Italian Friends Grotius, De Dominis, Sarpi and the church

HARM-JAN van DAM's-Gravenhage

I

On the shortest day of the year 1624, in Rome, a large crowd shuffled from the church of Santa Maria sopra Minerva to the nearbyCampo de'Fiori, preceded by a rattling cart. When the curious hadtaken their place around the square ─many of them foreigners, for the next year was to be a Holy Year─, ecclesiastical officials took a portrait and a number of books from the cart and threw them on a funeral pyre made ready in advance. Then they lifted the coffin that had remained on the cart, opened it, drew out the greater part of a body and showed the dead man to the people. The body too was put on the pyre, and then it was lit1.

This was the end of Marc'Antonio De Dominis, former Archbishop of Spalato and famous all over Europe as a heretic and a turncoat. He had died fully ten weeks earlier, during the trial which the Inquisition had instituted against him, but not as a result of it: seven surgeons, Italians and foreigners, summoned by the authorities, had pronounced that he had died a natural death. The body was embalmed and the trial continued, ending in De Dominis' condemnation for heresy.

Exceptionally, we do not know what Hugo Grotius did on that exact day; he may well have been busy overseeing the printing of his famous De iure belli ac pacis, to appear in 1625. Buthe was interested in the case, if only because De Dominis had

1    ? Ph. van Limborch Historia Inquisitionis (Amsterdam 1692) 361-3.

1

given him a hard time in prison five years before, and he was soon informed of De Dominis' fate2.

One connection between these two men exists in their writings on the relationship between church and state, and on ecclesiastical polity, and it is from this angle that I wish to discuss Grotius' relations with two Italians, De Dominis and also Paolo Sarpi.

Grotius wrote many books and pamphlets on church and state, mainly in the years 1609-1618, the time of the religious troubles in the Netherlands between the Remon-strants, to which Grotius, then one of the most important politicians of Holland, belonged, and the orthodox Calvinists.I shall concentrate on his main work in this field, De imperio summarum potestatum circa sacra, composed between 1614 and 1617, and containing the most comprehensive account of Grotius' views on state, church and faith3.

De imperio could not be published when it was finished, because of Grotius' arrest in 1618, and the first edition did not appear until 1647, two years after its author's death. That is not to say that it was completely unknown before that time: a manuscript version circulated in England from 1617 onwards and quite a few copies were made by the Parisian erudites amongst whom Grotius moved for most of his life from 1621 onwards. Scholars kept pressing him to publish this important work. In the late 1630's Grotius took up work on De imperio and gathered new material. His renewed interest in the subject is attested by some minor tracts on politico-religiousthemes like the Observations on the political Aphorisms by Campanella4, andalso by the fact that he was working on Sarpi and De Dominis.

2    ? BW II 426, 21.II.1625, to his brother Willem.

3    ? TMD nrs. 894-904. The text is in OTh III pp. 203-88. On De Imperio, see Henk J.M. Nellen and Edwin Rabbie"Hugo Grotius as a Theologian: a Bibliography" in: Nellen-Rabbie 228-9, also H.-J. van Dam ibid. 20-39, P. Borsch-berg "Zur Entstehung von Grotius' "De Imperio Summarum Potestatum circa sacra"", Zeitschr. d. Savigny-Stiftung f. Rechts-gesch. kan. Abt. 79 (1993), 342-79, H.-J. van Dam, "The Genesis of Grotius' "De Imperio Summarum Potestatum circasacra" and the Manuscripts" ibid. 1995, 279-317. I am preparing a critical edition with English translation and commentary.

1

Before I sketch the contents, the scope and the approach of De imperio, a few remarks are in order: did Grotius know Italian, for instance? This question is of some importance forhis knowledge of Sarpi. Yes, he did: when his confiscated library was assessed in 1620, it contained some Italian books,including a dictionary to show that these were not only for display5. Grotius never visited Italy, but his contacts date from an early stage: his first full-length book, written before he had turned sixteen, was a Latin translation of a Dutch book by the engineer Stevin, dedicated to the Doge, senate and people of Venice. In his preface Grotius insisted, not for the last time, on the similarities between the Dutch Republic and Venice, not only as seafaring nations, but also in respect of politics. Grotius was one of the most fervent propagandists of the `Batavian myth', the concept of the Dutchas a free people, never subjected to the Romans. The `Venetianmyth' cultivated in Venice was its exact counterpart6. Shortly after the Interdict (1606-09), when Venice had proved her independence of contemporary Rome and the Pope, the Dutch sentan official diplomatic mission to Venice, led by Grotius' friend Cornelis van der Myle. He must have told Grotius of histalks to fra Paolo Sarpi, state theologian of Venice and the major force behind Venice's opposition to the Pope7.

4    ? Observata in Aphorismos Campanellae politicos, TMD 680-3. I was tempted to include a discussion of Campanella andGrotius' notes, but for reasons of space and of coherence have postponed this subject.

5    ? P.C. Molhuysen, "De bibliotheek van Hugo de Groot in 1618" in Meded. Nederl. Akad. van Wetensch. afd. Letterk. 6.3,Amsterdam 1943, nr. 205: il Consolato del Mare, nr. 216: an Italian dictionary, perhaps nr. 199: Guiccardin. Later Grotius regularly received Italian newsletters: e.g. BW XI pp. 700-2, 704-8 etc.

6    ? ΛIΜΕΝΕΥΡΕΤIΚΗ, sive portuum investigandorum ratio..., Leiden 1599, TMD 403; its preface is dated 01.IV.1599. See also the introduction to Grotius' juvenile work De Republica Emendanda in Grotiana 5 (1984), 45-6 and De Rep. emend. § 1, also Grotius' De Antiquitate (TMD 691-710A) § 35, cf. § 37. On the "Venetian Myth in general: E.O.G. Haitsma Mulier The Myth of Venice and Dutch Republican Thought in the 17th Century, Assen 1980. On Grotius' Italian connections: BW VI 540, nr. 2485, of 21-02-1636: Grotius asks his brother Willem for some books amicis Italis... ─nam mihi habeo─ ...

7    ? See Haitsma Mulier 63 ff. Many anti-papal pamphlets about the interdict, most of them by Sarpi, are found in Melchior Goldast's Monarchia (Hanau 1611-14), a book used by Grotius, a.o. in composing De imperio, see BW I 362 (14.VIII.1614).

