Contarini's Rise to Prominence: The Consilium de emendanda ecclesia

On 21 May 1535, for the second time in his pontificate, Paul III appointed new cardinals. They included John Fisher, bishop of Rochester, already imprisoned by Henry VIII; Guillaume du Bellay, archbishop of Paris; Nikolaus Schönberg, German Dominican and papal diplomat; two curial officials, Girolamo Ghinucci and Jacopo Simonetta; and Gasparo Contarini. Their selection was ratified in a long and stormy consistory,^[1] testimony not only to the traditional reluctance of cardinals to add to their number but also to the repercussions that the political struggles between the Habsburgs and Valois were having at the highest levels of the church. The pope had to balance his appointees carefully so as not to appear partial. While opposition to Henry VIII played a role in the appointment of Fisher, du Bellay's new rank would reassure the king of France that Paul III was not leaning too far in the direction of the emperor in elevating Schönberg.^[2] The two curialists and Contarini occupied a middle ground.^[3]

[1] Pastor, Geschichte der Päpste 5:102n.5, quotes from Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana (hereafter cited as BAV), Ephemer. in Vat. Lat. 6978, fol. 137r, stating that the new cardinals were announced only after serious disagreement and altercation in the consistory.

[2] The pope did not announce the appointment of the pro-imperial protonotary Marino Caracciolo until ten days later, keeping his name in petto . This appointment was intended to allay the misgivings of Charles V regarding the appointment of du Bellay; see Pastor, Geschichte der P äpste 5:102n.6.

[3] Pastor, Geschichte der Papste 5:102, calls Contarini pro-imperial on the strength of a letter by Cardinal Ercole Gonzaga, a partisan of Charles V, which characterized Contarini as "no less a servant of His [Imperial] Majesty" than Caracciolo and Schön-berg were. About the latter Contarini had already reported on 8 March 1530 to the Venetian Senate: "è imperialissimo, e ha sempre tenuto questa fazione" (Albèri, Relazioni , 2d ser., 3:268). Nevertheless, in the light of Contarini's cautious attitude to Charles V, it would be more correct to consider him neutral, but realistic about the emperor's power.

The elevation of these men to the cardinalate received extravagant praise from contemporaries; scholars still describe it as a turning point in the history of the church, the beginning of serious reform in Rome.^[4] In actuality, and leaving Fisher aside, other than Contarini only Schön-berg had shown concern for church reform. And Contarini was known just to a limited number of people, since only one of his treatises had been published.^[5] Still, his friends included some of the most important proponents of reform, and they saw in his appointment a sign that God was coming to the aid of the church at a critical moment.^[6] The pope's choice of these new cardinals formed a striking contrast to the first group of appointments made shortly after his accession, when his two grandsons Alessandro Farnese and Guido Ascanio Sforza di Santafiora entered the sacred college at the ages of fifteen and sixteen, respectively. Benefices were heaped on them, and it appeared for a time that Paul III would continue the extravagant nepotism of Renaissance popes.^[7] His second group of cardinals was therefore a most welcome surprise.

[4] See, for example, the dispatch of the papal nuncio in Venice, Girolamo Aleandro, 24 May 1535, in Gaeta (ed.), Nunziature di Venezia 1:314 (letter 145). Pastor considers the nomination a proof of Paul III's seriousness about reform; see Geschichte der Päpste 5:101, 103. See also Hubert Jedin, Geschichte des Konzils von Trient (Freiburg i.B.: Herder, 1951-75), 1:336 (hereafter cited as Jedin, Trient ).

[5] De immortalitate animae , Book I, appeared anonymously together With Pietro Pomponazzi's Apologia in 1518 in Bologna, and under Contarini's name in Venice in 1525.

[6] Pole expressed this sentiment in a letter to Contarini, Epistolarum Reginaldi Poli S.R.E. Cardinalis et aliorum ad ipsum collectio , ed. A. M. Querini (Brescia, 1744-57), 1:450 (hereafter cited as Ep. Poli ). See also the letter of Cosmo Gheri, bishop of Fano, to Contarini, in Reg ., 93 (no. 307); and that of Marcantonio Flaminio, who reported that "cognoscendo et affermando ognuno ch'el suo cardinalato non è proceduto da homini, ma da Dio, meritamente si crede che sua Maiestà voglia usarla per instrumento di qualche effetto novo et segnalato," in Marcantonio Flaminio, Lettere , ed. Alessandro Pastore (Rome: Edizioni dell'Ateneo & Bizzarri, 1978), 27. Further testimony is in GC , 321-23; and Reg ., 75-76 (nos. 255-256). Judgments of Paul III differ. Pastor, Geschichte der Päpste 5:17, stresses that his interest in his diocese of Parma and his becoming a priest in 1519 point to a concern with reform; he interprets Paul III's actions in a uniformly favorable light. Jedin, Trient 1:355, considers Paul III not as the first pope of Catholic reform but as its "precursor [Wegbereiter], " leaving open the vexed question of whether it is possible to reconcile the many contradictory aspects of his way of thinking.

[7] Pastor, Geschichte der Päpste 5:100-101n.1. See also the bitter letter of Jan van Campen, later a member of Contarini's household, in GC , 317n.2.

The choice of Contarini is not easily explained, for it raises the larger question of the pope's intentions in regard to change in the church. Paul III, himself appointed cardinal by Alexander VI, had previously seemed a proverbial Renaissance prelate with little concern for church reform. Once elected pope, however, he proved sensitive to the new religious atmosphere with its demands for purification of the church. Intelligent and shrewd as well as deeply political, he began immediately to discuss the need for church reform and the calling of a council, unlike his weak predecessor. His appointments of May 1535 gave heart to those who hoped for Roman action at last. Indeed, the inclusion of Contarini among his cardinals was a deliberate, practical move toward building a bridge to the small but vocal and prestigious group of critical, reform-minded intellectuals in Rome and Italy.^[8]

The possibility of elevation to the cardinalate could not have been completely unexpected for Contarini. His friend Giberti must have told him that Lodovico da Canossa, bishop of Baius, had earlier proposed him to Clement VII for the college of cardinals.^[9] While on his embassy to the Medici pope, moreover, Contarini had become acquainted with the then Cardinal Alessandro Farnese, now pope, who was favorably impressed with the envoy. And Antonio Surian, Venetian ambassador to Paul III, reported to Doge Andrea Gritti, with whom Contarini was in continual contact, a conversation in which the pope inquired about certain of Contarini's views after telling the ambassador he was considering Contarini's nomination.^[10] Nevertheless, the news of the appointment produced confusion rather than joy in Contarini's mind,^[11] for it reopened the deeper question of how best to serve God in this life. After several days of uncertainty and meditation he concluded that his new dignity was God's calling and that he must accept it in order not to act against the divine will or offend his relatives and

[8] Richard Douglas, Jacopo Sadoleto, 1477-1547: Humanist and Reformer (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1959), 99-100, sees Contarini as "the symbol, if not the inspiration, of those Pauline reformers who by accident or design had remained free from curial venality, bureaucracy, and conservative bias." Jedin, Trient 1:336, thinks that Contarini's elevation to the cardinalate created "a secure support and a firm center" for the reform movement in Rome.

[9] Beccadelli, "Vita," 21.

[10] Reg ., 371-72 (Anhang no. 1). The text should be corrected by VBC, Cod. Cicogna 1540, fols. 115-117. The date of the letter is 20 May, not March.

[11] Contarini to Cardinal Ercole Gonzaga, 29 May 1535, in Walter Friedensburg, "Der Briefwechsel Gasparo Contarini's mit Ercole Gonzaga," Quellen und Forschungen aus italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken 2 (1899): 164 (letter 1).

friends. His brother-in-law and close friend Matteo Dandolo presented convincing arguments in favor of prayerful acceptance.^[12]

A few days' hesitation in accepting the red hat may seem merely good form. Very few, after all, ever rejected the honor in the end. Contarini, however, was making real sacrifices by accepting. He was fifty-one years old at the time of his appointment. Becoming a cardinal meant giving up the high place he had reached in the government of Venice and embarking on a radically different career and way of life. He seems to have made the decision with the same earnestness that underlay his letter about the cardinalate to Querini long before.^[13] The Benedictine Gregorio Cortese, abbot of San Giorgio Maggiore in Venice and one of his old friends, discussed this momentous step with him.^[14]

Contarini received his first tonsure and minor orders from Gianpietro Carafa^[15] and, unlike most cardinals, became a priest. In June 1537 Cardinal Ercole Gonzaga congratulated him on the celebration of his first mass.^[16] Yet joined to his seriousness about the clerical vocation was a certain detachment about the cardinalate that enabled him to say to the pope during a disagreement: "I do not consider that the [red] hat is the greatest honor that has [ever] been bestowed on me!"^[17] This, clearly, was the Venetian patrician speaking.

With the reception of that red hat at a consistory held in Perugia on 15 September 1535, Contarini entered the college of cardinals and became part of the society of Rome and the papal court.^[18] While its highest offices were spiritual, it was also a mirror of the secular world with its social gradations. Cardinals, as princes of the church, were often politically powerful men, especially if they had the right connec-

[12] Fragnito, Memoria individuale , 178.

[13] Jedin, "Contarini und Camaldoli," 44-45.

