Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T10:30:03.683Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Diplomatic Role of Gasparo Cardinal Contarini at the Colloquy of Ratisbon of 1541

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2009

Heinz Mackensen
Heinz Mackensen
Affiliation:
Fairleigh Dickinson University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The greatest possibility for establishing concord between Protestantism and Rome during the Reformation occurred during the colloquy of Ratisbon of 1541. Along with Charles V one of the chief actors in the attempt to bring about such a concerd at the diet and its accompanying theological colloquy was Cardinal Contarini. He had been appointed papal legate by Paul III. Although Contarini's theological position on the question of justification was of crucial importance, the conflicting political forces represented at Ratisbon also helped to delineate the role he played there and its tragic denouement. In fact religious and political interests were so interwoven at Ratisbon that it is often hard to tell which came first. Whichever interests came first at any particular point, Contarini was, however, well equipped to deal with them, for he was both an experienced diplomat and a learned theologian.

Type
Research Article
Information
Church History , Volume 27 , Issue 4 , December 1958 , pp. 312 - 337
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Church History 1958

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Such a study has been prepared by the writer and is currently being considered for publication by the Archiv für Reformatiosgeschichte That paper and the present one were prepared under a Fairleigh Dickinson University Research Fellowship.

2. Leclercq, Dom H., Histoire des Conciles (Paris, Librairie Letouzey et Ane, 1930), IX, 1, p. 62Google Scholar, “Telsétaient la situation et l'entourage de Contarini, que Paul III se proposait d'employer comme chef d'un parti reformiste, qui se grouperait à sa cour et au Sacré-Collège.”

3. That Contarini did not feel too much at home is indicated by della Casa, Giovanni, “Vita Gasparis Contareni.” Opere (Firenze, Manni, 1707), III, 99Google Scholar, “…sed illud affirmo, hanc quasimigrationem [from Venice to Rome] e sua in alienam, non illam quidem deterius, sed longe, longeque aliter moratam civitatem Contareno, ingravescente iam aetate, subitam, acrepentinam necessario molestam fuisse.”

Leclercq, the continuator of Hefele, comments in general, op. cit., IX, 1, p. 61f., “Les plus actifs et les plus en vue … gravitaient autour de Contarini… la céèbre poetesse Vittoria Colonna,…les vieux curiaux… de l'Oratoire du divin amour au temps de Leon X.”

In delineating these reform tendencies in Italy Ranke is at his very best, vide “Anfänge einer Regeneration des Katholicismus,” Die römischen Päpste (Leipzig, Duncker und Humblot, (1878), I, 87–152.Google Scholar

4. Dittrich, Fr.ed., “Consilium quatuor delectorum a Paulo III super reformatione S. Romanae Ecclesiae,” Regesten und Briefe des Cardinals Gasparo Contarini (Braunsberg, Huye, 1881), 305–309Google Scholar. I have unfortunately not been able to see Dittrich, Fr., Gasparo Contarini, 1483–1542. Eine Monographie (Braunsberg, 1885)Google Scholar. There is a copy in the British Museum, 10629g4.

5. Le Plat, ed., “Gasparis Contareni Cardinalis ad Paulum III pont. max. de potestate pontificis in usu clavium epistola”, Opera, II, 605–608Google Scholar; and “Ad Paulum III pont. max. de potestate pontificis in compositionbus epistola”, Ibid., 608–615. There is a German translation of the latter by Agricola, Stephan,—Contarini, Gasparo, Von des Bapstes zu Rom gewalt (Dilingen, Mayer, 1560).Google Scholar

6. He was, however, very discriminating and careful. Thus in a letter from Brussels on April 28, 1522, he says of a holy hermit who wished to establish himself near Venice and who was rumored to have performed miracles, “Ea ego miracula neque facile credenda neque facile reiicienda censeo; hic tandem divino fortasse impulsu nuper magno desiderio est veniendi in Italiam, ac ad nos Venetos.” di Storia Patria, Regia Deputazioneed., I Diarii di Marino Sanuto (Venezia, Visentini, 1879–1903), XXXIII, 311.Google Scholar

7. Dittrich ed., “Capitoli della congregatione del Gesú confirmati da Paulo III”, op. cit., 304–305.

8. “Fuit consistorium S.D.N.creavit S.R.E. Legatum de latere Rmum Gasparem Presbyterum Cardinalem Contarenum in partibus Germaniae et ad ea potissimum loca, ad quae eum declinare contigerit, cum facultatibus prout in literis.” Quoted from Acta consistorialia variorum Pontificum, Cod. Valicell. J. 61, f.52 by Dittrich, op. cit., p. 140.

