Paolo Sarpi - History of The Council of Trent

History of The Council of Trent

In 1619 his chief literary work Istoria del Concilio Tridentino (History of the Council of Trent), was printed at London. It appeared under the name of Pietro Soave Polano, an anagram of Paolo Sarpi Veneto (plus o). The editor, Marco Antonio de Dominis, did some work on polishing the text. He has been accused of falsifying it, but a comparison with a manuscript corrected by Sarpi himself shows that the alterations are unimportant. Translations into other languages followed: there were the English translation by Nathaniel Brent and a Latin edition in 1620 made partly by Adam Newton, and French and German editions.

Its emphasis was on the role of the Papal Curia, and its slant on the Curia hostile. This was unofficial history, rather than a commission, and treated ecclesiastical history as politics. Sarpi in Mantua had known Camillo Olivo, secretary to Cardinal Ercole Gonzaga. His attitude, "bitterly realistic" for John Hale, was coupled with a criticism, that the Tridentine settlement was not concilatory but designed for further conflict. Denys Hay calls it "a kind of Anglican picture of the debates and decisions", and Sarpi was much read by Protestants; John Milton called him the "great unmasker".

This book, together with the later rival and apologetic history by Cardinal Pallavicini, was criticized by Leopold von Ranke (History of the Popes), who examined the use they have respectively made of their manuscript materials. The result was not highly favourable to either: without deliberate falsification, both coloured and suppressed. They write as advocates rather than historians. Ranke rated the literary qualities of Sarpi's work very highly. Sarpi never acknowledged his authorship, and baffled all the efforts of Louis II de Bourbon, Prince de Condé to extract the secret from him.

In the 20th century, Hubert Jedin was very critical of Sarpi's work, as tendentious. On the other hand there is some evidence that he wrote using original documents that have not survived. His approach was partisan in its framing, but the writing on the Council is considered now to be quite careful given the premises.