[14] Edmondo Solmi, "La fuga di Bernardino Ochino secondo i documenti dell'Archivio Gonzaga di Mantova," Bullettino senese di storia patria 15 (1908): 50.

[15] Beccadelli, "Vita," 22.

[16] Friedensburg, "Briefwechsel," 169 (letter 6).

[17] Beccadelli, "Vita," 47. Both Della Casa, 15, and Quirini, 161, repeat this remark in their lives of Contarini.

[18] ASVat, Arch. Consist., Acta Misc. 18 (1517-48), fols. 259v-260r. On 24 September 1535, still in Perugia, the ceremony of aperitio oris took place (fol. 260r), which conferred on Contarini the right to speak in consistory, to give advice, to participate in papal elections, and to receive a share of the collective income of the college of cardinals. For the ceremony and the form used by the pope, see Guillaume Mollat, "Contributions à l'histoire du Sacré Collège de Clément V à Eugène IV," Revue d'histoire ecclésiastique 46 (1951): 44.

tions. Among them were members of such princely families as the Gonzaga, Grimaldi, and Lorraine, of papal clans like the Cibo, of wealthy patrician and banker families like the Florentines Salviati, Ridolfi, and Pucci, the Venetians Grimani and Pisani, and other Italian and European aristocratic lines.

That the style of life of cardinals should—indeed must—reflect their social rank was taken for granted by the most complete "mirror of cardinals," Paolo Cortese's De cardinalatu , which drew an analogy between them and Roman patricians. Cortese described the ideal cardinal as wellborn and rich, living in a splendid palace with a household of 120 to 140 persons.^[19] He thought that outward manifestation of wealth was important because it caused men to admire the possessor of such wealth, impressed them with his social eminence, and increased their respect for him. In point of fact the actual number of persons in cardinals' households less than a decade before Contarini's appointment was around 154.^[20] The familiae of rich and noble cardinals were like miniature courts, with members of many social classes: noble relatives and dependents, scholars, artists, secretaries, friends, chaplains, adjutants, pages, guards, musicians, administrative officials, servants, cooks, grooms, footmen,^[21] and even occasional disreputable characters.^[22]

[19] Paolo Cortese, De cardinalatu, libri tres (Rome, 1510), lvi -lvii . For other proposals concerning the size of cardinals' households, see Hubert Jedin, "Analekten zur Reformtätigkeit der Päpste Julius III. und Pauls IV.," Römische Quartalschrift 43 (1935): 111; Kathleen Weil-Garris and John F. D'Amico, The Renaissance Cardinal's Ideal Palace: A Chapter from Cortese's "De Cardinalatu " (Rome: Edizioni dell'Elefante, American Academy in Rome, 1980).

[20] D. Gnoli, "Un censimento di Roma sotto Clemente VII," Archivio della R. Società romana di storia patria 17 (1894): 387, gives figures for 1526. Some households were considerably larger, like that of Cardinal Farnese, the later Pope Paul III, with 306 persons (p. 471) or that of Cardinal Cesarini with 275 (p. 481). There are no comparable figures for the 1530s that might make it possible to determine the effect of the sack of Rome on the style of life of cardinals.

[21] These categories are found in a list of the household of another Cardinal Alessandro Farnese, Pope Paul III's grandson, which comprised 277 persons in 1544: BAV, Barb. lat. 5366, fols. 266-267. For the "families" of cardinals, see Gigliola Fragnito, "'Parenti' e 'familiari' nelle corti cardinalizie del Rinascimento," in "Famiglia" del principe e famiglia aristocratica , ed. Cesare Mozzarelli (Rome: Bulzoni, 1988), 565-87, with bibliography; and Pierre Hurtubise, "Familiarité et fidélité à Rome au XVI siècle: les 'familles' des cardinaux Giovanni, Bernardo et Antonio Maria Salviati," in Hommage à Roland Mousnier: clienteles et fidélité en Europe á l'époque moderne (Paris: Presses Universitaires Franáaises, 1981), 335-50.

[22] Paul Maria Baumgarten, Von den Kardinälen des sechzehnten Jahrhunderts (Krumbach: F. Aker, 1927), 36-38.

These households should not be dismissed simply as excesses peculiar to Renaissance cardinals. They belonged to a time when status in society carried definite duties with it, foremost that of furthering the social and economic standing of one's relatives and dependents. The aristocratic ethos accepted in the papal court meant that princely station was signalized by magnanimity and liberality.^[23] Patronage of artists, architects, scholars, or writers was an important aspect of the magnificentia of rich cardinals, as was the duty of hospitality to important guests^[24] and the employment of numerous retainers.

After the very rich cardinals came a middle group, wealthy enough but not on a scale that would permit them to maintain the large households necessary for assuming a princely or representative function in Roman society. They usually did not have their own houses but lived in rented quarters with smaller familiae than their wealthy counterparts. A good number of this group, such as the curial cardinals, had administrative or diplomatic responsibilities that did not require them to maintain magnificent households. The financial resources of members of this group varied widely,^[25] for although benefices were their main source of wealth, the income derived therefrom could be substantial or relatively small.^[26] Lower still on the economic scale were the so-called poor cardinals, who had none of the lucrative benefices.^[27] They received shares of the collective income of the college of cardinals, and both Pope Paul III and afterward Julius III gave pensions to

[23] The studies of Wolfgang Reinhard on these topics are fundamental: "Nepotismus: der Funktionswandel einer papstgeschichtlichen Konstanten," Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 86 (1975): 145-85; "Kardinalseinkünfte und Kirchenreform," Rö-mische Quartalschrift 77 (1982): 157-94; "Reformpapsttum zwischen Renaissance und Barock," in Reformatio ecclesiae: Beiträge zu kirchlichen Reformbemühungen von der Alten Kirche bis zur Neuzeit. Festgabe fur Erwin Iserloh , ed. Remigius Bäumer (Paderborn: Schöningh, 1980), 779-96. See also his Papstfinanz und Nepotismus unter Paul V. (1605-1621 ) (Stuttgart: Hiersemann, 1974), esp. 1:157-60, for valuable observations.

[24] Pierre Hurtubise, "La table d'un cardinal de la renaissance: aspects de la cuisine et de l'hospitalité à Rome au milieu du XVI siècle," Mélanges de l'Ecole Française de Rome, moyen âge-temps modernes 92 (1980): 249-82. The author reconstructs precise expenses for groceries (266-70) on the basis of account books of Cardinal Bernardo Salviati, whose familia in 1563-65 numbered 110 persons (258).

[25] David S. Chambers, "The Economic Predicament of Renaissance Cardinals," Studies in Medieval and Renaissance History 3 (1966): 295. Reinhard, "Kardinalseinkünfte," 185, stresses that the family wealth on which some cardinals could draw is the chief unknown quantity in any attempt to determine incomes with exactness.

[26] Barbara McClung Hallman, Italian Cardinals, Reform, and the Church as Property (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1985), chap. 2.

[27] A document of 1521 defined cardinals as poor if their annual income failed to reach 5,000 ducats; see Chambers, "Economic Predicament," 304.

those whose income did not reach what was considered a necessary minimum.^[28]

Among the poor cardinals was Contarini. After two expensive embassies he was reluctant to draw more on family wealth, which he had described as "middling" already in 1529, stating that he was ashamed to be a further financial burden to his brothers.^[29] As a cardinal, however, he had little choice but to turn to them for his needs.^[30] It is not possible to determine how far their support extended. Contarini's most important source of income was a pension of two hundred ducats a month granted him shortly after his arrival in Rome and drawn from the office of the dataria . A second pension was assigned him in 1539.^[31] In addition he was to receive eight hundred scudi a year from the bishopric of Pamplona, presented to him probably on the occasion of the emperor's visit to Rome in April 1536.^[32] That October the pope nominated him to the bishopric of Belluno in Venetian territory, but the Senate did not accept the nomination until the following May, and even then only after strenuous efforts by the nuncio Girolamo Verallo.^[33] Belluno, one of the poorest Venetian sees, brought Contarini

[28] Reinhard, "Kardinalseinkünfte," 185. For the main sources of cardinals' incomes, see p. 184. Under Paul III eleven cardinals received pensions, while the number of recipients rose to twenty-two under Julius III.

[29] Reg ., 45-46 (no. 126) and 53 (no. 165).

[30] VBC, Cod. Cicogna 1540, fol. 113, contains a copy of a letter from the Venetian Senate to its ambassador in Rome, dated 26 August 1542, mentioning that Contarini's family had to spend money for his needs when he became a cardinal.

[31] Contarini's name as a recipient of 200 ducats monthly first appears in the account books of the dataria , the "libri mastri," on 15 November 1535 (BAV, Vat. lat. 10600, fol. 74r). The records of payments continue regularly through May 1538. Then comes a break of four months when Contarini was absent from Rome, first at the meeting of Paul III and Charles V in Nice, then in Venice and Belluno. In October 1538 the payments resume (fol. 143v), and continue through September 1540 (Vat. lat. 10601, fol. 77r). In 1539 he was assigned a pension drawn from the legation of Bologna (Reg ., 121 [no. 440]). Both were paid for nine months, assuming that the second actually began in December 1539, when it was granted.