1

Grotius felt akin to Italian ecclesiastical authors like Sarpi and De Dominis and he was under the impression that theyshared his irenical ideas and generally agreed with the Remon-strants. However, just as in Grotius' similar `love-affair' with the English church8, the interest, as we shall see, was entirely one-sided.

II

The main point of Grotius' De Imperio, one of his longest books,is the principle that all power in religious matters belongs to the secular authorities, whether a monarch or a body like the States. Like De iure belli ac pacis, this is a very systematic book. It is divided by the author himself into twelve chapters, subdivided into over 200 paragraphs. Grotius sets about to prove his proposition in a highly abstract manner, taking a typically legal stance, while drawing on Aristotelianmaterial. He makes no fundamental distinction between secular and religious matters; rather, he approaches the subject from the notions of authority, the functions, actions and commands of authority, and the distinctions within these categories. There is no power (imperium) without obligation and coercion. By carefully distinguishing regimen, giving rules, into severalspecies, Grotius concludes that priests can only give advice or tell us what God wishes, but that the secular authorities alone can issue coercive rules. They are bound by God's laws only, but even if they break these, the people (including priests) may not resist. The powers of this world will render account to God in the next one. The whole book is permeated bywhat constitutes the special subject of its sixth chapter, thedifference between a right and the use of it: again and again Grotius states that the highest authority possesses the

8    ? H. Trevor-Roper From Counter-Reformation to Glorious Revolution (London 1992) 47: Grotius' love-affair with England: "a romance in two chapters with an epilogue".

1

highest power; the way he handles this is important, but not essential. This approach is the same in De iure belli ac pacis; indeed, it is the way in which a lawyer would tackle a problem. This is the drift of the first six chapters. As a whole, they provide the theoretical foundation for the other six; especially the first two chapters, about power and function. One should realise, however, that Grotius' ar-guments, whether abstract or not, always abound in concrete examples.

The second part of the book is less abstract: it deals with things like councils and synods: the ruler has the right to choose and summon the participants, be present and sanctionor reject a synod's decisions. Whether he is wise to make fulluse of all these rights is another question. It is obvious that Grotius is thinking of the impending Dutch National Synod, which he, together with the States of Holland despera-tely and vainly opposed. However, here as elsewhere in De imperio, the treatment is detached, and the claim is upheld that this is a theoretical, general monograph on authority in religious affairs written by an impartial scholar and statesman. Grotius also speaks of the creation of priests and bishops, where, according to him, every step except for ordination can be taken by the ruler. In this and other chapters the reader is almost engulfed by historical examples and quotations, including, not surprisingly, the medieval investiture controversy. Elsewhere Grotius concludes that bishops can be useful, but that they are not instituted by divine right. It is this, characteristic kind of reasoning that was so eminently suited to infuriate Grotius' opponents on both sides: determining first that something is not essential or God-given, and then prudently discussing its advantages and disadvantages. Grotius' permanent distinction between a right and the use of it stems from the same attitude; and so do his insistence on defining as few dogma's as possible, and his claim that there are only a few

1

essentials in faith and many things indifferent (adiaphora), all of them themes which pervade De imperio. It also explains why Grotius found it so easy to borrow from books even when hedisagreed with the overall views of their authors: he explicitly states that there is nothing wrong with taking a good argument from a Roman Catholic book9.

III

So far we have dealt only with De imperio, but what about De Dominis10? Born in 1560 and educated by the Jesuits he had reached the summit of his ecclesiastical career when in 1602 he was appointed Archbishop of Spalato (Split), now somewhere in former Yugoslavia. At that time his discontent with the Roman Catholic church and its organization took shape, and he started research for his massive book De Republica Ecclesiastica, a work which covers the same ground as De imperio11. He spent much time in Venice, especially during and after the Interdict. There he fell into the hands of the English ambassador, Sir Dudley Carleton, later ambassador to the Dutch States, and oneof Grotius' most bitter enemies. De Dominis, like Grotius, felt called upon to restore the unity of the church, he was opposed to papal authority, he had problems with his bishops,

9    ? BW I 529, 08.IX.1617, to Geo. Lingelsheim.

10    ? The best book on De Dominis I know is Malcolm 1984, based on all the primary sources, and neatly distinguishing propaganda from fact. The largest single collection of sources is Ljubic 1870; for some new material, see Ed. E. de Mas Marc'Antonio De Dominis. La pace della religione, Pisa 1990 (series Eirenikon nr.3). For an introduction, see also Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani 33.642-50 (S. Cavazza). I was unable to find A. Russo Scritti giurisdizionalistici inediti (Napoli 1965).

11    ? In the Ad Lectorem Autor of his De republica ecclesiastica of 1617 De Dominis says that he began the work some 15 years earlier. William Bedell, chaplain to the English ambassador in Venice, appears to have seen part of the work there around 1610: Malcolm 37. In July 1613, Gessi, the papal nuncio in Venice, tried to frighten De Dominis out of the idea of printing a book De auctoritate summi pontificis, see Ljubic p. 132 and Malcolm 41. In May 1614, Dudley Carleton, then English ambassador in Venice, sent some part of De republica ecclesiastica to King James, "part of a far greater volume, whereof I had the vew about two yeares since; and sent your Majesty the arguments of as many chapters of his book as were then written..." (CSP Venice XVI 40).

1

and he wished to publish his book: shortly after 1610 he decided to emigrate to England. The choice was a natural one: of all the Protestant churches the Anglican church most resembled Roman Catholicism; and King James himself had set forth his own ideas about church government in a controversy with two of De Dominis' formidable enemies, the Pope and Cardinal Bellarmine12. After years of secret planning all around, De Dominis left his country and his church in autumn 1616. The first part of his voyage, to Heidelberg, was adventurous, to the point of disguises and near arrest. There he published a pamphlet to defend his desertion: as his main reasons he gave his desire for unity in the church and his disgust with the Roman Catholic church and her disastrous innovations in faith. He had become convinced of the necessityto return to the church of the first centuries. The pamphlet included a synopsis of his forthcoming De Republica Ecclesiastica, which he carried with him in manuscript13. Needless to say, both this Profectionis Consilium and his, as yet unpublished, De Republica, were immediately placed on the Index. By contrast, all over Protestant Europe cheers of joy were heard: this defected prelate was a mighty weapon against the common enemy.In England the desertion of De Dominis was considered as Carleton's masterstroke14. The pamphlet was read everywhere: itreached The Netherlands before its author did, and it was immediately translated into Dutch by Grotius' friend Wten-

12    ? Triplici nodo, triplex cuneus, or An Apologie for the Oath of Allegiance, Against the two Breves of Pope Paulus Quintus, and the Late

Letter of Cardinal Bellarmine... (1607, Latin edition 1607), and An Apologie for the Oath of Allegiance...now Acknowledged by the Aut-hour, the Right High and Mightie Prince, Iames...(1609, Latin edition 1609).