9. Quirini, A. M.ed., “Memoriale Rmi Dni Card. Contareni antequam discederet Germaniam versus datum Rmo Card. Sanctae Crucis.”, Epistolarum Reginaldi Poli … Pars III (Brixiae, Rizzardi, 1748), p. ccxxiv.Google Scholar

10. “Instructio data Rmo D. Card. Contareno in Germaniam Legato,” Ibid., cclxxxvi-ccic. For an illuminating discussion of his possible traveling companions, with an eye especially to their personalities, prepared by an anonymous, vide Hugo, Laemmered., “Anonymi de theologis familiaribus cum Card. Contareno Legato in Germaniam mittendis iudicium,” Monumenta Vaticana (Friburgi Brisg., Herder, 1861), 300–301Google Scholar. Cf. also von Pastor, Ludwing, Geschichte der Päpste (Freiburg i. B., 1879), V, 300Google Scholar, and Egelhaaf, Gottlob, Deutsche Geschichte im sechszehnten Jahrhundert (Stuttgart, Cotta, 1892), II, 392.Google Scholar

11. He is accused of having indirectly contributed to his grandfather's death due to the shock sustained by Paul III when he discovered that Alessandro was implicated in a plot against him and as a consequence of the violent scenes that ensued during which the pontiff tore the red biretta out of the hands to which he had given it vide Ranke, Die römischen Päpste, I, 176–177.

12. Jedin, Hubert, Geschichte des Konzils von Trient (Freiburg, Herder, 1949), I, 351Google Scholar, “Noch wurde mit dem System der Benefizenkumulation in der Hand der Kardinäle nicht gebrochen; der Papstnepot Alessandro Farnese überbot sogar alles bisher Dagewesene auf diesem Gebiete.” cf. Leclercq, op. cit., IX, 1, 109.

13. Quirini ed., op. cit., III, cclxxxvi.

14. Ibid., III, cclxxxix.

15. Ibid., III, cclxxxix.

16. Leclercq, op. cit., IX, 1, 148, “Un conseiller expérimenté comme Morone n'était pas superflu, car la bonté naturelle de Contarini ne se défiait peut-être pas assez des artifices luthériens; du reste, il ne connaissait pas suffisamment la théologie de Luther.” For an account of his life and personality vide Dittrich, Franz, “Die Nuntiaturberichte Giovanni Morone's vom Reichstage zu Regensburg 1541,” Historisches Jahrbuch der Görresgesellschaft, IV (1883), 395–427.Google Scholar

17. Girolamo Negri to the bishop of Corfu, April 6, 1541; Dittrich ed., op. cit., 166.

18. Contarini to Farnese, , 04 28, 1541. von Pastor, Ludwiged., “Die Korrespondenz des Kardinals Contarini während senier deutschen Legation Historiches Jahrbuch der Görresgesellschaft, I (1880). 361–371.Google Scholar

19. For Latin text with German translation vide Hergang, K. T., Das Religions-Gespräch zu Regensburg i. J. 1541 (Cassel, Fischer, 1958)Google Scholar. Eells, H., “The Origin of the Regensburg Book,” The Princeton Theological Review, XXVI (1928), 355–372Google Scholar, should be used with caution. I have not been able to see Schäfer, H., Delibri Ratisbonensis origine atque historia (Bonn, 1870), dissertation.Google Scholar

20. Who the actual authors were has been a subject of debate ever since. Vide Pastor, Ludwig, Die kirchlichen Reunionsbestrebungen während der Regierung Karls V (Freiburg i. B, Herder, 1879), 235–241Google Scholar: Rosenberg, Manfred, Gerhard Veltwyck, Orientalist, Theolog und Staatsmann (Wiesbaden, Friedmann, 1935)Google Scholar, dissertation—Götingen; Hergang, op. cit., 49–52.

21. Contarini to Matteo Dandolo. Brieger, Theodor, ed., “Zur Correspondenz Contarini's während seiner deutschen Legation,” Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte, III (1879), 520.Google Scholar

22. Contarini to Farnese, May 29, 1541. Pastor ed., loc. cit., I, 474–476. For excellent brief accounts vide Hergenröther, Joseph KardinalHandbuch der allgemeinen Kirchengeschichte (Freiburgi. B., Herder, 1907), IVte Auflage, III, 98–101Google Scholar; Kolde, T. ”Regensburger Religionsgespräch”, Protestantische Realencyklopädie (Leipzig, Hinrichs, 1905), XVI, 545–548.Google Scholar

23. Fransesco Contarini to the Venetain senate July 29, 1541. Dittrich op. cit., 221. The date is erroneously given as May 31 in Brandi, Karl, Kaiser Karl V (München, Brückmann, 1937), I, 385.Google Scholar

24. Vide supra p. 2.

25. Vide Brandi, op. cit. I, 386, for an excellent analysis of the actual effect of the failure of the Ratisbon colloquy upon Charles' personality and plans.