[32] GC , 325. That the pension was not paid regularly can be seen from Contarini's letters of 10 December 1539 (ASVat, A.A., Arm. I-XVIII, 6461, fols. 55, 57r-v [Reg ., 120 (no. 436)]) and of late December or early January 1540 (ibid., fol. 63r [Reg ., 120 (no. 437, erroneously numbered 436)]). Contarini's secretary Girolamo Negri thought the pension was paltry, and wrote on 28 January 1537 that he was ashamed for Charles V at his having granted such a small sum (Lettere di principi , vol. 3 [Venice, 1570], 161v).

[33] Contarini was granted Belluno on 23 October 1536 (ASVat, Arch. Consist., Acta Misc. 18, fol. 271r-v). But the Venetian Senate resisted the pope's appointment of a bishop in its territory, even though one of their own patricians was the nominee. Only after prolonged negotiations involving Venice's request for a levy on the clergy and the mediation of the nuntio Verallo was an agreement finally reached. On 24 May 1537 Contarini was accepted as bishop of Belluno; see ASV, Senato, Delib. Secreta, Reg. 58, fol. 18; and Gaeta (ed.), Nunziature di Venezia , vol. 2: 9 gennaio 1536-9 giugno 1542 , 95, 96, 98, 106, 117.

a little over a thousand ducats annually.^[34] To these sums should be added whatever revenue his titular churches brought in,^[35] which must have been modest, and his share of the distribuzione del cappello , or the corporate income of the college of cardinals, the precise amount of which in his case cannot be known.^[36] On paper his income was increased greatly with his appointment as administrator of the see of Salisbury in 1539,^[37] but the course of events in England prevented him from actually assuming that post. Contarini's income is unlikely to have reached more than half the twelve thousand florins that Cortese in his treatise deems necessary for a cardinal. He continued to be strapped for funds, especially in the late 1530s when poor harvests forced food prices up, but complaints about his financial position are rare in his correspondence.^[38] It is difficult to say how sincere was the preference he expressed in 1535 for a relatively small pension over a lucrative benefice. In any case, he never had the opportunity to choose, for no rich benefice ever came his way.^[39] He seems not to have been greatly concerned with money matters, if we can accept his secretary Girolamo Negri's description of him as a man who "is healthy in body and soul on account of his even-tempered nature as well as his acquired virtues, so that neither the death of his beloved brother nor the poverty in which he finds himself troubles him in the least or distracts

[34] The Senate in 1542 referred to Belluno as "di poca valuta" (VBC, Cod. Cicogna 1540, fol. 114). In 1537-39 its income was 1,800 ducats a year; see Gaeta (ed.), Nunziature di Venezia 2:345.

[35] For Contarini's titular churches, see Fragnito, "Contarini, Gasparo," in DBI 28 (1983): 181.

[36] Chambers, "Economic Predicament," 297; ASVat, Fondo Concistoriale, Acta Camerarii, vol. 4, fol. 31v; vol. 5, fols. 24v, 34r, 46r, 53v, 60r. The Cedularum et rotulorum libri of the Archive of the College of Cardinals, which would show how much each cardinal received from the common income of the college, are missing for the period 1522-65; see ASVat, Indice 1121.

[37] ASVat, Arch. Consist., Acta Misc., 18, fol. 316v.

[38] Contarini wrote of the "strecta fortuna nella quale io mi ritrovo" (ASVat, A.A., Arm. I-XVIII, 6461, fol. 57r) and that he found himself "per la poca provisione, che io ho al mio vivere, in grande necessità" (Reg ., 120 [no. 437]). Pole, whose household was comparable to Contarini's, stated that it was not possible to get along on 500 ducats a month, which was probably more than the latter's regular monthly income; see Ep. Poli 2:28. For various reckonings of the minimum income for cardinals, see Jedin, "Analekten zur Reformtätigkeit," 108-11.

[39] Report of Lorenzo Bragadin to the Senate, Rome, 2 Nov. 1535, in A. De Leva, "La concordia religiosa di Ratisbona e il Cardinale Gasparo Contarini," Archivio veneto , 1st ser., 4 (1872): 33.

him from his studies."^[40] This poverty was of course relative, since Contarini's household was being compared implicitly with those of rich cardinals. He was, after all, established in the Vatican palace, where the pope had given him rooms, while his familia of forty persons was housed in nearby rented quarters large enough to include stables for about twenty horses. His household lived simply, yet Contarini did not abandon all the tastes of a nobleman, such as riding for pleasure in Rome during seasons of good weather.^[41]

The first year in his new office seems to have been a rather quiet period with leisure for study, especially of Plato and Aristotle. He read unspecified "Christian books" as well, writing:

By the grace of God, I am well, living my customary life with friends, and when I have time, with some Christian books. I am making an effort to attain some [degree of] knowledge of Christian teaching and life, [but] the more I read about the latter the further from it I seem to be, living almost as if asleep and frozen still. I have not yet found a way of waking and rousing myself, unless it be through my hope in God's goodness, which makes ready the way to strengthen, awaken, and inflame man when he is keenly aware of his weakness and the infirmity he cannot overcome or heal by his own efforts.^[42]

Twenty-five years earlier Contarini had written in strikingly similar terms to his friends Giustiniani and Querini, repeatedly mentioning his stony, hardened, and icy heart which he hoped to inflame through reading and study of the Bible.^[43] The echoes of those distant letters can probably be best explained by Contarini's temperament. He was an emotional man who kept experiencing periods of spiritual sluggishness and dryness despite his unshakable belief that man is justified by faith. He struggled against these states through recourse to books as well as through action, in the conviction that "he who wishes to have a

[40] To Marcantonio Michiel, 6 Dec. 1535, in Lettere di principi 3:149v.

[41] Lettere di principi 3:149v; and Pastor, Geschichte der Päpste 5:833, no. 27. In 1535 Contarini's household comprised forty dependents, or "bocche"; see Girolamo Negri, Epistolarum orationumque liber (Padua, 1579), fol. 148v.

[42] To Benedetto Accolti, Cardinal of Ravenna, 1 Jan. 1536, in Archivio di Stato, Florence (hereafter cited as ASF), Carteggio Accolti, Filza 12, inserto 13, fol. 154r: "Io, per la gratia de dio son sano et vivo la vita mia consueta cure li amici, et quando mi avancia il tempo, cum qualche libro christiano, sforzandomi de attingere a qualche cognitione della doctrina et vita christiana, da quale quanto piu ne lego, tanto piu mi pare essere lontano, et vivere quasi adormentato et agelato, ne ritrovo perho via di svegharmi et accendermi sin hora, se non per la sperancia che ho in la benignita divina la quale alhora prepara il modo di fortificare, svegliare et accendere l'homo, quando esso è ben capace della sua debolezza et infirmita, la quale da per lui non puo superare et sanare." The text in Reg ., 263 (Inedita, no. 11), is inaccurate and incomplete.

[43] See Jedin, "Contarini und Camaldoli," 25; also pp. 11, 12, 14, 16.

contented and peaceful mind must engage in activity which is fitting and necessary to it."^[44] But despite this practical attitude he was subject to periods of melancholy. One such period, in the summer of 1536, coincided with a bout of physical illness; his "sadness of soul" was known to his friends,^[45] who tried to cheer him with down-to-earth advice, or by the arguably less effective means of a treatise, "De animi tristitia," which Reginald Pole intended to write for him but did not get around to doing because of the intense heat of the season.^[46]

While the full roster of Contarini's household cannot be reconstructed precisely, the names of several of the men whom he summoned to join him in Rome are known. His first secretary was Girolamo Negri, who later became his vicar in the diocese of Belluno. More prominent was Ludovico Beccadelli, member of an important Bolognese family and later papal nuncio to Venice and archbishop of Ragusa. Beccadelli first joined Contarini in November 1535, eventually becoming his secretary, friend, and biographer. Filippo Gheri, the younger brother of Cosmo Gheri, bishop of Fano, was also a member of Contarini's household, as was the Modenese Filippo Valentini. By the end of 1536 Contarini had prevailed on the Dutch Hebraist Jan van Kampen to come to Rome and enter his familia as well. Another foreigner in the household was the French scholar Pierre Danès, later bishop of Lavaur. Alvise Priuli, a close friend of Pole, and Galeazzo Florimonte, later bishop of Aquino, were with Contarini for a time. As a group these men were scholarly, open-minded, critical of abuses in the church, and interested in Protestant theology. Predictably, several later came under suspicion of heresy. One of them, Filippo Valentini, became a leading figure in Modenese heterodox circles, and eventually chose exile in Switzerland over submission to the Roman Inquisition.^[47]

[44] To Accolti, 14 May 1536, in Reg ., 264 (Inedita, no. 13); complete text in ASF, Carteggio Accolti, Filza 12, inserto 13, fols. 156r-157v.

[45] Pole to Contarini, 24 June 1536, in Reg ., 88 (no. 289).

[46] Pole to Alvise Priuli, 23 July 1536, in Ep. Poli 1:461.