13    ? See Malcolm 41-6. Many documents based on the investigation of De Dominis' flight from Venice by the papal nuncio are in Ljubic 146 ff. The pamphlet is dated 20 September 1616, the day of his flight. Although allcopies seem to have been printed in Heidelberg, it is remarkable that De Dominis' nephew Matteo, who accompanied him for a few days, but returned to Venice, testified that already in Bergamo he saw a printed version of the pamphlet: when the interrogators asked him whether his uncle had given anything into print on the way, he denied all knowledge, except `in Bergamo in casa del signor capitano una scrittura in stampa, qual diceva esser un manifesto del detto monsignor', which he identified as the declaration which was shown him (Ljubic 155).

14    ? `..one of [Carleton's] masterpieces': CSP Domestic 28.XII.1616

1

bogaert, the leader of the Remonstrant faction15. Most of the sentiments expressed in it fit the Remonstrants exactly; partsof it could have been written by Grotius himself: his study ofthe fathers and the early church councils had persuaded De Dominis that the early church, uncontaminated by Roman Catholic hierarchy, was the only true church. There should be a reunion of the so-called heretical churches and the erring Roman Catholic church into one church of Christ. This is possible if there is agreement over the essentials of faith; adiaphora should not be adopted as articles of faith. The church should have no jurisdiction at all.

After Heidelberg De Dominis' found his voyage less exciting, for he lay ill in the ship's hold, yearning for a fortifying panatella alla Veneziana. But he had to wait until he arrived in The Hague on 19 November 1616, where Lady Carleton personally prepared him one. In Holland he was entertained by the stadtholder Maurice, the States General and all the best people. He sat for the Dutch painter Van Mierevelt, and was invited to a formal dinner in Rotterdam, where he briefly met the city pensionary, Hugo Grotius. After five hectic days he sailed for England in a warship put at his disposal by Mauri-ce16.

De Dominis set about the edition of his De Republica Ecclesias-tica as soon as he arrived. In this case his own desires corresponded to the plans of the English leaders, and as yet he did not realise that he was merely a pawn in their anti-catholic game. Three of the first copies of De Republica Volume One to come from the press were sent to Carleton, Maurice of Orange and the States General in August 1617, accompanied by amoving letter to the States in which De Dominis admonished the

15    ? Verclaringhe vanden Motiven ende oorsaecken Daar door de E. Heere Marcus Antonius De Dominis...bewogen is geweest 't Pausdom te

verlaten, ende sich herwaerts over te begheven, 's-Gravenhage 1616, Knuttel pamflet 2311. Before the end of 1617 the declaration had run into more than nine Latin editions.

16    ? Letter by De Dominis to his nephew Giov. Bartoli of 23.XI.1617: Ljubic p. 171. Van Mierevelt also painted Grotius, in 1608. Carleton sent the finished portrait to De Dominis in 1617, cf. CSP Domestic 28 May/7 June 1617, also Malcolm 44. On De Dominis meeting Grotius, see Grotius' letter of late October 1617 below.

1

Dutch to resolve their religious disputes. The States in return presented him with two silver cups, for which he thanked them, again recommending peace and charity. It is significant that Grotius, who was imprisoned in August 1618, already possessed a copy of De Republica before his arrest. Couldit have been the one sent to the States? Not less significant is the fact that among Grotius' papers now in Rotterdam copiesof both letters from De Dominis are found, along with one of aletter by King James congratulating De Dominis on his book17.

Grotius himself was no less naive than De Dominis: after the completion of the manuscript of his De Imperio in the summerof 1617, he sent it to England asking a few trusted English divines for their opinion. He received only one, that of John Overall, Dean of St. Paul's, who tried to convey tactfully that his views on bishops and on interference by the ruler in matters of faith would be unacceptable to the King. Grotius belittled the differences18. The most eagerly awaited response never came, that of Lancelot Andrewes, Bishop of Ely. This wasnot surprising, for Andrewes hardly knew Grotius and, a politician to the backbone, he had no intention of getting mixed up in the Dutch troubles, especially not since King James, whom Grotius stubbornly misjudged, looked upon the Remonstrants as troublemakers, heretics and schismatics, who

17    ? Printing of all the copies took until 11 October. The books destined for the Netherlands were sent by way of Carleton, who presented them: CSP Domestic 17 August and 16 October 1617 (O.S.). Later he received a second copy because he had given away his own to the counsellors of the States-General: Malcolm 44. The States passed the book around to the deputies: Res. S.G. 1617-18 nr. 1598. Although they decided to present De Dominis with a silver cup worth 400 guilders (ibid. nr. 1385), they succeeded in getting him two cups for almost the sameprice (cf. ibid. nr. 1664; De Dominis received those before 15 December, when the Venetian ambassador in London knew that the States had given him `alcuni pezzi d'argentaria': Ljubic nr. 145). His first letter to the Statesis in Knuttel, pamphlet 2365 in Dutch. Among Grotius' papers in Rotterdam are two copies of the original letter, a copy of De Dominis' letter of thanks of January the first (O.S) 1618: Gemeentebibliotheek, Hand-schriften der Remonstrantsche Gemeente nr. 932, and a copy of the letter by King James which had accompanied the book and was read in the assembly (Res. SG 1617-18 nr. 1385, cf. CSP Domestic 1611-18 p. 474 and 479): ibid. ms. 1360. When Grotius was imprisoned in Loevestein, he asked his brother-in-law for his copy of De republica ecclesiastica: BW II p. 15, of 14.VI.1619, cf. C.S.M. Rademaker in Quaerendo 2 (1972) p. 6.

