: W. & R. Chambers, 1931), 743.

[174] John C. Olin, Catholic Reform from Cardinal Ximenes to the Council of Trent, 1495-1563: An Essay with Illustrative Documents and a Brief Study of St. Ignatius Loyola (New York: Fordham University Press, 1990), 19: "It is at this point in 1535 when Paul III brought Gasparo Contarini to Rome that the Counter-Reformation in one sense of the word may be said to have begun."

shrewd as Paul III would add to the college at this crucial juncture men whose views had been totally discredited. Cardinal Farnese, the pope's alter ego in the conduct of politics, remarked to Pole that if Contarini could have picked cardinals himself, he certainly would have made the same choices.^[175] Contarini added to the almost extravagant expression of his joy at the appointment of his friends an affirmation of his confidence that the pope was executing God's design for the good of the church. "My pen is carried away by my emotion," he concluded.^[176] Hardly the sentiments of a bitter or isolated man!

Finally, the significance of the unsuccessful colloquy of Regensburg for the history of Italian Evangelism has been exaggerated. After July 1542, the pope and his advisors quite deliberately and realistically abandoned a course of action that they had adopted under pressure from the emperor and that had led nowhere. But there was no sudden change of attitude at the papal court toward the spirituali , nor did they abruptly fall from favor. Contarini was appointed legate to Charles V in August 1542. According to one report, Paul III, in conversation with Cardinal Sadoleto, spoke about Contarini and said "so many good things about his goodness and virtue, that it seemed as if he were speaking about St. Augustine. He added that the court was greatly mistaken in reputing Msgr. Contarini as pro-imperial, for in his embassy to Germany he had sufficiently demonstrated where his sympathies lay, and whether he was a pro-imperial or a true churchman. He even said that this last was Contarini's true title."^[177] Ironically, it was not the pope but the emperor who in the end repudiated Contarini: Charles V did not accept him as legate, probably because of his firm stand on transubstantiation in Regensburg.

The main reason the spirituali initially lost ground and influence was not their "defeat" by ideological opponents, but the fact that their ideas on how to solve the crisis in the church had not worked. Moreover, once the reorganized Roman Inquisition began to function, their religious views became increasingly suspect. This suspicion naturally grew stronger after a number of them fled to Protestant states or cities. Another important factor was the death during the 1540s of some of their most conspicuous members: Fregoso died in 1541, Contarini in 1542, Giberti in 1543, Sadoleto, Bembo, and Badia in 1547, and

[175] Pole to Contarini, Rome, 2 June 1542, in Reg., 234 (no. 895).

[176] Reg ., 234 (no. 896).

[177] Carlo Gualteruzzi to Ludovico Beccadelli, Rome, 7 Aug. 1542, quoted in Fragnito, "Evangelismo e intrasigenti," 27-28n.26.

Cortese in 1548. Church leaders of the next generation were men of the Counter-Reformation whose outlook was quite different. By and large they shared a militant attitude toward Protestantism and considered its adherents as heretics to be combated rather than as Christian brethren with whom Catholics could or should discuss their faith. The old church of the Renaissance was about to disappear, and with it the religious openness that had characterized many of its leading figures, including the spirituali cardinals. It was not a matter of fanatics replacing proponents of toleration, but of legalistic bureaucrats succeeding more latitudinarian prelates who had been educated in the spirit of Renaissance humanism.

Contarini died in Bologna on 24 August 1542. Before long a mythology grew up around the visit to the dying cardinal of Bernardino Ochino, general of the Capuchins, who a few days later defected to Calvin's Geneva, and maintained that Contarini had encouraged him to flee from Italy. But the shape of Contarini's whole life and thought makes this improbable. He died as he had lived, as a Christian, a Venetian, and a cardinal. The government, society, and political world of Venice in which he was formed gave his ideas their distinctive character and defined the categories into which he ordered reality. He can best be understood as a zentiluomo veneziano , a Venetian gentleman, who had internalized and idealized the traditional values of his homeland so that they became the filter through which he saw the great political and religious issues of his time. He was a Venetian patrician first, and a Roman cardinal second. Most of all, he held a view of the church and embodied in his person ideals of civilitas and humanitas that became irrelevant in the fast-approaching age of religious wars. Contarini can be a wonderful partner in a dialogue with modern interlocutors who care about questions of political and religious order, of liberty and authority. His thought still invites them to meditate on unresolved issues and on thinkable alternatives to the course of events in church and state, then and now.