[47] On Beccadelli, see Giuseppe Alberigo, "Beccadelli, Ludovico," in DBI 7: 407-13; Gigliola Fragnito, "Per lo studio dell'epistolografia volgare del Cinquecento: le lettere di Ludovico Beccadelli," Bibliothèque d'humanisme et renaissance 43 (1981): 61-87. For Filippo Gheri, see Massimo Firpo and Dario Marcatto, Il processo inquisitoriale del Cardinal Giovanni Morone (Rome: Istituto Storico Italiano per l'Età Moderna e Contemporanea, 1981-89), 2(1):552n.23; for Filippo Valentini, ibid., 1:331-34; and M. Firpo, "Gli Spirituali, l'Accademia di Modena e il formulario di fede del 1542: controllo del dissenso religioso e nicodemismo," Rivista di storia e letteratura religiosa 20 (1984): 87. For Jan van Kampen, see Elisabeth Feist Hirsch, Damião de Gois: The Life and Thought of a Portuguese Humanist, 1502-1574 (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1967), 98; and H. de Vocht, History of the Foundation and Rise of the Collegium Trilingue Lovaniense, 1517-1550 (Louvain: Bibliothèque de l'Université, 1951-19), 1:503-5, 2:120-22, and 3: passim. For Danès, see Mireille Forget, "Les relations et les amities de Pierre Danès (1497-1577)," Bibliothèque d'humanisme et renaissance 3 (1936): 365-83; 4 (1937): 59-77. For Florimonte, see Alberigo, Vescovi italiani , 209. For Priuli, see Pio Paschini, Un amico del Cardinale Polo: Alvise Priuli (Rome: Pontificio Seminario Romano Maggiore, 1921); and Firpo and Marcatto, Processo inquisitoriale 1:253-54.

Contarini and his household were exceptional in the Rome of 1535, when Pier Paolo Vergerio, papal nunzio to King Ferdinand, thus described other cardinals: "These great lords are so occupied with their pleasures and ambitions that they know nothing which is happening in distant Germany."^[48] Even if this judgment by the critical Vergerio has to be taken with the proverbial grain of salt, the fact remains that Contarini, with his deep concern for church reform, stood alone among cardinals until the appointment of Sadoleto, Pole, and Carafa in December 1536. Support and encouragement first came from his friends in Venice, Verona, and his own familia rather than from other cardinals. But most important was the support of the pope himself, who drew Contarini into the preparations for a general council that was to meet in Mantua in May 1537.

The political background of the decision to hold this meeting and the complexities involved in convoking a council have been discussed in masterly fashion by Hubert Jedin.^[49] Paul III, unlike his predecessor, understood that further delay in this matter would harm the papacy and the Catholic church, and so he decided to act. In the spring of 1536 he formed a commission to draw up the bull summoning the council, to which he appointed Contarini.

It is curious that the pope, who had known Contarini as the Venetian ambassador to Clement VII and as a skillful negotiator in Bologna, did not avail himself of the cardinal's diplomatic expertise during the preparatory stages of the council. Instead Contarini was assigned to various curial committees for the next four years. Keeping him in Rome was probably more useful for the positive image of the papacy than sending him on missions to European rulers would have been, since he was the visible rallying point for those who felt the urgency of

[48] Vergerio to King Ferdinand, 27 Jan. 1535, in Nuntiaturberichte aus Deutschland nebst ergänzenden Aktenstücken , 1st ser. (Rome: Königliches Preussisches Historisches Institut, 1892-1912), 1:327 (hereafter cited as NB ). For Vergerio, see Anne Jacobson Schutte, Pier Paolo Vergerio: The Making of an Italian Reformer (Geneva: Droz, 1977).

[49] On the projected council of Mantua, see Jedin, Trient 1:232-86.

church reform. Paul III was shrewd enough to understand the importance of not alienating the intellectual, liberal-minded ecclesiastics and laymen who regarded Contarini as their spokesman.

Contarini's first significant task was to preside over a commission convoked by the pope in July 1536 and charged with making recommendations for reform measures in preparation for the general council. Such a commission had precedents from the first year of Paul III's pontificate. Already in November 1534 the pope had declared that reform of the curia and cardinals must precede a council.^[50] Within a week a commission for the "reform of mores" was established, followed by a second for the examination of all curial offices and the revision of their practices. Both bodies were to recommend initiatives to the pope for his action.^[51] But the seriousness of the enterprise can be judged by the pope's admonition to members of the two commissions, none of whom had any record of concern with reform, to take into account "the nature of the present times" in their work.^[52] In effect, this meant simply that once more a list of remedies for some abuses would be compiled, dutifully read in a consistory, and heard of no more.

Still, Paul III in 1535 and 1536 did issue several bulls aimed at removing corruption and abuses in the church,^[53] and thus at least kept hope for reform alive. In August 1535 the bull "Sublimis Deus" was published, creating yet another commission, this time for the reform of the curia and clerk, in Rome. As a step toward the council, abuses were to be eradicated and opposition punished, and there was even mention of measures for enforcing reform decrees.^[54] However, the resulting edict of 11 February 1536 was remarkable only for its length. It dealt with the colors of ecclesiastical vestments, the necessity of tonsure, the desirability of having a familia that led an orderly life, the injunction to priests to read the office daily, to celebrate mass properly, to avoid places of ill repute, and similar matters.^[55] The Venetian ambassador to Rome gave this insignificant edict its right name when

[50] Pastor, Geschichte der Papste 5:97.

[51] Stephan Ehses, "Kirchliche Reformarbeiten unter Papst Paul III. vor dem Trienter Konzil," Romische Quartalschrift 15 ( 1901): 154.

[52] In the consistory of 3 March 1535: "Sanct D.N. renuntiavit D R . . . ut temporis conditioni consuleretur" (CT 4:451). The cardinals on the commissions were Piccolomini, Sanseverino, Cesi, Campeggio, Grimani, and Cesarini.

[53] Ehses, "Kirchliche Reformarbeiten," 154-55.

[54] CT 4:451. This bull should not be confused with a more famous one of 4 June 1537 having the same incipit, which incorporates the Amerindians into the human race.

[55] Not incorporated into the consistorial acts; printed by Pastor, Geschichte der Päpste 5:823-27, from a copy in St. Petersburg.

he called it "la bolla della reformatione delli habbiti delli cherici," adding resignedly, "at other times also similar reformations have been made, which have had no effect whatever." Discussion about regulating "matters of the poenitentiaria , the chancery, the dataria , and other offices,"^[56] mentioned by him, resulted in nothing.

The prelates chosen for the commission over which Contarini presided were of a very different stamp from members of earlier commissions. Originally the pope had a group in mind that must have differed considerably from the final one, for it was to include Spaniards and Frenchmen,^[57] whereas the actual commission was composed only of Italians with the single exception of Pole. Paul III accepted Contarini's judgment concerning who was suitable for membership, and the latter did not hesitate to recommend some of the most outspoken advocates of reform and friends on whose support he could rely.^[58] In the summer of 1536 briefs were issued summoning eight men to Rome to assist the pope "with their advice, piety, and learning" in the preparations for the council.^[59] They were Gianpietro Carafa; Gianmatteo Giberti, former datario to Clement VII and now reforming bishop of Verona; Contarini's friends Gregorio Cortese and Reginald Pole; his confessor Tommaso Badia, who as a Dominican also held the post of magister sacri palatii , or the pope's theologian; Federico Fregoso, archbishop of Salerno and bishop of Gubbio; Jacopo Sadoleto, bishop of Carpentras in southern France and former member of the curia under the two Medici popes; and Girolamo Aleandro, best known as a papal diplomat.^[60] The last is the only surprising choice, due

[56] Lorenzo Bragadino to the Senate, Rome, 12 Feb. 1536, in CT 4:453; see also Ehses, "Kirchliche Reformarbeiten," 157-58.

[57] Contarini to Pole, Rome, 12 July 1536, in Reg ., 89 (no. 291).

[58] " . . . [Il papa] propose che si facesse una riforma delle cose più importanti, et volle che 'l Cardinale Contarino li ricordasse quelli, ch' a tal opera li parevano buoni, acciochè presto se ne venisse al fine" (Beccadelli, "Vita," 24). Cf. also the report of the Mantuan agent quoted by Carlo Capasso, Paolo III (Messina: Principato, 1923-24), 1:654n.4; and Pastor, Geschichte der Päpste 5:110n.3.

[59] Briefs to Pole and Sadoleto in CT 4:26-27; to Carafa, in Friedensburg, "Briefwechsel," 221, and Carafa's answer, 222; to Pole in Ep. Poli 1:466; to Cortese in Gregorio Cortese, Gregorii Cortesii omnia quae huc usque colligi potuerunt sive ab eo scripta, sive ad illum spectantia (Padua, 1774), 1:52. That Contarini particularly wanted Cortese on the commission may be seen from Reg ., 89 (no. 292).