18    ? BW I 539 of 05.X.1617, cf. 543 (around 30.X.1617) and 570 (16.IV.1618), both to Overall.

1

infringed on the power of the stadtholder19. Carleton analysed the situation mercilessly : "...the end of this pedantical fellow is nothing but to draw answers from men of place and authority in England with which to stuff his pamphlets, and bywresting the words to his corrupt sense to advantage an ill cause"20. According to him, the Remonstrants were great twisters of words.

At the end of October 1617, Grotius addressed a letter toDe Dominis. In it he reminded him of their brief contact the year before, complimented him on his books and his irenic letters, and complained about Carleton's oration in the StatesGeneral of some weeks earlier: if only King James would changehis mind and send some qualified persons to inform themselves of the real situation21. The results of this letter were disastrous: De Dominis, not knowing what to do with it, showedit to the King, and when he understood what James thought of Grotius, he refused to react. Carleton was informed im-mediately, and demanded his pound of flesh: the letter was interpreted as a discreet attempt to replace Carleton (a fine example of twisting words!) and given to Maurice22. Later, during his interrogations, Grotius was charged time and again

19    ? On Andrewes' (not) reading the manuscript, see the correspondence with Overall: BW I 526, 539, 543, 562. On the relationship between Grotius and Andrewes, more specifically on Grotius' distorted image of Andrewes (`that cool and courtly high churchman'), see the interesting remarks of Trevor-Roper (n. Error: Reference source not found) 52-4, 57-9 (the quotation on p. 59). The correspondence of Carleton is particularlyrevealing: on 24.I.1617 he writes Winwood that `particular persons' wish for the King to write a letter to the stadtholder to encourage him `in his zeal for the maintenance of the true doctrine and the professors thereof against these novellists and their opinions' (Yorke 93). James himself replies that the Calvinists should not give in to `the factious opinions of Vorstius and Arminius', speaking of the Remonstrants as people `whose malice has neither brim nor bottom and whose insolency is insupportable': 26.II.1617 (Yorke p. 102). King Jamesdid in fact draft such a letter to Maurice, giving him the opportunity to refuse to have it sent. Maurice was prudent enough to decline the offer (Yorke 106ff, 111). For James' approval of Maurice's use of all legal meansto put down the Arminians, see also CSP Domestic 22.XII.1617: Sir Edwin Harwood to Carleton. On 21 March 1617 Carleton again criticizes the Remonstrants for twisting James' meaning `as it may appear by Grotius' Oration ofAmsterdam [of 23.IV.1616], and all the other books of that faction...'.

20    ? Ed. M. Lee, Dudley Carleton to John Chamberlain 1603-1624. Jacobean Letters (New Brunswick 1972) p. 254, 02.XII.1617.

21    ? BW I p. 592-3, 30-10-1617. Grotius sent similar letters to his friend Overall (ibid. p. 594), and, of all people, to Lancelot Andrewes (lost (!), but mentioned in the letter to Overall).

1

with wishing to replace Carleton; and he often came back to this letter in later writings, in order to justify himself23. But even apart from Carleton's spite, Grotius' letter was a mistake: De Dominis could hardly be anything but loyal to Carleton24. He was also almost totally unaware of Protestant doctrine, let alone of its political and doctrinal divisions. He may have been told that the Remonstrants were followers of Pelagius, and he knew that, like Saint Augustine, he detested that doctrine25. An English divine judged him "well learned among the papists, not yett as it seameth throughly acquaintedwith the points of religion"26. In fact, when his library in Venice was searched by the Inquisition, not one book by a Protestant author was found. Small wonder that he quotes Calvin from Bellarmine27.

22    ? De Dominis duly reported to Carleton as well: CSP Domestic 2.I.1618, p. 510; that Grotius had mainly complained about Carleton soon became the official interpretation: ibid 512, Nat. Brent to Carleton: `Grotius haswritten to the Archbp. of Spalato and the Bishops of Ely and Coventry [Andrewes and Overall], complaining that,instead of the King's healing religious dissensions, his Ambassador there aggravates them'. Carleton himself smugly writes: `the poor old Archbishop was so suddenly surprised that he spake of the matter to the King, but finding how ill it was there relished, refused to return any answer to Grotius...and indeed he did herein very discreetly...' (Carleton to Chamberlain p. 253, of 13.II.1618). In an earlier letter (08.XI.1617) he had recorded with satisfaction that Andrewes had not reacted: ibid. p. 247: `I thank you very much for that you write me of mylord of Ely, which makes it plain unto me with what fictions and fancies some busy brains and one in particularwhom you name do delude the people', clearly an allusion to Grotius, cf. ibid. p. 250: `Grotius (a busy brain andan instrument for the rest of the Arminians)...'.

23    ? BW II 582 and 583, his first letters from prison (30.VIII.1618, and 13.IX.1618 to Maurice), Verhooren 1-7, 37, 87-100, cf. Apologeticus 378 (TMD 880).

24    ? According to Carleton (Carleton to Chamberlain 253) De Dominis' reason was `perchè mi pareva cosa indegna l'acerbità che lui mostrava contro il ragionamento pubblico di V. Ecc.'.

25    ? In his letter to the Eastern Churches (see below) he rages against (semi-)Pelagianism: p. 952. See also a (later) letter written to De Dominis by Fulgenzio Micanzio in Malcolm 57 (from Petworth Ms. 62.119-25): `I remember that...not only myself but Padre Paolo [Sarpi] had a conceit that...it [Arminianism] ...is a very dangerous doctrine unto the Reformed Religion, and by going along by a Pelagianism it would introduce Jesui-tism...'.

26    ? Malcolm 60.

27    ? Ljubic p. 156, cf. Malcolm 59-60. De Dominis quotes Calvin in De republica ecclesiastica II ch. 2 § 54.

1

De Dominis published the rest of his De Republica Ecclesiastica in two volumes in 1620 and 1622, in addition to other books, some of them very anti-Catholic. Gradually he began to understand that the Anglican church was less ecumenical than he had hoped. When the new pope Gregory XV invited him to comeback to Rome, in 1622, he went, persuading himself (but no oneelse) that he had been away on a kind of diplomatic mission and had never changed his faith. Everyone but the Archbishop himself prepared for the worst. We have seen what happened.