26. Contarini to Farnese, March 13, 1541. Schulze, Victor ed., “Dreizehn Depeschen Contarini's aus Regensburg an den Cardinal Franese (1541)” Zeitschrift für kirchengeschichte, III (1879), 150–155Google Scholar. Cf. also Contarini to Pole, , March 14, 1541, Dittrich ed., Regesten und briefe 155Google Scholar. What the emperor hoped to gain from the presence of a papal legate, and particular of Contarini. in Ratisbon is clearly brought out in Poggio's letter to Farnese of February 5, 1541, Dittrich, ed., “Die Nuntiaturberichte Giovanni Morone's,” Historiches jahrbuch, IV, 659–666.Google Scholar

27. Schulze ed., loc. cit., 159.

28. Granvelle sought to create an atmosphere of optimism about concord by spreading some rather wild rumors about Melanchthon and certain Protestant cities. He seems to have taken Morone in somewhat, to judge by the latter's report to Farnese, March 21, 1541, Dittrich ed., loc. cit., IV, 438–440. Granvelle probably thought thus indirectly to influence Contarini, since Morone seems to have discussed everything freely with the legate. Cf. Leclercq, op. cit., IX, i 146.

29. Contarini to Farnese, March 18, 1541: Schutze ed., loc. cit., 159–161. “Sua Signoria stette quita nè mifece replica.” Ibid., p. 159.

30. Ibid., 160.

31. Brandi, op. cit., I, 375–376.

Die Auffassung der Politiker aber ging noch einen Schritt weiter. insofern sie neben den [religious] Anschauungen immer auch ihre menschlichen Träger und deren weltliche Möglichkeiten im Auge behielten…Er [Granvelle] war Diplomat geblieben und gab auch den Wormser Verhandlungen durch kluge Regie und unermüdlichen Fleiss einen gewissen äusseren Erfolg.”

32. Contarini to Farnese, April 5, 1541; Schultze ed., loc. cit., 169–171.

33. Ibid., p. 171.

34. Contarini to Farnese, April, 1541, Ibid., 175–176. “Qui sua Mtá disse: le forze delli Turchi sono le nostre discordie; se noi fussimo concordi, non sariano grandi,” Ibid., p. 175. Joachimsen states that there were two kinds of “Illusionisten” (his name for persons seeking concord)—religious and political. The former could not believe that the German reformers wanted anything basically different from their own deepest convictions. The latter wished to strengthen the empire vis-à-vis France, and the Turks, Paul Joachimsen, Die Reformation als Epoche der Deutschen Geschichte (München, Oldenbourg, 1951), 232.Google Scholar

35. Contarini to Farnese, April 1541; Schultze ed., loc. cit., 175; “Mi rispose: da me non ha mancato: ho fatto quel ch' io debbo, et più di quello ch' io debbo. Ma in altri non si vede buona intentione, nè si vuole concordia fraterna, ma mando, cioe esser padrone et commandare …”

36. Ibid., 175. “Io qui modestamente li dissi: Sappiate certo V. Mtá, che tutta la cristianitá non aspetta miglior nuova di questa nè li potria venir nuova, la qual si udisse con più allegrezza di questa. Disse sua Mtá:Dio lo faccia ⃜”

37. Contarini to Farnese, May, 11 1541: von Pastor, Ludwiged., “Die Korrespondenz des Kardinals Contarini während seiner deutschen Legation” Historisches Jahrbuch der Görres-Gesellschaft, I (1880), 381–383.Google Scholar

38. Contarini to Farnese, May 15, 1541: Ibid., 387–390.

39. Ibid., 389.

40. Contarini to Farnese, June 2, 1541: Ibid., 477.

41. Hergenröther, , Handbuch der allgemeinen Kirchengeschichte, III, 101.Google Scholar

42. Contarini to Farnese, June 14, 1541: Pastor ed., loc. cit., 481.

43. Ibid., 484. This would contradict statements recently made that the emperor “was deliberately stalling while he prepared for war.” Eells, Hastings, “The Failure of Church Unification Efforts during the German Reformation,” Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte, XLII (1951), 160–174Google Scholar. This statement is on page 173.

44. On Charles' conciliar policy vide Korte, August, Die Konzilspolitik Karls V in den Jahren 1538–1543 (Göttingen, 1905)Google Scholar, dissertation. Also published as “No. 85” in its Schriften by the Verein für Reformationsgeschichte.

