Extract
[...] Sarpi thus crystallizes all the ambiguities of a Venetian revolt that is both theological and political. And it should also be noted, following De Franceschi (2009), that Sarpi's thought is part of a logic where the defense of the public good takes precedence over any other consideration, even religious, because 'the Republic must ensure that ecclesiastical power does not substitute itself for civil power and does not gradually devour the very substance of the State' (De Franceschi p. 330). This passage seems to come back, once again, without real justification, as if the specter of a Church that is too rich and too powerful obstinately hovered over the crisis. [...]
[...] Thus, the Venetian myth appears already as the terrain of a deep tension between political freedom and religious loyalty. B. The structural tensions between Rome and Venice before 1606 Relations between Venice and Rome had long been marked by mistrust. The Republic, eager to control its clergy, had put in place laws as early as the 14th century that subjected the appointment of bishops to the approval of the Senate, and it had limited the action of Roman inquisitors by strict rules, notably the obligation for the latter to operate in the presence of lay magistrates (Van Hamme p. [...]
[...] Thus, the triggering of the Interdict inscribes itself in a logic of a fierce defense of Venetian sovereignty. And indeed, De Franceschi (2009) shows well that the crisis does not burst out all at once, but rather installs itself gradually, almost insidiously, through an entanglement of jurisdictional conflicts, restrictive laws, and more serious incidents, such as the imprisonment of clerics accused of notorious crimes or Venice's desire to prevent the excessive growth of ecclesiastical property (De Franceschi p. 325). It is difficult not to perceive, in this succession of events, a gradation of tension, as if Rome and Venice found themselves each time a little more on the brink of rupture, without however immediately yielding to schism. [...]
[...] De Franceschi (2009) also notes that this Venetian singularity particularly intrigued French diplomats, attentive to any sign of weakening of papal power without open rupture with Catholicism. We see, therefore, in this first part, that Venice, well before the Interdict, already appears as a singular state, strong in a powerful political myth and institutions jealous of their autonomy, while remaining attached, despite everything, to Roman Catholicism, which immediately places the Interdict in the complexity of the relationship between faith and power. [...]
[...] Ultimately, Venice achieves a diplomatic victory without openly breaking with Rome. B. The limits of a religious mutation in Venice Despite the political victory, the religious mutation hoped for by Protestant circles did not take place. Certainly, the crisis reveals a deep resentment against Rome, and the Venetian nobility sometimes expresses sympathies for the reformist ideas. But Venice remains, fundamentally, a Catholic state. Paolo Sarpi himself, despite his virulent criticism of the papal power, carefully avoids breaking definitively with the Church of Rome. [...]