Ironically, Grotius was one of the few Protestants who stuck to his favourable opinion of De Dominis in general. Whenhe criticizes De Dominis' defense of his departure from England, he characteristically adds that this does not detractfrom the value of his good books. In 1639 he again expresses his admiration for De Republica Ecclesiastica28. That these are not empty words is proved by Grotius' notes: throughout his life Grotius excerpted just about everything he read, and we are left with literally thousands of pages in his nearly illegiblehandwriting. They are of great importance for the genesis and sources of his books, whenever it is possible to connect Grotius' notes with a specific book. In the present case we have some twenty pages in a Rotterdam manuscript and in Grotius' private manuscript of De Imperio, now in The Hague, covered by Grotius with notes taken from the second and third part of De Republica. They are undated, but for several reasons Ithink they belong to 1638-39, when Grotius occupied himself with De imperio once more. Grotius took many notes especially

28    ? On the one hand, Grotius instructed his brother Willem to remove a passage on De Dominis from chapter 6 of his Apologeticus, in view of the fact that strange rumours had begun to circulate about the Archbishop (BW II p. 180, 11.III.1622, shortly prior to De Dominis' departure from England; there is no mention of him in thischapter). On the other hand, three months later he is in favour of excerpting from De republica ecclesiastica the parts about the religious troubles in Holland and publishing them (BW II p. 229, 24.VI.1622). On 7 November of the next year (BW II p. 317, where he also speaks of De Dominis' Defensio) he claims that, though De Dominis sometimes speaks too strongly, he remains useful for anyone interested in the unity of the church. Some years later Wtenbogaert sends him a document about De Dominis (BW II p. 484-5, 26.X.1625: `Hierby gaat oock het scriptum aengaende M. Ant. De Dominis', unidentified). Cf. also BW X 4288, 10.IX.1639 to his brother: `...M. Antonius De Dominis, magni vir iudicii, si unum excipias quod Romam ivit'.

1

from books five and six, in the second volume, dealing with church government29.

It is not hard to see why he was interested in this book:it resembles De imperio in many respects. In some sections the correspondences are striking, when both authors quote many of the same authorities, not only about the investiture controversy, but also, for instance, about the reign of philosophers and priests30. It is remotely possible that De Dominis saw a manuscript of Grotius' De Imperio in England, for since 1617 several Anglican prelates had a copy of it, and De Dominis had enough time to rework his volume two. But it is more probable that both draw on common sources. Their views onthe subject often coincide as well: they agree that priests should be chosen not by, but in the presence of the people, that church councils are convoked by the secular ruler, that the church lacks all jurisdiction31.

There are more general points of contact too: De Dominis,as one of the Italian jurisdictionalists (giurisdizionalisti32), exhibits, like Grotius, a legal approach. He too judges coercion essential for imperium. He too distinguishes the regimina, the kinds of rule, in a way resembling Grotius. It isalmost pathetic to see Grotius jotting down out of De Republica: "the rule of priests is like that of physicians" (regunt pastores ut medici), when he had written exactly the same thing himself

29    ? Volume Two of De republica, containing Books V-VI appeared in 1620, Volume Three, with Books VII and IX (sic) in 1622. Autograph notes by Grotius from book V occur in: Rotterdam Gemeentebibliotheek, Handschriften Remonstrantsch-Gereformeerde gemeente Rotterdam Ms. 414 f. 61-67, stopping exactly at the end of V. Notes beginning with book VI occur in: Royal Library The Hague, Ms. 131 C 21, one of the earliest copies of De Imperio.Excerpts of vol. III form the sequel of the notes in the Rotterdam ms., on f. 68-85. There are also a few notesin Amsterdam University Library ms. III C 4, f. 154r. See Van Dam 1995, 292-6 and n. 40.

30    ? The investiture controversy in De imperio 10.24 ff. and De republica 6.7.115. Plato on philosopher-kings and Caesar on Druids in De republica 6.8.2 and De imperio 5.14 and 9.17. Also e.g. Hieronymus on electing bishops inDe republica 3.3.16 and De Imperio 10.11.

31    ? On election: De republica 3.3.7 ff. and De Imperio 10.9 ff., on councils: De republica 3.3.27 and De Imperio 7.9 ff., on jurisdiction: De republica Bk. 5, e.g. 2.3, 2.29 and De Imperio 8.

32    ? See A.C. Jemolo Stato e Chiesa negli scrittori politici italiani del seicento e del settecento. Napoli 19722.

1

in De Imperio some years before De Dominis33. This agreement again suggests the Aristotelian, scholastic background of De Imperio. Their general outlook is similar as well: both men want to return to the early church. Both hold that only the first four ecumenical councils are of primary importance. Theyboth stress that there are only a few essential points of faith, and that Christianity should be united on this basis; difficult problems like predestination should be left to theologians. Grotius honoured the Eastern patriarch Meletius with his early irenic work of the same name, De Dominis wrote a letter to the Eastern church from London arguing in favour of reconciliation34.

However, there are differences as well. Grotius is able to be systematic without being scholastic, while De Dominis apologizes for his scholastic way of writing, not without reason. More importantly, De Dominis is a discontented Roman Catholic and a former Archbishop: his resentment against papalsupremacy is personal and bitter. He stresses that Christ left

33    ? Cf. e.g. De republica 5.2.3: churchmen `regunt directive tantum absque vera coactione et iurisdictione'; 5.2.38 `quaedam coactive a principibus data episcopis'; 5.2.40 `ecclesiastici rectores medicis sunt simillimi...Sicut...medici est regere aegrotos et magistri discipulos, hoc est sine iurisdictione, ita rectorisecclesiastici est regere ecclesiam...'. De Imperio 4.6: `Qui declarative regunt non obligant proprie...Ita medicus aegrotum regit ostendendo quid ipsi exitiale sit... non ex iure quod in ipsum medicus habeat...Sic moralem atque civilem vitam regunt philosophi ostendendo quid honestum sit, quid salus populi requirat; 4.7: `Coactionis usum omnem ipsis (sc. pastoribus) interdictum...Sed nec obligare quemquam per modum imperii pasto-ribus datum est divinitus'; 4.12: `directivum regimen...omnino alterius est generis (sc. quam coactivum)'.