45. Contarini to Farnese, July 17, 1541: Pastor ed., loc., cit., 496.

46. Jedin, , Geschichte des Konzils von Trient, I, 313.Google Scholar

47. The following are most useful in studying this long vexed problem: Brieger, Th., “Gropper, Johann,” Allgemeine Encycolopädie der Wissenschaften, 1. Sektion, Bd. 92, S. 218ff.Google Scholar; van Gulik, Wilhelm, Johannes Gropper (1503 bis 1559) (Freiburg i. B., Herder, 1906)Google Scholar; Lipgens, Walter, Kardinal Johannes Gropper, 1503–1559: und die Anfänge der Katholischen Reform in Deutschland (Münster, Aschendorff, 1951Google Scholar, Reformations geschichtliche Studien und Texte); Pastor, Ludwig, Die kirchlichen Reunionsbestrebungen während der Regierung Karls V (Freiburg i. B., Herder, 1879), 235, 241.Google Scholar

48. I have not been able to see Linsenmann, Albrecht, “Albertus Pighius und sein theologischer Standpunkt” Tübinger Theologische Quartalschrift, IV (1866), 571ff.Google Scholar

49. von Hefele, Carl Joseph, Conciliengeschichet (Freiburg i. B., Herder, 1890), 937Google Scholar. The question of Contarini's beliefs about double justification and his theological development in general are treated by Rückert, Hanns, Die theologische Entwicklung Gasparo Contarines (Bonn, Marcus und Weber, 1926).Google Scholar

50. Hefele, op. cit., 936.

51. Varrentrapp, C., Hermann von Wied und sein Reformationsversuch in Köln (Leipzig, 1878).Google Scholar

52. Hatzfeld, Lutz, “Dr. Gropper, die Wetterauer Grafen und die Reformation in Kurköln 1537–1547,” Archiv jür Kulturgeschichte XXXVI (1954), Heft 2, 208–230Google Scholar. Hatzfeld shows very clearly how important it is to keep in mind in this period, besides Catholic “Reform” and Protestant “Reformation,” the Realpolitik of the different princes. Gropper' importance as the chief opponent of the archbishop's reform tendencies remains, however, unshaken despite Hatzfeld' efforts to disprove the views of Lipgens. Vide Lipgens, op. cit.

53. Vide supra p. 7.

54. cf. Gulik, op. cit., 70–71.

55. Contarini to Farnese, April 28, 1541, Pastor ed., loc. cit., 361–371. Melanchthon was also of this opinion, vide, Pastor, , Reunionsbestrebungen, 235, 241.Google Scholar

56. Jedin, Hubert, Contarini und Camaldoli (Roma, Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 1953)Google Scholar. Cf., also by the same author, Kardinal Contarini als Kontroverstheologe (Münster i. W., Aschendorff, 1949).Google Scholar

57. Contarini to Farnese, May 3, 1541: Pastor ed., loc. cit., 372.

58. Morone to Farnese, May 3, 1541: Dittrich, ed., Regesten und Briefe, 177–178.Google Scholar

59. Ibid.

60. Contarini to Farnese, July 26, 1541: Schultze ed., loc. cit., 183–184.

61. Ibid.

62. Dandino to Contarini, March 25, 1541: Dittrich, ed., Regesten und Briefe, 160.Google Scholar

63. Quirinus, A. M., “Diatriba, ” Epistolarum Reginaldi Poli, Pars III, lxi.Google Scholar

64. Pastor, , Geschichte der Päpste, V, 305Google Scholar. Janssen, Johannes, Geschichte des deutschen Volkes (Freiburgi. B., 1899), III, 501.Google Scholar

65. Contarini to Dandino, April 1, 1541: Dittrich ed., op. cit., 318–319.

66. Contarini to the cardinal of Ferrara, April 12, 1541 Ibid., 167.

67. The cardinal of Mantua to Contarini, May 17, 1541: Quirini ed., op. cit., III, cclxxviii-cclxxxiii.

68. Contarini to nuntius in France, June 2, 1541: Dittrich ed., op. cit., 191–192.

69. Contarini to nuntius in France, June 12, 1541: Ibid., 197.

70. Contarini to Dandolo, July 1541: Brieger, , “Zur Correspondenz Contarini' während seiner deutschen Legation” Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte, III (1879), 519–521.Google Scholar

71. Ibid., 521.

72. Contarini to Farnese, March 16, 1541: Schultze ed., loc. cit., 156–158.

73. Ibid., 157.

74. Ibid., 156.

75. “Imperoche, quando Cesare volesse tender a via non buona, potró molto valermi dell'autorità loro et altri Cathci.” Ibid., 157.