[60] For Carafa, see Alberto Aubert, Paolo IV Carafa nel giudizio della età della Controriforma (Città di Castello: Stamperia Tiferno Grafica, 1990). For Giberti, see Prosperi, Tra evangelismo e controriforma . Peter Partner ascribes a larger role to Giberti than is usual, and thinks that "the chief minister of Clement VII was in effect Gian Matteo Giberti," The Pope's Men: The Papal Civil Service in the Renaissance (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990), 44. For Pole, see Dermot Fenlon, Heresy and Obedience in Tridentine Italy: Cardinal Pole and the Counter Reformation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972); J.P. Marmion, "Cardinal Pole in Recent Studies," Recusant History 13 (1975-76): 56-61; and Paolo Simoncelli, Il caso Reginald Pole: eresia e santità nelle polemiche religiose del Cinquecento (Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 1977). For Cortese, see Gigliola Fragnito, "Il Cardinale Gregorio Cortese e la crisi religiosa del Cinquecento," Benedictina 30 (1983): 129-71, 417-59; 31 (1984): 79-134; the more recent monograph by Francesco C. Cesareo, Humanism and Catholic Reform: The Life and Work of Gregorio Cortese (1483-1548 ) (New York and Bern: Peter Lang, 1990), is inadequate. For Badia, see Giuseppe Alberigo, "Badia, Tommaso," in DBI 5:74-76. For Sadoleto, see Douglas, Sadoleto . Little work on Fregoso exists; for a sketch of his life, see Luigi Grillo, Elogi di Liguri illustri , 2d ed. (Genoa, 1846), 1:390-98; also M. Abbondanza, "Federico Fregoso nella storia della diocesi di Salerno e la visita pastorale del 1510-11," Quaderni contemporanei (Salerno) 4 (1971): 7-19. For Aleandro, see Giuseppe Alberigo, "Aleandro, Girolamo," in DBI 2:128-35.

probably to the pope's initiative because Aleandro had the reputation of being familiar with German affairs. He had given little evidence of zeal for church reform, though on occasion he had supported reform measures that he deemed expedient.^[61]

The initial meeting of the commission took place toward the end of November 1536,^[62] with Sadoleto delivering the opening oration. The usually mild prelate violently attacked corruption in the church, squarely blaming it on earlier popes, and calling on Paul III, who was not present, to break with the pernicious ways of his predecessors. Sadoleto painted a dismal picture of the ills besetting the church, most of which he attributed to the cupidity of the clergy. Mincing no words, he spoke of the mistrust and even hatred of the clergy on the part of the people, of disorder everywhere, and of the woes threatening disunited Christendom. He predicted worse things to come unless Paul III proceeded to take his calling as savior of the church seriously. Speaking to his colleagues "with the passion of a Hebrew prophet,"^[63] Sadoleto set the tone for their deliberations. The seriousness and urgency of

[61] Pastor, Geschichte der Päpste 5:111, credits Contarini with the inclusion of Aleandro, a view accepted by Douglas, Sadoleto , 100. But Jedin, Trient 1:583n.44, rightly does not include Aleandro in Contarini's circle; nor does Franco Gaeta, Un nunzio pontificio a Venezia nel Cinquecento (Girolamo Aleandro ) (Venice and Rome: Istituto per la Collaborazione Culturale, 1960), 115. Aleandro's life had not been exemplary; see Paul Kalkoff, "Zur Charakteristik Aleandros," Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 43 (1924): 212-13, though Kalkoff's final judgment (219) is too negative.

[62] Vinzenz Schweitzer, "Beiträge zur Geschichte Pauls III.," Römische Quartalschrift 22 (1908): 134-35, summarizes arguments for an earlier opening date and makes a good case against them. He thinks that the meetings began between 24 November and 2 December, most likely between 24 and 30 November. Pastor, Geschichte der Päpste 5:117n.4, remains unconvinced and thinks that the meetings began in the first half of November.

[63] Douglas, Sadoleto , 101. The text of the speech is in CT 4:108-19.

their task as presented by Sadoleto was further underlined by his almost apocalyptic picture of the evils awaiting the church should it remain unreformed.

A greater contrast between the spirit in which these nine prelates began their work and the perfunctoriness of earlier so-called reform commissions would be hard to imagine. But it is also necessary to remember that Sadoleto could not have spoken as he did had there not been signals from the pope to Contarini and his group encouraging them to believe that they would be heard. The eulogies of Paul III's virtue and wisdom in Sadoleto's speech may strike a modern reader as too fulsome. Yet Sadoleto well understood the pope's determining role in any future change in the church; he therefore tried by all means possible to make an ally of Paul III, appealing to him as the man chosen by God to bring about the crucial, longed-for reform.

In a consistory on 9 March 1537 the commission's report, its Consilium de emendanda ecclesia , or "Plan for Reforming the Church," was presented to the pope, then read and explained by Contarini.^[64] This was followed by Sadoleto's separate report, which has not been preserved but probably elaborated further on points made in the committee document.^[65] There was no discussion at that time, and the immediate reaction of Paul III is not known. Copies of the Consilium were made available to the cardinals, who were given time to consult with their advisors.

The chief obstacle to grasping the intent of Contarini and his collaborators lies in the lack of documentation of the preparatory work that led up to their final report. An oath of secrecy had been imposed on them, but even after it was lifted no details of the meetings were disclosed, or at least none have survived. The author or authors of the Consilium remain anonymous;^[66] that there was more than one

[64] "Consilium delectorum cardinalium et aliorum praelatorum de emendanda ecclesia S.D.N. Paulo III iubente conscriptum et exhibitum," text in CT 12:134-45. English translation in Gleason, Reform Thought , 85-100. For the date of presentation, see Walter Friedensburg, "Zwei Aktenstücke zur Geschichte der kirchlichen Reformbestrebungen an der römischen Kurie (1536-1538)," Quellen und Forschungen aus italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken 7 (1904): 260.

[65] Friedensburg, "Zwei Aktenstücke," 255; and Douglas, Sadoleto , 107. Despite his apparent dissent or emendations, Sadoleto signed the Consilium .

[66] The question of authorship has been debated, but not resolved. Pastor, Geschichte der Papste 5:121n.1, discusses the attempts of biographers, especially Carafa, to assign to their several subjects the writing of the memorial; Capasso, Paolo III 1:656n.2, agrees that it is not possible to attribute the memorial to a definite author. See also Jedin, Trient 1:341; and CT 12:132-33.

responsible author seems likely because the document bears the marks of a committee report, with the characteristic ideas of one member or another appearing at different points. For example, there is a similarity between Carafa's memorial of 1532 to Pope Clement VII^[67] and sections of the Consilium , and between the latter document and the reform proposal written long before by Contarini's friends Guistiniani and Querini, the Libellus ad Leonem X ,^[68] which Contarini knew well and with which men from the Venetian milieu like Carafa, Cortese, and Pole were also familiar.^[69] Like the reports of previous commissions, the Consilium drew up a list of specific abuses that had become widespread throughout the church. These abuses, however, had now worked themselves so intimately and pervasively into the church's structure that it is difficult to see how Paul III could have freed himself from the fiscal web his predecessors had woven.

Fees had become customary for many transactions, including plurality of ecclesiastical benefices, reservations, compositions, and arrangements of various sorts which came perilously close to horse-trading, especially in the granting of churches and exceptionally rich abbeys to the "temporary" supervision of well-connected clerics and laymen. There was similarly busy traffic in dispensations from vows and obligations, and a host of indulgences. All had their ultimate origin in the papacy's need for ever more money, especially from Sixtus IV on, the sale of church offices being a particularly important source of income for the Renaissance popes. Indeed, the papal government acted like its secular counterparts in devising means to mobilize further income by various kinds of advances.^[70] The inherited institutional structure of

[67] The text is in CT 12:67-77; English translation in Gleason, Reform Thought , 57-80. See especially the recommendations regarding supervision and reorganization of conventual orders, the tightening of standards for admission to the priesthood, and the examination of candidates.

[68] Text in Mittarelli and Costadoni (eds.), Annales Camaldulenses 9:612-719. Especially striking is the similarity with sections of part 5, "De Christianorum omnium, qui Romano obediunt pontifici, reformatione," which toward the end (cols. 701-3) discusses the reform of religious orders. Nelson H. Minnich, "Concepts of Reform Proposed at the Fifth Lateran Council," Archivum historiae pontificiae 7 (1969): 222-27, discusses the Libellus . See also Fragnito, "Cultura umanistica," 128-29, for possible links between the Libellus and the Consilium .

[69] Carafa knew Paolo Giustiniani personally; see R. de Maulde La Clavière, S. Gaetano da Thiene e la riforma cattolica italiana (1480-1527 ) (Rome: Desclée, 1911), 12.

[70] For a good general summary, see the following articles by Wolfgang Reinhard, "Ämterhandel in Rom zwischen 1534 und 1621," in Ämterhandel im Spätmittelalter und im 16. Jahrhundert , ed. Ilja Mieck (Berlin: Colloquium Verlag, 1984), esp. 46-47; "Finanza pontificia e stato della chiesa nel XVI e XVII secolo," in Finanze e ragion di stato in Italia e in Germania nella prima età moderna , ed. Aldo De Maddalena and Hermann Kellenbenz (Bologna: Il Mulino, 1984), 353-87; and "Finanza pontificia, sistema beneficiale e finanza statale nell'età confessionale," in Fisco religione stato nell'età confessionale , ed. Hermann Kellenbenz and Paolo Prodi (Bologna: Il Mulino, 1989), 459-504. Still useful is Clemens Bauer, "Die Epochen der Papstfinanz: ein Versuch," Historische Zeitschrift 138 (1927): esp. 476-89 for the period from Martin V to Pius IV.

early modern states hampered the needed regular and predictable flow of resources to the administrative center, so that new ways had to be found to increase and regularize income.