34    ? In his Profectionis consilium De Dominis recounts at some length how he studied the ancient fathers and the canons. This is emphasized by Fulgenzio Micanzio: see his letters to William Cavendish: `Egli aveva letto tuttele antichità dei Padri, dei Concili e degli Storici...ha sempre avuto a cuore lo scisma dell Chiesa...' (24.II.1617); `un uomo molto versato nei Padri, di grande dottrina...' (12.I.1618). These letters, in the English translation by Hobbes (the only version left), were published by Roberto Ferrini, Roma 1987. Since no Dutch library has taken the trouble to purchase this unique edition, I quote from the selection in Italian translation by E. de Mas, Pisa 1990 (series Eirenikon, pp. 1-2), gracefully sent me by Dr. Lucia Nocentini of Pisa. De Dominis said to Overall that the troubles in Holland were about theology, not faith (BW I 572, Overallto Grotius, 30.VII.1617), Grotius repeats this with approval to Lingelsheim (ibid. 580). In a letter from the same period, to Paul de Rivoire, De Dominis elaborates on this point and wonders why the States General have not forbidden preaching about these questions (Malcolm 58). Apparently he did not know that the States of Holland had done just that, in a Decretum of July 1614, drawn up by Hugo Grotius. On Grotius and Meletius, see the edition by G.H.M. Posthumus Meyjes (Leiden 1988), pp. 15-24. De Dominis' letter to the Eastern church is inJ.H. Hessels Ecclesiae Londino-Batavae Archivum Vol. 2 (Cambridge 1889), pp. 946-54. It is strikingly unrealistic: theArchbishop invites the orthodox to become one with the Anglican church. The necessary unity of faith will be reached on the basis of the early symbola; the filioque-problem may easily be solved etc.

1

the church in the care of the apostles, that is the bishops. Grotius, on the other hand, frequently states that Christ leftthe church to the faithful. Thus bishops are instituted by God, according to De Dominis; Grotius thought otherwise. De Dominis stresses the power of church councils against the Pope, whereas Grotius stresses the power of the ruler against the councils. In general De Dominis was not prepared to grant the secular authorities as much right in matters of doctrine as Grotius did. But altogether both men could hardly have found a more sympathetic and eloquent ally. And yet Grotius saw a kindred soul in the Archbishop, while De Dominis seems hardly to have noticed his existence. The second volume of hisgreat book was finished in time to be presented at the Dutch Synod of Dordt, where the Remonstrants were humiliated and expelled, and their worship forbidden. The Synod gave him a present of 100 guilders in return.

IV

The most famous book published by De Dominis in England was not one of his own. This was Paolo Sarpi's "History of the Council of Trent" (Historia del Concilio Tridentino), which he edited, adding a very anti-Catholic preface to it ─which, para-doxically, brought fra Paolo's wrath down upon him. The name of the author was disguised as Pietro Soave Polano; but although this might have deceived some Italians, it did not deceive Grotius. Sarpi's personal religious views are notoriously difficult to gauge: he may have been a Protestant or an atheist, or simply a Machiavellian politician. But firstand foremost he was the most formidable opponent of the Pope in Italy35. Sarpi corresponded with French Gallicans and

35    ? A bibliography of Paolo Sarpi (14.VIII.1552-07.I.1623) is in Edd. C. Jannaco & M. Capucci Storia letteraria

d'Italia. Seicento. (Padova 19863), 905-8. See also Wootton 1983. Dame Frances Yates and G. Cozzi (1956) have proved that De Dominis did not bring Sarpi's Historia with him in 1616, but he must at least have had a sample of it at the time: John Cosin, then librarian to Overall, was sent with him to examine De Dominis on arrival, and he

1

Protestants and encouraged the introduction of Protestantism in Venice. He was also interested in Dutch affairs, commercial, political and religious. However, he never mentions Grotius or his work. Indeed, in writing to the secretary of the States General at the synod, Daniel Heinsius,he shows himself very satisfied with the outcome of the Synod of Dordt. Years before, he had composed a very negative reviewof the opinions of Vorstius, whom the States of Holland had appointed Professor of Theology at Leiden University. Grotius had been the go-between on behalf of the States. The appoint-ment was very much contested by the Dutch orthodox Calvinists,because of Vorstius' views on predestination and the nature ofGod, and Sarpi's review was ordered by Sir Dudley Carleton, who `thought it not unworthy of [his] Majesty's view'36. And yet in many respects Sarpi's views were the same as those of Grotius and the Arminians, notably concerning the absolute power of the ruler in religious affairs37. True, in Sarpi, evenmore than in De Dominis, the secular power of the pope is the source of all evil; but Grotius did not fundamentally disagreewith that view.

reports that De Dominis said that `...he was now come into England to review and publish [his De republica ecclesiasti-ca]; together with the History of the Council of Trent which he had brought with him from Padre Paolo of Venice...' (T. Gutch Collectanea Curiosa or Miscellaneous Tracts... (Oxford 1781) vol. 2 p. 20). In the preface, De Dominis himself says that he had taken with him various writings by excellent men, and the reproachful letter written by Micanzio toDe Dominis suggests that the initiative lay with De Dominis: `[Sarpi complains that your Excel-lency] ...il...manoscritto dell'Istoria del Concilio Tridentino...ne abbia tirata di esso una copia...': De Mas (see n.Error: Reference source not found ) p. 37, letter of 11.XI.1619, cf. G. Gambarin ed. Istoria del Concilio Tridentino (1935) vol. 3, 405-10.

36    ? On Sarpi and his foreign correspondents, see Busnelli, Ulianich 1961, also Simon. On the introduction of protestantism: Wootton 93 ff. The letter to Heinsius, of 29 May 1620, is in Busnelli 2 p. 223, see Ulianich 1956: `Christiana ista synodus', writes Sarpi , `apostolicam sententiam a carnali discrevit et hac damnata illam pie amplexa est. Et prudenter amplissimi ordines adversarios vestros linguam coercere iusserunt defuncti munere quod principis proprium est in ecclesia'. In 1612 Sarpi had already attacked the Arminians as traitors: Ulianich 1956, 428 n.1. Sarpi's Scrittura su Vorstio is in Cozzi & Cozzi 713-9, with a thorough introduction (the quotation on p. 712).