76. Francesco Contarini to the Venetian senate, March 26, 1541: Dittrich ed., op. cit., 161–162.

77. Contarini to Farnese, March 30, 1541: Schultze ed., loc. cit., 164–166.

78. Morone to Farnese, May 23, 1541: Dittrich, Fr.ed. “Die Nuntiaturberichte Giovanni Morone's,” Historisches Jahrbuch, IV, 463–465.Google Scholar

79. Contarini to Farnese, June 19, 1541: Pastor, ed., “Die Korrespondenz des Kardinals Contarini,” Historisches Jahrbuch, I, 483–486.Google Scholar

80. Brandi, , Karl V, I, 386Google Scholar. Nun aber änderte sich offenbar etwas im tiefsten Innern des Kaisers …wir dürfen annehmen, dass er im Grunde seines Wesens in diesen Tagen, nicht wie in Augsburg aus Enttäuschung und gekränktem Hoheitsgefühl, sondern aus wachsender Einsicht in die Natur der Dinge an der Durchführbarkeit einer Einigung Deutschlands mit friedlichen Mtteln zu verzweifeln begann, dass er jetzt—aber erst jetzt, nachdem er alles versucht hatte—auch die Wege der Herzöge von Braunschweig und Bayern zu gehen geneit war, sobald die allgemeine Lage es ihm ermöglichte.

81. Farnese to Contarini, June 23, 1541: Dittrich, ed., Regesten und Briefe, 203Google Scholar

82. Contarini to Farnese, July 28, 1541: Ibid., 345–346.

83. Contarini to Dondolo, July 1541: Brieger ed., loc. cit., 521

84. Wiedemann, Theodor, Dr. Johann Eck (Regensburg, 1865).Google Scholar

85. Eck to Farnese, April 1, 1541: Dittrich, ed., Regesten und Briefe, 162Google Scholar: “Mitiores facti sunt. Cur autem non vocer Ratisbonam, miror: iniussus non venio.”

86. Contarini to Farnese, April 18, 1541: Pastor ed., loc. cit., 365–366.

87. Vide Contarini's letters to Eck to see the skillful manner in which the Venetian guided the Bavarian. Contarini to Eck, April 24, 1541: Dittrich, ed., op. cit., 310–311. Also Contarini to Eck, May 26, 1540: Ibid, 311. As an example of Contarini' salesmanship,—even before the colloquy had begun, —Contarini to Eck, January, 6, 1541: Ibid, 314.

Verum vehemente commotus sum, quod ex tuis literis intellexi parum te spei habere, futuram esse reconciliationem animorum in hoc religionis negotio nobilissimae istius vestrae nationis, neque hoc schisma, quod inimicus homi fecit, ut in evangelio, in ecclesia Christi resarciendum esse nostra hae tempestate … Verum, doctissime Echi, etiam in causa desperata non est omnino viro christiano in spem eitam contra spem …”

88. Blatter, August, Die Tätigkeit Melanchthons bei den Unionsversuchen 1539–1547 (Bern, Genossenschafts-Buchdruckerei, 1899), dissertation.Google Scholar

89. Contarini to Farnese, April 28, 1541: Pastor ed., loc. cit., 361–371

90. Contarini to Dandolo, July 1541: Brieger ed., loc. cit., 520: “midisse poi havere notato, che si diceva in questo libro quod Deus erat causa efficiens nostrae salutis et Christus erat causa subefficiens, il che a lui pareva essere errore Ariano.”

91. Ibid., 520, “…io gli risposi che il libro stava bene, perché intendeva di Cristo come uomo, il quale dal Damasceno et molti altri Theologi ci chiama: instrumentum primum divinitatis, et però si poteva chiamare subefficiens causa: resto queto.” The last two words are amazing indeed in connection with Eck.

92. Morone to Farnese, April 28, 1541: Dittrich ed., op. cit., 174.

93. Morone to Farnese, May 3, 1541: Ibid., 177. Cf. Jedin, , Geschichte des Konzils von Trient, I, 308.Google Scholar

94. Contarini to the cardinal of Mantua, May 3, 1541: Dittrich ed., op. cit., 177.

95. Contarini to Farnese, May 13, 1541: Pastor ed., loc. cit., 383–387. Contarini to Farnese, May 30, 1541: Dittrich ed., op. cit., 190.

96. Contarini to Farnese, May 30, 1541; Ibid., 190. Cervini to Contarini, July 14, 1541; Ibid., 198.

97. Johann Eck, Apologia pro Reverend. et Illustris. Principibus Catholicis, ac alijs ordinibus Imperij adversus mucores et calumnias Buceri, super actis Comitiorum Ratisponae. Apologia pro Reverendiss. se. ap. Legato et Cardinale, Casparo Contareno (Ingolstadij Baioriae excusa. MD. XLII), p. cxxx.

Ex charitate et nimia mansuetudine incomparabilis ille vir legatus pontificius persuasit sibi meliora de Bucero et socijs, futurum scilicet, ut aliquando resipiscerent: at si ista mecum contulisset, admonuissem eum de S. Paulo, qui optime novit haereticorum obstinationem.

98. Blatter, , Die Thdtigkeit Melanchthons bei den Unionsversuchen, 151Google Scholar, “Der Kaiser hatte also den Landgrafen ebenso nötig wie dieser die Gnade des Reichsoberhauptes in seiner misslichen Angelegenheit gut brauchen konnte.”