Whatever the ethical and moral dimensions of Roman fiscal practices, historians now see them as part of the trend on the part of popes and curia to organize their finances and administration rationally. But Contarini and his committee saw matters in an entirely different light and judged by different criteria. They looked back to an idealized past of the church when fiscal problems were unknown and therefore regarded contemporary financial practices simply as abuses to be eradicated. Nor were they alone in this opinion, for reform proposals from various quarters regularly attacked papal fiscalism and demanded that the sale of church offices be curbed if not abolished.^[71] For reformers the sale of offices was a scandal, but for investors it was a profitable and safe placement of their money that also conferred status.

The authors of the Consilium mention no specific point in the church's history when financial abuses in their sense of the term did not exist. For all practical purposes, however, there was no venality of offices before the Great Schism. During the Avignon period it had not been possible to buy a position that would make its holder a member of the papal bureaucracy.^[72] But the pattern of expenditure changed sharply between 1378 and 1417, when large-scale borrowing by popes and antipopes made necessary new sources of income for the servicing and repayment of debts. Among these sources were the sale of offices and the exaction of payment for spiritual graces.^[73] Moreover, from the late fifteenth century on the popes became Italian princes on a grand scale, and their courts, armies, navies, administration, building activity, patronage, nepotism, and dynastic policy required large sums

[71] Or even that curial offices be granted according to merit; see John F. D'Amico, "Papal History and Curial Reform in the Renaissance: Raffaele Maffei's Breuis Historia of Julius II and Leo X," Archivum historiae pontificiae 18 (1980): 182.

[72] Walther von Hofmann, Forschungen zur Geschichte der kurialen Behörden vom Schisma bis zur Reformation (Rome: Loescher, 1914), 1:163.

[73] Peter Partner, "Papal Financial Policy in the Renaissance and Counter-Reformation," Past and Present , no. 88 (1980): 20-21; this article contains an excellent bibliography.

of money.^[74] Beginning With Sixtus IV most offices in the papal chancery, camera , and poenitentiaria became venal, as did entire "colleges" or organized subgroups like the apostolic scriptors.^[75] In addition, revenues were derived from increasingly liberal dispensations from impediments to marriage or from monastic vows and other binding obligations.^[76]

The number of venal offices increased from 625 under Sixtus IV to 2,232 under Leo X, at which approximate level they remained under Paul III.^[77] This pope also established papal knighthoods, among them those of St. George and St. Paul, which carried only ceremonial obligations but conferred resounding tides on their holders.^[78] Clement VII in 1526 instituted a funded debt, the Monte della Fede, which produced capital but then required service of the debt. With all their sources of income, traditional and innovative, the popes still had to borrow heavily to cover their current obligations. Paul III was no exception; he borrowed at high interest rates and had to channel revenues from the papal state to the repayment and servicing of his debt.^[79] Papal finances also involved the large Italian banking houses, so that wider and wider circles were directly interested in protecting the existing fiscal system and preserving the status quo. The question was where reform could begin in a system like this. Contarini's commission might in the end prove to be like one in 1497, which one of its members likened to a rider without spurs,^[80] while another had said even more plainly, "The [hot] iron, not the salve, must be applied to the festering sores!"^[81] knowing full well that this would not happen.

The crux of the matter was that Contarini and his colleagues were confronting not merely isolable abuses, but an entrenched economic

[74] Ibid., tables 6 and 7, pp. 50, 51.

[75] Hofmann, Forschungen 1:172-73; and Reinhard, "Ämterhandel," 49.

[76] See the list in Emil Goller, Die papstliche Pönitentiarie von ihrem Ursprung bis zu ihrer Umgestaltung unter Pius V . (Rome: Loescher, 1907-11), 2:43-69, for the kinds of dispensations given.

[77] Hofmann, Forschungen 1:173, gives the first figure; the second is from Rein-hard, "Ämterhandel," table on p. 52, where other sources are also indicated. Partner, Pope's Men , 38, considers the figure quoted for Leo X too high, arguing that it multiplies the real number of officeholders because of their pluralism.

[78] See Felice Litva, S.J., "L'attività della Dataria durante il periodo tridentino," Archivum historiae pontificiae 5 (1967): 140-43, for the creation of cavalieri as a means of raising money.

[79] Partner, "Papal Financial Policy," 25.

[80] Léonce Célier, "L'idée de réforme à la cour pontificale du Concile de Bâle au Concile de Latran," Revue des questions historiques 86 (1909): 433.

[81] Ibid., 435.

and social system. Any reform within that system would have threatened existing arrangements that provided for individuals, their families, and dependents, with wide repercussions for Roman as well as Italian ecclesiastical and secular society. The Consilium did not address these problems directly or submit a plan of practical steps toward reform. Yet the concentration of its authors on central theoretical issues gave the document a structure and content that set it apart from such predecessors as the Libellus and mark an advance over reform proposals that were essentially lists of grievances or abuses.

Nowhere is this clearer than in the question concerning the reason for existing evils in the church, posed at the beginning of the Consilium . For Giustiniani and Querini the answer had been that the greed and ambition of secular princes, and the ignorance, superstition, and disobedience of the clergy which spread to the people, were the causes of the woes afflicting Christianity.^[82] Their memorial repeatedly applied the familiar metaphor of a sick body both to the church and to Christendom at large, and demanded the action of the pope as the physician who alone could cure their ills.^[83] For all its outspoken denunciation of specific abuses, however, the Libellus in no way questioned the existing system of papal government either in theory or in practice.

By contrast, the opening section of the Consilium , in seeking an explanation for corruption in the church, raised the central issue of the nature of papal authority and the bounds within which it could legitimately be exercised. Here the similarity with Contarini's De potestate pontificis quod divinitus sit tradita and with his speeches to Pope Clement VII is striking. Papal authority is accepted as divinely instituted. However, the Consilium goes on to state that the popes have surrounded themselves with false counselors who assure them that their will is law and that they are absolute lords (domini ) over the church and its goods, incapable of falling into simony because they sell what is their own, and therefore free to do as they please with the material goods of the church and its spiritual graces. This teaching is pinpointed as the root of all evils: according to the Consilium , the difficulties and ills now besetting the church have sprung from this idea as from a Trojan horse.^[84] As the Consilium's logical structure unfolds, all the abuses mentioned subsequently are seen as having their origin in the exaggerated claims made by curial jurists about the nature of papal power.

[82] Mittarelli and Costadoni (eds.), Annales Camaldulenses 9:670-71.

[83] Ibid., 670, 671, 675, 707.

[84] CT 12:134-35.

The list of specific abuses is a list of symptoms of disease in the church. The prelates on the commission, like many advocates of reform before them, use the traditional metaphor of the sick body crying out for a cure. Their recommendations deal first of all with the administration of benefices and the reform of disorders arising from current practice, then point out the perniciousness of granting spiritual graces, such as dispensations and indulgences, for money. They urge that these practices be stopped in obedience to Christ's clear command: "Freely have you received, freely give" (Matt. 10:8).^[85] This precept, and not elaborate legal theories, should regulate the granting of benefices and graces.

The Consilium then addresses the problem of discipline and order within the hierarchy. Besides echoing several of Carafa's recommendations of 1532, it proclaims the need to reform the entire clergy from the highest levels down to that of the simple cleric. It states that cardinals should reside in Rome, taking part in the government of the church and receiving equal incomes, and should not accept additional benefices, especially bishoprics, which are incompatible with their residence in Rome. Bishops should reside in their dioceses so as to be able to supervise them and to give good example to the clergy, who in turn must fulfill their own pastoral functions. The thorny problem of individuals and ecclesiastical corporations exempt from episcopal jurisdiction must be resolved, since such exemptions contribute to institutional disorder. The memorial closes with recommendations for improving the government and morals of Rome, and for removing public scandals.

The Consilium was neither a complete program for action nor "a major landmark...in the history of the church."^[86] It failed, for example, to consider what measures should be taken against those who refused to follow its precepts. Even more important, it entirely left out of account two problems that underlay many of the specific issues it touched upon: the relations among the hierarchical levels of authority within the church, and the respective roles of pope and princes in matters of benefices and ecclesiastical appointments. Its significance does not lie primarily in its well-known criticism of abuses, but rather in its challenge to the prevailing system of papal government.

In essence, the memorial called for a different conception of the papacy and hence a break with the way business was then conducted by

[85] Ibid., 140.

[86] Pastor, Geschichte der Päpste 5:123.

curial offices and tribunals in Rome.^[87] Contarini had argued in 1529 that a pope without a papal state was conceivable. The Consilium went even further. It did not discuss the pope as ruler of a state but appealed to him as head of the universal church, raising the possibility of a spiritual papacy purged of extreme papalist theories and freed of the dubious financial transactions in which it had become enmeshed. By the nature of the charge given by Christ to St. Peter and his successors, the pope was thought of as shepherd and father, rather than as a lord like secular princes. Restricting pontifical plenitude of power to the spiritual realm, the authors of the Consilium in effect condemned those canon lawyers standing in the long tradition both of medieval thinkers who argued that the pope wielded both swords and of famous jurists like Giles of Rome, Baldo de Ubaldis, or Augustinus Triumphus.^[88] If the pope accepted the major thrust of the commission's report, he would have had to curtail the scope of his power, restructure the curia, and conduct a major housecleaning operation in Rome.