37    ? See Wootton 58. Also as regards adiaphora: cf. Busnelli I 65: `Perchè non contentarsi di lasciare in ambiguo quello che vi e stato sino al presente?'. Sarpi sometimes pretends adherence to the Calvinists' views on predestination (to Heinsius, for instance); on the other hand, like the Arminians, he seems rather to hover somewhere between the Roman Catholic view of good works and the Calvinists' doctrine of `sola fide', see Simon.Sarpi, not being a bishop himself, is much less concerned with the necessity of bishops than De Dominis.

1

Grotius, however, blissfully ignorant of Sarpi's preferences, almost adored the Venetian friar. In 1630 he wrote to his brother "Our country needs a man as firm as brother Paul was during the Interdict", and in a later letter he explains himself: the Dutch magistrates are ignorant of thehistory of the church; it takes someone like Sarpi to teach them38. As soon as Grotius returned to Paris in 1635, after an absence of three years, he began energetically to plan an edition of some of Sarpi's works: in his first Parisian letterto his new superior, the Swedish Count Oxenstierna, Grotius enthusiastically informs him that he possesses manuscripts of Sarpi's History of the Inquisition and of Micanzio's Life of Sarpi. He would like to produce their first edition, together with some minor works ─some of those he had already read when he composed De Imperio, others he had used in his De iure belli ac pacis39.Sarpi's History appeared in 1638, and it is unlikely that Grotius had anything to do with it. But perhaps it is no accident that Micanzio's Life first appeared in Leiden, in 1646.Grotius was dead by then, but a manuscript of the work was circulating in Holland as early as 164040. Soon after his return to Paris, Grotius saw some autograph letters written bySarpi to Jacques Gillot, which he enthusiastically quotes to two different correspondents41. And in 1639, when Grotius was

38    ? BW IV p. 197, 24-05-1636 and p. 209, 24-05-1630.

39    ? BW V p. 343, of 05.III.1635. This plan should probably be connected to a letter of 12.II.1632 to Jean de Cordes in Paris, where Grotius is enthusiasic about the discovery of a book by `viri incomparabilis Pauli Servitae...praesertim de...causa...apud nos etiam belli tam pertinaciter exerciti': BW V p. 23. De Cordes had finished copying that book on 05.III.1632: ibid. p. 29. In composing De iure belli ac pacis Grotius had used Sarpi's so-called De iure asylorum (Leiden 1622), see ed. G. Gambarin Scritti giurisdizionalistici (Bari 1958) 316-8. On Sarpi's treatises about the Interdict, see n. Error: Reference source not found above.

40    ? Fulgenzio Micanzio Vita del Padre Paulo, Leiden 1646. See Edd. H.W. van Tricht a.o. De briefwisseling van Pieter

Corneliszoon Hooft (Culemborg 1976-79, 3 vols.) nrs. 1011 and 1014.

41    ? See BW VII 73 en 76, to Willem de Groot and to Joa. Camerarius (9 and 10 April 1636): `Vidi ipsius autographas ad...Gillotum litteras scriptas 12 Maji 1609, in quibus haec sunt prudenter, ut omnia, dicta...' (letter to Willem). Sarpi's letters were published by Ulianich 1961, 131. A manuscript version exists a.o. in Bibliothèque Nationale Paris, Collection Dupuy ms. 111.

1

taking new notes for De imperio, his friend Claude Sarrau gave him some letters written by Sarpi to the fanatical Protestant Du Plessis Mornay. Grotius read and returned them at once, butnot without suggesting some emendations in the text. It is -worth noting that in one letter Sarrau's text disagreed with that on which the most recent edition is based, and that neither is as good as Grotius' proposed conjecture42. Shortly afterwards, Grotius sent the outline of an unfinished book by Sarpi to his aged friend, the Remonstrant leader Wtenbogaert. It consists only of the titles of the projected chapters, but they are enough to show how fine a book this would have been, according to Grotius43. Grotius' own manuscript of De imperio hasone leaf, superscribed "fra Paolo", containing what is undoubtedly the outline in question, written in Italian, in his own hand. The titles of 34 chapters are given, and it is immediately clear that they must have pleased Grotius: chapter4 for instance is entitled "God has given the care for public tranquillity, justice and virtue to the ruler", and chapter 7 "The principal care given to the ruler by God is that of religion", 18 "That punishment for crimes committed against religion belongs to the ruler". As yet I have not found anything corresponding to this outline among Sarpi's publishedworks44. When Grotius expressed his regret that this work had

42    ? BW X p. 486, 27.VII.1639, by Claude Sarrau, ibid. p. 487, same date (sic), reply by Grotius. The letters to Du Plessis Mornay are in Busnelli 2.205-13. Grotius emends letter nr. 3, of 26.V.1609: `[fra Paolo speaks of a new French ambassador in Venice] Si rex Franciae mutaturus legatum suum destinasset aliquem affectuad religionem reformatam propensum, nil melius: nam professioni non faveret rex'. Thus Busnelli, from a ms. in Vienna. Sarrau's copy read: `nam professione non facesset rex'. Grotius proposes `nam professione non faceret rex', that is to say: `[someone with protestant leanings], for the King could never send an overt protestant'.

43    ? BW X p. 539 to Wtenbogaert (who already possessed a copy of Sarpi's Historia del Concilio Tridentino), 20.VIII.1639: `...een concept van een boeck dat fratre Paulo van Venetiën op dese selve materie hadde voorgenomen, maar door zijn overlijden is verhindert geweest'. Grotius' brother Willem had to read it aloud to the nearly blind old man, who had enjoyed the sketch: `valde illum delectabat illud fratris Pauli propositum etoptare se aiebat ut respublica christiana simile quid videret' (ibid. 556, 29.VIII.1639. Wtenbogaert wrote a few words of thanks on 15.XI.1639, ibid. p. 747). That again pleased Grotius: ibid. p. 588 (see below).