There is great disagreement as to who actually made the first move. Pastor in 1879 claimed Gropped had begun the theological conversations on the orders of von Wied, Hermann, Pastor, , Die kirchlichen Reunionsbestrebungen, 241Google Scholar. In a later work Pastor insisted that the landgrave had been the originator, Pastor, , Geschichte der Päpste, V, 298Google Scholar. Gulik gives both sides and there is as much choice for one as for the other, Gulik, , Johannes Gropper, 70–71.Google Scholar

99. Vide supra p. 7.

100. Beccatelli, Lodovico, Vita di Gasparo Contarini (Brixiae, Rizzardi, 1748), p. cxviii.Google Scholar

101. Baum, Johann Wilhelm, Capito und Butzer, Strassburgs Reformatoren (Elberfeld, Friderichs, 1860).Google Scholar

102. Contarini to Farnese, April 18, 1541: Pastor ed., loc cit., 365–366.

103. Negri to an anonymous, April 30, 1541; Victor Schultze ed., “Fünfzehn Depeschen aus Regensburg vom 10. März bis 28. Juni 1541,” Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte, III (1879), 637–640.Google Scholar

104. Contarini to Farnese, May 23, 1541; Dittrich ed., op. cit., 185–186. Contarini to Farnese, June 24, 1541; Ibid., 204.

105. It is rather amusing to contrast the two accounts. Gulik, op. cit., 71.

Gropper berichtet (Wahrhaftig Antwort, fol. 38b): ‘Und deweil dan die handlung sich in lenge verzoge, so begerte er (Butzer) wol, dass derr herr Sekretary und ich ihn sampt … (Capito) … anhören und uns mit ihnen in ein verträut gesprech einlassen wölten: daraus ist der herr Sekretary, doch nitt on fürwissen seiner herren bewagt worden, solchs mir zukennen zu geben.’ Ganz entgegengesetzt lautet die Darstellung Butzers. (De Concilio, fol. 2b): ‘Vuormacia e vero numquam ab illo vel etiam a Gerhardo Secretario quicquam de Colloquio secretiore inter nos instituendo vel monui vel petii, imo ipsi duo, me nihil tale cogitante clarissimum Capitonem et me ad hoc Colloquium priores invitarunt.’

106. Beccatelli, op. cit., p. cxviii.

Et Martino Bucero andando a visitare il Legato disse proprio cosí: Reverendissime Domine, utrinque peccatum est, dum nos quaedamnimis obstinate defendimus, contravero abusus multos vos non corrigitis, sed Domino concedente veritas illustrabitur, et ad concordiam deveniemus.

107. Contarini to Farnese, May 3, 1541; Pastor ed., loc. cit., 372–375.

108. Morone to Farnese, May 3, 1541; Dittrich ed., op. cit., 177–178. Morone to Farnese, May 11, 1541; Dittrich, ed., “Die Nuntiaturberichte Giovanni Morone's,” Historisches Jahrbuch, IV, 455–460.Google Scholar

109. Butzer to Martin Frecht, July 5, 1541; Lenz, Maxed., Der Briefwechsel Landgraf Philipps mit Bucer (Leipzig. Hirzel, 1880), IIGoogle Scholar, 25n, “Jamlegato Antichristi onus grave impositum est. Ante enim privatim librum approbavit, nunc palam id non audebit.” Lenz also helps to clarify the matter of who first started the discussions from which the Regensburg Book sprang. Without Philip of Hesse's support they would never have reached an end, according to the landgrave himself.

Unterredung des Landgrafen mit Granvella und Naves. 7. Juni … Zum andern solte s.f.g. in der religionsachen den fleis thun, der s.f.g. moglich were, den auch s.f.g. mit Got und gutem gewissen thun konte.—Darauf hat sein f.g. zufelliglich geantwortet, so f.g. het's gethan, sonst wer es mit dem privato colcoquio so weit nicht komen. (Ibid., III, 86).

110. Bucer, Martin, Acta Colloquii in Comitiis Imperii Ratisponae habiti (Argentorati, mense September M.D. XLI), 70Google Scholar. Vt ergo Imperat. Maiestas acta colloquij expendenda tradidisset legato Romano, Gaspari Contareno, viro quidem aetate, eruditione et moribus grauissimo. et reverendo: sed qui, quid persona, quam Roma, pontifex ei imposuisset, requireret, plus satis consideraverit.

111. Contarini to Farnese, March 20, 1541; Schultze, ed., “Dreizehn Depeschen Contarini's,” Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte, III, 162–164Google Scholar. “Di Saxonia disse etiam, che verrebbe.” Ibid., 162.