The Consilium brought a new element to the pontificate of Paul III in the emergence of a group of strict—by the standards of the time, even radical—advocates of reform in Rome, with Contarini as one of its chief spokesmen. Already in 1536 the poet Vittoria Colonna wrote him rejoicing that he had sustained the bark of Peter so well by his labors, and concluding: "It is secure from shipwreck, and Your Excellency holds the tiller."^[89] This image of Contarini as the steersman of the ship corresponded to how his supporters perceived his role. Contarini was later to gain further reform-minded allies in the college of cardinals, but in 1537 the significant reformers were the authors of the Consilium , who championed the conception of a spiritual papacy that would initiate curial reform and bring about the restoration of discipline throughout the church.

None of Contarini's letters between July 1536 and February 1537

[87] Wolfgang Reinhard, in calling the Consilium "ein systemkritisches Dokument" ("Reformpapsttum," 788), is in my opinion the only recent scholar to assess its significance accurately.

[88] For a helpful summary of the entire issue of papal power in temporal affairs, see G. Gléz, "Pouvoir du pape dans l'ordre temporel," in Dictionnaire de thèologie catholique 12(2), cols. 2670-2772, esp. cols. 2713-51. The Summa de potestate ecclesiastica of Augustinus Triumphus (d. 1328), which contains an uncompromising defense of the positions of Boniface VIII, was one of the earliest printed books to be published in Rome (1469).

[89] Ermanno Ferrero and Giuseppe Müller, eds., Carteggio delle lettere di Vittoria Colonna , 2d ed. (Turin, 1892), 127 (letter 76).

are known to exist. His one dated piece from this period is a short treatise on free will in the form of a letter to Vittoria Colonna.^[90] While the essay testifies to their friendship, it offers no direct clues to Contarini's ideas on reform. Contarini duly summarizes philosophical, mainly Aristotelian, distinctions between unfree and free will in the first part of the treatise, then proceeds to a brief discussion of theological issues, or "Catholic truth" as he phrases it. His biographer asserts that the theology of justification, touched upon very briefly in the treatise, is unequivocally Catholic,^[91] without explaining what this meant in the pre-Tridentine period. The letter shows Contarini's familiarity with the issues of the controversy on free will which divided Catholics and Protestants, and some knowledge of Protestant thought. His ideas are expressed without much energy, in a dry pedantic way, as if he had written an academic exercise; it concludes with this declaration: "All that I have said or written here I always submit to the judgment of those who are better informed."^[92] At a time when Contarini was grappling with abuses in the church and criticism of existing conditions, he found the all-sufficient remedy to lie in "Catholic teaching, to which we are almost led by the natural light [of reason],"^[93] and discussed free will without a trace of contentiousness or originality. He was anxious to preserve the image of man totally dependent on God, whose mercy alone could incline the will toward himself, but in such a manner as to stop short of Luther's formulations and leave room for man's own decisions. One can only wonder what Vittoria Colonna thought of this perfunctory letter, which virtually ignored Protestant theology.

While the commission was meeting Contarini continued to work on a treatise begun the preceding summer that summarized the achievements of the most important councils and synods in the history of the church. It was intended as background for the pope in preparing for the coming assembly. The Conciliorum magis illustrium summa ,^[94] despite occasional inaccuracy and lack of clarity, makes a valiant attempt to present the main issues facing the early councils, their most notable decrees especially in regard to heresies, and the role of papal authority. Contarini enlisted the aid of Cortese and other friends, who searched through Venetian libraries for works on the councils and collections of their decrees, while Contarini himself had access to the

[90] "Del libero arbitrio," dated 13 Nov. 1536, in Quattro lettere , 57-76. The Latin version is in Opera , 597-604.

[91] GC , 456.

[92] Quattro lettere , 76.

[93] Ibid., 75.

[94] Opera , 546-63.

Vatican library.^[95] His treatise, completed in 1537, reveals more about the author's thought in its omissions than in what it actually says. Less than one page altogether is devoted to the councils of Constance, Basel, Florence, and the Fifth Lateran! Avoiding any mention of the great controversies confronting the fifteenth-century councils, Contarini barely hints in half a sentence at the existence of conciliarism.^[96] Instead of dwelling on disputes, he directs the reader's attention to the reconciliation with Greeks and Armenians in Florence, perhaps as a model of how to approach the Protestants. He affirms that it is up to the pope as "head . . . from whom governance and jurisdiction flow into the universal church, and on whom they depend,"^[97] to call the bishops to the council. Again, the pope is pictured as physician to the sick church, who alone has the power to heal it.

Neither this short piece nor the letter to Vittoria Colonna deals directly with the questions before the commission Contarini was chairing. Yet they do evince certain attitudes consonant with those of the Consilium . The Conciliorum magis illustrium summa , like the Consilium , stresses the need for order in the church, which could only be attained by the strict upholding of the hierarchy and by the affirmation of the pope's power, legitimately exercised. Contarini in his personal tract shared the commission's view of the central, crucial role of the pope in the process of reform, likened to the healing of a sick body. Both works assume the possibility of the exercise of papal will with far-reaching results, as if that will were quite independent of economic and social conditions. Neither engages in polemics with Protestants; both documents stress instead the need for charity. The letter to Vittoria Colonna also reveals an open-minded, thoughtful Contarini, willing to add his ideas to one of the great debates of the Reformation. Those ideas are derivative, to be sure, but they are presented by their author as outgrowths of his personal religious development. Taken together, the treatise on councils and the letter on free will demonstrate his set-fled outlook and sense of mission. He hoped to guide Paul III toward his own understanding of the lessons offered by earlier councils, and Vittoria Colonna toward his ambiguous views on free will.

Among the proposals of the Consilium de emendanda ecclesia which

[95] Reg ., 87 (no. 288) and 91 (no. 299).

[96] "Post Constantiense concilium, ut servaretur Decretum de congregatione conciliorum, indictum fuit concilium, quod fuit Basileae coactum" (Opera , 563). Contarini does not mention the decree Frequens by its title.

[97] Opera , 547.

provoked disagreement in the college of cardinals was one stating that the pope could not derive material benefit from the exercise of his spiritual power. Soon after the presentation of the memorial Contarini addressed a short letter to Paul III, explaining his views on that point in greater detail than could be done in the Consilium .^[98] He argued that free bestowal is of the essence of spiritual graces, since they belong ultimately to God. Men, even bishops and popes, are only his stewards, not empowered to sell their master's gifts. At the time of writing this letter Contarini had not taken a firm position regarding compositions, but was beginning to make distinctions between the legitimacy of money payments for penalties imposed by ecclesiastical authorities and payments for spiritual graces. The brief letter does not go into detail on these matters, but its last paragraph urges the pope not to be concerned if his income should drop by twenty or thirty thousand gold ducats as a result of his reform measures. Contarini paints the picture of a pope second only to St. Peter, honored by the entire grateful church as another god for turning the tide of abuse, and merely hints that the pope could easily make up "in many ways," unspecified, any financial loss he suffered. The idea of a general outpouring of approval for the pope's actions that would translate into willingness to support him financially was now taking shape in Contarini's mind; it would be set forth more fully later on.

The reception of the Consilium by both Catholics and Protestants showed the difficulties that faced reform emanating from Rome, and dispelled any idea that the pope could cure the church simply by deciding to do so. The college of cardinals was badly divided.^[99] An inert conservative majority, mainly concerned with preserving the status quo, had no intention of supporting Contarini and his associates, who

[98] De usu potestatis clavium , in CT 12:151-53. The editor dates the piece to April 1537 (but adds a question mark). Dittrich, GC , 374, dates it to the day after the consistory in which the Consilium de emendanda ecclesia was read, identifying the consistory with the "conventus R cardinalium" that met "hesterna die," mentioned in Contarini's letter, CT 12:152. Jedin, Trient 1:584-85n.56, thinks it was written in October 1538. I accept 1537 as its date. It is most likely to have been written in the two months after 9 March 1537, when the Consilium was presented. The most important argument for the spring 1537 date to my mind is Contarini's own statement that he is not familiar with how compositions work ("Nescio quidnam fiat in compositionibus"), CT 12:153. After he began working on the reform of the dataria in April 1537 he could not have made that statement (unless his words should be read, "I am not an expert in the matter of compositions, but..."; the former translation fits the context better).

[99] Douglas, Sadoleto , 110, describes the situation succinctly.

formed too small a group to be effective alone. The opinion of the conservatives, moreover, was voiced by a small group of articulate and intelligent curialists who had the great advantage of fighting for what most cardinals and curial officials wanted anyway: no radical change. Paul III asked the whole college to review the Consilium and then listened to the objections of those who stood to lose most if its recommendations were put into effect. Their predictable opposition, however, was not so effective as that offered by more subtle opponents such as the curial prelate Bartolomeo Guidiccione and probably also Cardinal Nikolaus Schönberg.