44    ? Royal Library The Hague ms. 131 C 21, f. 69r-v: 4: `Che al principe Dio ha data cura della tranquillita pubblica, della Giustizia e della honesta', 7: `Che la principal cura data da Dio al Principe è laReligione', 18: `Che al Principe appartiene punire li delitti commessi contra la Religione'. Grotius almost

1

remained unfinished, he added: "in the meantime we may make use of the excellent work brought together by De Dominis, a man of fine judgment"45.

In conclusion: these two authors, schooled in law like Grotius, treated themes which interested Grotius throughout his life. Their approach and their views to a large extent agreed with his own and he gratefully used their writings, published and unpublished. They, on the other hand, ignored him and had a low opinion of Remonstrant writings and beliefs.True, they could hardly have known De imperio, which remained inmanuscript form until 1647; but Grotius had published much more, for instance several historical tracts, his Mare Liberum, and in 1613 Ordinum Pietas, a book on religious politics that hadcaused a great deal of controversy in The Netherlands, and also in England. Long before 1618 Grotius was well known in the same French Gallican circles in which Sarpi's correspondents moved. Part of the explanation is, I think, that both Italians had died before Grotius had become the widely known exile and famous author of De iure belli ac pacis. Theiraversion to the religious persuasions of the Arminians seems much influenced by the official English views held by the Royal Theologian and by his anger at the nomination of Vorstius in Leiden; their own opposition to Roman Catholic practices made them even more allergic to anything resembling Pelagianism. Moreover, though De Dominis and Grotius might share the ideal of unity of the church (much more than Sarpi),the idea of toleration is more Grotian. In the political fieldthey had much in common in theory; but whereas for Grotius thesumma potestas were the States of Holland, the Italians clearly considered the stadtholder Maurice or the States General as the rulers, and the Remonstrants and the States of Holland as certainly copied it from Collection Dupuy ms. 111.

45    ? BW X p. 588, 10.IX.1639, to his brother Willem (see above): `Optarem et ego ultimam adiectam manum operi isti fratris Pauli, cuius pulchritudo quae futura fuerit satis ex titulorum delineatione apparet. Interimuti nobis licet iis quae de hoc argumento egregia congessit M. Antonius De Dominis, magni vir iudicii, si unum excipias quod Romam ivit'.

1

schismatics and rebels who opposed the real secular autho-rities46. Grotius may also have been too reasonable and too moderate for these men with a violent, personal aversion to the Pope's rule. Finally, then, as now, the Dutch may have been the only party to take a passionate interest in their ownreligious quibbles.

46    ? See nn. 25 and 36. De Dominis, coached by Carleton, sent a copy of his book to the stadtholder and oneto the States General, and a copy of the next volume to the synod they had instituted against the wish of Holland. Cf. also Micanzio's letter to Carleton of 07.VII.1619: `L'essecutione contro il Barnevelt è risolutione tanto grande, che mostra nei Signori Stati gran vigore e sapere di governo...' (Cozzi 1956 p. 608).In fact, their view, though strictly speaking incorrect, at least as far as the cura religionis is concerned, is understandable.

1

* This is the slightly retouched version of a paper given at the Ninth congress of the International Association for Neo-Latin Studies, held in Bari, 29 August - 3 September 1994

Literature and Abbreviations

BusnelliEd. M.D. Busnelli Fra Paolo Sarpi. Lettere ai protestanti. Bari 1931, 2 vols.

BW Edd. P.C. Molhuysen, B.L. Meulenbroek, P.P. Witkam, H.J.M.Nellen, C.M. Ridderikhoff Briefwisseling van Hugo Grotius, Rijks Geschiedkundige Publikatiën, 's-Gravenhage 1928- (14 vols to date)

Cozzi 1956G. Cozzi "Fra Paolo Sarpi, l'anglicanesimo e la "Historia del Concilio Tridentino", in Rivista Storica Italiano 68, 559-619

Cozzi & CozziEdd. G. &. L. Cozzi Paolo Sarpi, Opere. Milano-Napoli 1969

CSP VeniceCalendar of State Papers and manuscripts relating to English affairs existing in the archives and collections of Venice XIV-XVIII (1615-1625), London 1908-12.

CSP DomesticCalendar of State Papers, Domestic Series, of the reign of James I. 1611-1618 and 1619-1623, preserved in the State Paper Department ofher Majesty's Public record Office, London 1858

LjubicS. Ljubic, "Prilozi za _ivotopis Markantuna de Dominisa Rabjljanina, Spljetskoga nadbiskupa" In Starine na sviet izdaje Jugoslavenska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti 2 (1870), 1-260.

MalcolmNoel Malcolm De Dominis (1560-1624): Venetian, Anglican, Ecumenist and Relapsed Heretic. London 1984

1

Nellen-RabbieEdd. Henk J.M. Nellen and Edwin Rabbie Hugo Grotius Theologian. Studies in honour of G.H.M. Posthumus Meyjes, Leiden,Brill, 1994 (Studies in the History of Christian Thought, ed. H.A. Oberman, 55)

OThHugonis Grotii Opera omnia theologica, Amsterdam 1679, 3 vols in 4 (Stuttgart-Bad Canstatt 1972)

Res. SGed. J.G. Smit, Resolutiën der Staten Generaal III, 's-Gravenhage1975 (Rijks Geschiedkundige Publikatiën 152)

SimonM. Simon "Isaac Casaubon, Fra Paolo Sarpi et l'Eglise d'Angleterre", in: ed. M. Simon Aspects de l'Anglicanisme. Colloque de Strasbourg (14-16 juin 1972) (Paris 1974), 39-66.

TMDJ. Ter Meulen & P.J.J. Diermanse Bibliographie des écrits imprimés de Hugo Grotius, La Haye 1950 (1995)

Ulianich 1956B. Ulianich "La lettera del Sarpi allo Heinsius", inRivista storica italiana 68, 425-46

Ulianich 1961Ed. B. Ulianich Paolo Sarpi. Lettere ai gallicani. Wiesbaden

VerhoorenEd. R. Fruin Verhooren en andere bescheiden betreffende het rechtsgeding van Hugo de Groot, Utrecht 1871,

WoottonD. Wootton Paolo Sarpi. Between Renaissance and Enlightenment. Cambridge 1983.

YorkeEd. Philip Yorke Letters from and to Sir Dudley Carleton during his Embassy in Holland from January 1615/6, to December 1620. London 1757.