112. For the unusual importance of these counselors for the course of the Reformation vide Kolde, Theodor, Der Kanzler Brück und seine Bedeutung für die Entwicklung der Reformation (Hallen, Perthes, 1874), dissertation.Google Scholar

113. Bretschneider, Carolus Gottlieb ed., Document #2162, Corpus Reformatorum (Halis Saxonum, Schwetschke, 1837), IV, 123–132.Google Scholar

114. Ibid., 126.

115. Ibid., 128.

116. Ibid., 128.

117. Pastor, , Die kirchlichen Reunionsbestrebungen, 278Google Scholar. See also his introduction to “Die Korrespondenz des Cardinals Contarini,” Historisches Jahrbuch, I, 324.Google Scholar

118. Bretschneider ed., “Philippum Melanchthon belangend,” op. cit., IV, 131. The apprehension on the part of the elector with regard to Melanchthon must be understood against the background of the latter's controversy with Cordatus in 1537 which had left the elector highly suspicious of Melanchthon. Vide also Blatter, Die Tätigkeit Melanchthons bei den Unionsversuchen, passim; Döllinger, J., Die Reformation, ihre innere Entwicklung und ihre Wirkungen (Arnheim, Witz, 1854), III, 317–321Google Scholar. Hildebrandt, Franz, Melanchthon: Alien or Ally? (Cambridge, U. P.; New York, Macmillan, 1946)Google Scholar although not referring directly to Ratisbon casts many valuable insights.

119. But cf. Dittrich, , Regesten und Briefe, 331.Google Scholar

120. Pastor, op. cit., 242.

121. Contarini to an anonymous cardinal (Caraffa or Aleander Brieger thinks it is the former), July 22, 1541; Brieger, ed., “Zur Correspondenz Contarini's,” Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte, III, 516–519Google Scholar. “Quanto … delle opere precedenti la gratia … il Melantone m'haveva scritto due capitoli buoni …” Ibid., 517. I have not been able to find any other reference to these. Hanns Rückert, however, found another reference to them in a letter of Pole to Contarini, June 10, 1537; Quirini ed., op. cit., II, 68. Rückert eliminates the possibility that they could be the Confutatio and insists “Also muss sich die oben angeführte Stelle aus dem Briefe Poles aufeine andere uns nicht erhaltene Auseinandersetzung Contarinis mit Melanchthon beziehen.” Rückert, Hanns, Die Theologische Entwicklung Gasparo Contarinis (Bonn, Marcus und Weber, 1926)Google Scholar, 6n.

How little Contarini's work for concord was understood on the Protestant side can be seen in Calvin's comments. He was also present at Ratisbon as a representative of Strassburg, , Corp. Ref., XXXIX, 173–179Google Scholar. This Protestant misunderstanding of Contarini's role can be traced right through to 1800. Seckendorff, Veit, Ausführliche Historie des Luthertums (Leipzig, Gleditsch, 1714), 1971Google Scholar, has some insight, however. Salig, Christian August, Vollständige Historie der Augsburgischen Confession (Hallen, Renger, 1730), I, 509–516Google Scholar, is typical in hardly mentioning Contarini. Planck, Gottlieb, Geschichte der Entstehung … unsres protestantischen Lehrbegriffs (Leipzig, Crusius, 1798), III, 2, 160–166Google Scholar, completely misunderstands Contarini's role.

122. The Saxon counselors to the Saxon elector, May 5, 1541; Bretschneider ed., op. cit., IV, 254.

123. Quoted in Pastor, , Reunionsbestrebungen, 241Google Scholar. On this delegation to see Luther cf. also Brieger, Theodor, Gasparo Contarini und das Concordienwerk des Jahres 1541 (Gotha, Perthes, 1870), dissertation.Google Scholar

124. Vide footnote 121.

125. Vide Supra pp. 4–5.

126. Contarini to the cardinal di Rimini, April 2, 1541; Dittrich ed., op. cit., 163, “… perche io da me non ho et le spese sono grandi et sopra le forzemie.” In a similar vein—Contarini to the datarius Capodiferro, April 2, 1541: Ibid., 163.

127. That Contarini was depending on funds from other sources is revealed by his receipt for 500 gold scudi received from a bill of exchange originating in Venice and drawn upon the Augsburg banker Baumgartner. It is dated four days after the despatches cited in the preceding footnote. Dittrich ed., “Quittung für 500 Scudi in Gold,” op. cit., 167.

128. Contarini to Farnese, April 3, 1541; Schultze ed., loc. cit., 166–169.

129. Pole to Contarini, April 24, 1541; Quirini ed., op. cit., 22.

130. Ibid., 22.

131. Paul III did in fact later in the year travel in that direction in order to meet the emperor upon his entry into Italy.