According to Paolo Sarpi, Schönberg delivered in consistory a long speech in which he sought to convince the pope that the time was not yet right for initiating sweeping reforms. He is reported to have argued that the sorts of changes urged by the Consilium would put additional ammunition into the hands of the Lutherans by virtually conceding that their charges of corruption in the church were well founded.^[100] Because the speech is not extant, it is not possible to assess it more fully. Nevertheless, Sarpi's statement seems plausible, for Schönberg, as a German, would have been sensitive to how the memorial would strike Lutherans. Equally in character is the reply that Sarpi reports Carafa as making, that good must not be omitted out of fear that evil would result from it.^[101]

In the response of Guidiccione we are on more solid documentary ground. Guidiccione was no merely reactionary prelate but an experienced lawyer who raised some hard-hitting points in his mordant attack on the reformers.^[102] He had been for nineteen years the vicar-general of Cardinal Farnese in the diocese of Parma before retiring in 1528 to his country villa near Lucca. When Farnese became Pope Paul III he summoned Guidiccione in vain to return and work on the Consilium . But in 1539, when he was seventy, Guidiccione accepted an

[100] Paolo Sarpi, Istoria del Concilio Tridentino (Bari: Laterza, 1935), 1:134. Stephan Ehses, "Zu den kirchlichen Reformarbeiten unter Paul III.: der deutsche Kardinal Nikolaus von Schonberg," Historisches Jahrbuch der Görresgesellschaft 29 ( 1908): 601-3, defends Schönberg against charges that he opposed reform of the church and for that reason opposed the Consilium . Schönberg was influential with Popes Clement VII and Paul III; see Albèri, Relazioni , 2d ser., 3:268 (Contarini's relazione of 8 March 1530) and 317 (relazione of Antonio Suriano, 1535).

[101] Sarpi, Istoria 1:135.

[102] "S.D.N. Paulo III Batholomaeus Guidiccionus de ecclesia et emendatione ministrorum eorumque abusuum per generale concilium facienda," in CT 12:226-56. This memorandum is part of a longer unpublished work entitled De ecclesia .

appointment as vicar of Rome, became a cardinal, and participated actively in church government until his death ten years later.^[103] He knew the new pope well enough to be quite blunt in the congratulatory letter he sent him on his accession. He urged him to try first to bring about peace among princes, and only then to turn his efforts to reforming abuses in the church, the body of Christ, which he saw as diseased from the soles of its feet to the crown of its head.^[104] Guidiccione had established his reputation as a prelate seriously interested in reform^[105] who would not oppose initiatives in that direction without good reason.

Now Guidiccione turned sharply against the central idea of the Consilium , which attributed all problems in the church to the doctrine taught by papal counselors that the pope's will was law. Guidiccione as a young man in the households of Cardinal Galeotto della Rovere, nephew of Julius II, and of Alessandro Farnese, had had a close-up view of the most martial if not the most famous Renaissance pope, and he understood what a profound attack on the prevailing theory of papal authority the Consilium de emendanda ecclesia had launched. In defense of papal plenitudo potestatis he affirmed that true Catholic doctrine taught the supremacy of the pope over the entire church. He charged that the authors of the Consilium had misunderstood Christ's injunction, "Freely have you received, freely give": "That . . . was not said about benefices, which did not exist at that time . . ., but about the power of binding and loosing, of casting out demons, of powers, miracles, and sacraments," he argued.^[106] Regarding the desire to purify the church in accordance with some nebulous ideal that was worse than utopian, actually harmful, Guidiccione stated firmly that nothing in the church's organization required to be changed. He therefore thought the Consilium unnecessary and answered it skillfully point by point, citing canon law at every step. His main contention was that reform of

[103] For a sketch of his life, see Vinzenz Schweitzer, "Kardinal Bartolomeo Guidiccione (1469-1549)," Râmische Quartalschrift 20 (1906): 27-53, 142-61, 189-204. His writings for the most part are still unpublished. For a description of the manuscripts, see Hubert Jedin, "Concilio e riforma nel pensiero del Cardinale Bartolommeo Guidiccione, Rivista di storia della chiesa in Italia 2 (1948): 34-35.

[104] BAV, Barb. lat. 1173, fol. 152r.

[105] That he was thought of as a reformer can be seen from the letter by his nephew Giovanni Guidiccione, bishop of Fossombrone, who warned his uncle not to come to Rome thinking he could change everything. The letter is a fascinating series of counsels on how to survive and succeed in the curia; see Giovanni Guidiccione, Le lettere , ed. Mafia Teresa Graziosi (Rome: Bonacci, 1979), 2:14-19.

[106] CT 12:231.

abuses could be accomplished only within established tradition, not through a sudden break with it. To him the Consilium , rather than proposing the reformation of the church and the restoration of its order, advocated its destruction.^[107]

Guidiccione's views were diametrically opposed to those of Contarini and the rest of the reform commission. As a canon lawyer he was concerned in his way with the welfare of church and papacy, yet he showed a complete lack of sympathy for the Consilium . What gave his views particular weight were his proven devotion to Paul III, the consistency of his position, and the absence of personal motives in his tract. He saw the key to solving the church's problems as lying in the strict observance of existing laws and norms that were already on the books but not enforced. Predictably, he showed no glimmer of understanding for the ideas advanced by the Protestants. As far as he was concerned, they were merely reviving ideas of already condemned heretics,^[108] and their spokesmen should be cited before a council and brought to justice.^[109] There was no point in giving their criticism a heating. Gradual removal of gross abuses in the church would be enough to answer the clamor of critics and presumably to quiet the authors of the Consilium as well.

The unequivocal expression of Guidiccione's position gives a revealing insight into the mentality of men who opposed almost everything Contarini and his supporters wanted to accomplish. Throughout his career as cardinal Contarini had to contend with numerous critics and adversaries like Guidiccione. He must have expected this. In any event, his Venetian government career had thoroughly prepared him for the intricacies of curial politics; he was no naive outsider in continual danger of being outmaneuvered by canny insiders. The major difference for him between Venice and Rome was the support networks on which he could count. In Venice he was a completely accepted member of the establishment, sharing its loyalties and part of a strong group of patricians who held decision-making posts of great influence. In Rome, in contrast, he was a member of a distinct minority that was critical of the prevailing system. Moreover, there was structurally a great difference

[107] Ibid., 233. Jedin, "Concilio e riforma," 56, thinks that Guidiccione saw the radical principles of the Consilium as leading to revolution, not reformation.

[108] CT 12:233-41. Guidiccione lists twenty specific Lutheran errors without having read a single work by Luther, relying instead on the writings of Luther's adversaries. But he did know Melanchthon's Loci communes; CT 12:234.

[109] Ibid., 243.

between the positions of those he served, the Venetian doge on the one hand and the Roman pontiff on the other. In Venice, oligarchic government functioned to a great extent regardless of the doge's views, while in Rome everything depended on the pope's support. In Venice, Contarini had been a close associate of Andrea Gritti. At the papal court he was never to achieve special closeness to Paul III, who kept his own counsel and admitted few men other than members of his own family to his inner circle.

The effectiveness of Contarini and his commission was also hampered by the Protestant reaction to the Consilium . If Cardinal Schön-berg in fact predicted another debacle like the backfiring of Adrian VI's confession in 1524, he was proved correct. In 1538 the Consilium appeared in three or possibly four Italian editions, three German editions, and one edition in the Netherlands.^[110] Schönberg may well have sent the confidential text to Germany for reasons that are not altogether clear.^[111] There it was eagerly read, and Luther himself provided the German translation of the memorial published in 1538 with an introduction and extremely caustic marginal comments.^[112] On the title page was a woodcut showing three cardinals trying to sweep the church with foxtails, effectively symbolizing Luther's estimate of the authors of the memorial. He found them hypocrites whose only object was to help the pope in misleading Christianity further. Whatever their veneer, the reformers on the commission remained for him scoundrels and liars.^[113]

Better known, and worthier of attention, is the more measured evaluation of the Consilium by Johannes Sturm in his preface to the translation published in Strassburg in 1538. He welcomed the memorial as marking a change for the better in papal policy and thought that the proposed correction of abuses should be applauded by all Christians. However, since the whole church was diseased, he said, it was not enough to remove the external symptoms of the malady without get-

[110] For bibliography, see Ibid., 131-32. The publication and diffusion of the Consilium met with disapproval, as reported by the Mantuan agent in Rome, 3 June 1538: "Here there is universal and strong disapproval that [the Consilium ] was allowed to be printed, because if it is not carried out the priests will seem to have confessed their sins and made them known everywhere, without wanting to correct their errors" (Solmi, "Fuga," 32). On the same page is mentioned a Milanese edition of the Consilium , thus far not found.

[111] Ehses, "Zu den kirchlichen Reformarbeiten," 600.

[112] Martin Luther, The Career of the Reformer , vol. 34 of Luther's Works: American Edition (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1960), 231-67.

[113] Ibid., 290.

ting at its cause.^[114] Sturm applauded the Consilium's criticism of exaggerated claims for papal power^[115] but accused its authors of passing over in silence the greatest abuse in the church, which was the neglect of the gospel. Charging that the authors did not give an honest assessment of the situation for fear of offending the pope, he treated them to some bitter invective.^[116] In the last analysis he doubted the readiness of Catholics to break with the past, and he expressed his apprehension that what was billed as reform would turn out to be only cosmetic change.

With the comments of Protestants ringing in the ears of irenic Catholics and the cardinals divided among themselves, Paul III was guided by the majority opinion that the recommendations of the Consilium not be put into effect. The pope thus prevented Contarini from assuming leadership of the movement for reform at a critical juncture when it seemed possible that the attitude and practice of church officials at the highest levels might change, and that the removal of abuses might begin to address the difficult questions raised by Protestants. The often-praised prudence of Paul III in this case amounted to stonewalling, and the Consilium produced no practical results. The critical, open-minded majority of the commission's members were too far ahead of what was acceptable to the general run of curialists and cardinals who were Roman organization men.