132. Vide supra pp. 4–6.

133. Contarini to Farnese, April 14, 1541; Dittrich ed., op. cit., 168–169. See also Maimbourg, Louis, Histoire de Lutheranisme (Paris, 1681), III, 251.Google Scholar

134. Contarini to Farnese, May 3, 1541; Dittrich ed., op. cit., 177.

135. Quirini ed., “Gasparis Contareni Cardinalis Tractatus seu Epistola de Justificatione,” op. cit., III, pp. cic-ccxi. Quirini also gives the passages suppressed or altered in the Venetian edition of 1589 of Contarini's works and compares these changes or suppressions in a chart with the Parisian edition of 1571. Contarini's brief introduction to the “Epistle” was discovered and published by Dittrich, op. cit., 332.

136. For important auxiliary material for this article see Dittrich, Fr., Miscellanea Ratisbonensia a. 1541 (Brunsbergae, Typis Heyneanis — R. Siltmann, 1892).Google Scholar

137. Niccolo Ardinghello to Contarini, May 29, 1541; Quirini ed., op. cit., III, pp. ccxxxi-ccxl. Brandi. op. cit., I, 385, claims that the article was submitted to the whole consistory on May 27 and was censured by it.

138. Niccolo Ardinghello to Contarini, May 29, 1541; Quirini ed., op. cit., III, p. ccxxxii.

139. Cf. the pathetic letter in which Pole sought to excuse his absence to Contarini, Quirini ed., op. cit., III, 26–30.

140. de Leva, Giuseppe, “La Concordia Religiosa di Ratisbone e il Cardinale Gaspare Contarini,” Archivio Veneto IV (1872), 5–36.Google Scholar

141. Ardinghello to Contarini, June 15, 1541 (erroneously dated through printer's error “MDXL”); Quirini ed., op. cit., III, ccxl-ccxlix.

142. Ibid., ccxli and ccxliii.

143. Ibid., ccxliv.

144. This comes out very clearly in a letter by Contarini to Cardinal Gonzaga, July 19, 1541; Friedenburg, W.ed., “Der Briefwechsel Gasparo Contarini's mit Ercole Gonzaga nebst einem Briefe Giovanni Carafa's,” Quellen und Forschungen aus Italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken, II, 216Google Scholar.

Io hebbi heri una brevissima letera di V. S. Rma de 7 in loco de una longa, la quale exspectava in la materia de iustificazione … ma forse etiam essa è scandalizata, come intendo essers molti a Roma, questo Christo fu sempre scandalo et pur sempre ha vinto ogni obstaculo! spero quando che io parleró cum lei, et in corte cum quelli che si sono scandalizati, che li satisferó di modo che si acqueteranno.

145. Beccadelli, op. cit., cxxxv. della Casa, Giovanni, Vita Gasparis Contareni (Brixiae, Rizzardi, 1748), clxxxviGoogle Scholar. Eubel erroneously gives September 1 as the date: Eubel, Conrad, Hierarchia catholica medii aevi (Monasterii, sumptibus et typis librariae Regensbergianae, 1910), III, 26.Google Scholar

146. Contarini himself, many years before, while Venetian ambassador to Charles V, had met and defeated the Spanish Inquisition while in Spain. He gave, in his report to Venice, a very spirited account of the energetic manner in which he brought about the release of a group of merchants of Venice who were being held because they had brought into Spain and were selling a Latin, Hebrew and Syriac Bible with the exposition of Rabbi Salomon. Contarini immediately spoke to Charles and to his council but was given little hope by them. Finally he was permitted to address the council of the Inquisition and delivered a speech on the customs of Italy in such matters that must have made an impression, for the Venetians were released that very night. Contarini to the Venetian senate, February 7, 1524; Sanuto, ed., I Diarii, XXXVIII, 202.Google Scholar

147. Ranke, , Die römischen Päpste, I, 111Google Scholar. That the Pauline and Augustinian emphases supported by Contarini are, however, by no means dead in the Italy of today comes out clearly in much devotional material, e.g. Antoniano, Orfanotrofio “Cristo Re” ed., Pasqua con noi (Messina, 1957)Google Scholar.

Another statement that is apropos is by Bainton, Roland H., “Luther and the Via Media at the Marburg Colloquy,” Lutheran Quarterly, I (11, 1949), 394–398Google Scholar.

A group which thus stands in the middle is advantageously situated to operate as a reconciler of extremes. Sharing in a measure the view of each, it can seek to interpret the one to the other; but the median position has also its disadvantages for the mediator, because an advance in one direction produces commonly a recoil in the other. Should the middle join hands with the right, then the door is closed to the left, and vice versa. To prevent a partial unity at the expense of a complete schism, the middle party commonly avoids going too far in either direction, and thus the supreme achievement of the via media is that it succeeds in remaining the via media.