was the concoction of the fertile brain of Sarpi, who persuaded the Senate, (of which he was the soul and oracle, and by whom he was "trusted with the most important secrets," as Burnet, in his life of Bedel, says, ever since the great contest with Paul V. in 1607,) to magnify into a state-plot an accidental ebullition of discontent among some foreign mercenaries, in order to remove the Spanish Ambassador, by imputing it to him. This person, whom Saint-Réal describes as un des plus puissants génies et des plus dangereux esprits que l'Espagne ait jamais produits," had long been a peculiar object of dread and aversion to the Republic, whose intrigues he detected, and whose policy he opposed, as insidiously hostile to his sovereign, Philip III. when lately at war with Savoy, and not repelled, he conceived, with sufficient energy by that monarch, one of the feeblest of his race. To Bedemar was attributed, at the time, the famous "Squittinio della Liberta Veneta," or Scrutiny into the Liberty of Venice (La Mirandola, 1612, 4to.), as to Burke were generally ascribed, on their appearance, the Letters of Junius, because he was deemed most capable of the composition; and Bedemar alone was supposed to possess the deep information which that volume unfolded on all the elements of Venetian government. No book had appeared so pregnant with truth or so virulent in spirit, nor one which, consequently, created a more deadly hatred of the presumed author, who laid open the darkest recesses of the State; the overweening pretensions of which to maritime sovereignty, liberality of principle, and territorial independence, he exposed or derided. In Saint-Réal's opinion, also, Bedemar was the parent of this libel, as he terms it (page 166); but it is now more generally considered the production of Welserus, of Augsburg, whom a long residence at Venice, and other parts of Italy, had made a perfect

master of the subject and language.— (See Bayle, article Velserus, and Placcius de libris anonymis, Hamb. 1707). A French translation, under the title of "Examen de la Liberté Originaire de Venise," by Amelot de la Houssaie, forms part of his work-"Sur le Gouvernement de Venise" (Amst. 1714, 3 vols. 12mo.); for which, in consequence of its freedom of thought and expression, he was committed to the Bastille. He had been Secretary to the French Ambassador at Venice, where, he states, that all intercourse, more especially after the event of 1618, was most rigidly interdicted between the nobles and foreign ministers, and which he exemplifies by some ludicrous instances in his own person. "Si un noble," he says, "se rencontrait quelque part avec un gentilhomme, ou quelque autre personne de la maison d'un ambassadeur. il ne serait pas en vie deux heures après." J. J. Rousseau likewise adverts to the Squittinio, in his Contrat Social (denominated by Voltaire, Contrat Insocial), liv. iii. chap. xi.; and Monsieur Barbier also treats of it in his "Dictionnaire des Anonymes”— (1824).

But, whoever was the author of the book, the ascription of it to Bedemar is at once a presumption of his capacity, and declarative of the Senate's anxiety to be freed from his obnoxious presence. Sarpi's device was effective of its purpose; and the ambassador, after a residence of eleven years, though he indignantly repelled the imputation in an audience of the Senate, with difficulty escaped the excited rage of the populace. His subsequent fortunes were singular enough. In 1622 he was raised to the purple-then appointed Governor of the Netherlands, whence he was removed for his severity, and was successively Bishop of Palestrina in Italy, and of Malaga in Spain, where he died in 1665, aged above eighty. The name in Spanish is Bedmar, not Bedemar, as written

by Saint-Réal, whom, however, I have followed, as it is to his work I more particularly refer.

Meanwhile, the governments of Spain and Venice appeared alike solicitous to wrap in darkness the whole transaction, of which no official record has ever been discovered; and the Senate issued a proclamation, prohibiting, under pain of death, the imputation of the plot to the Spanish monarchy. It is easy to understand how the mystery may have remained unrevealed under a despotic state; but the secrecy which shrouded the deli. berations of so numerous a body as the Senate of Venice has always been a source of astonishment. Constituted, in some degree, after the model of that of Rome, and reckoning, in like manner, about 300 members, who were divided into various departments of legislation, seldom did the object or result of their deliberations transpire, until the Council or Executive gave it effect. "Non dicam unum, sed neminem audisse crederes, quod tam multorum auribus fuerat com missum”—(Valerius Maximus, lib. ii. cap. 2), is an observation not inapplicable to the circumstance. And similarly in Rome, when Eumenes, King of Pergamus, disclosed to the Conscript Fathers the secret preparations of war by Perseus, nothing was known of the debate for five years-(U. C. 580-585). "Hæc oratio movit Patres Conscriptos: ceterum in præsentia nihil præterquam fuisse in curiâ regem, scire quisquam potuit; eo silentio clausa curia erat! bello denique perfecto, quæque dicta ab rege, quæque responsa essent, emanavere."-(Livy, lib. xlii. cap. 14, and De la Houssaie, ut supra.)

M. Grosley, I think it right to ob serve, has also offered a second solution of the enigma; in which he ascribes the principal agency to another celebrated monk, the Capuchin Père Joseph (Le Clerc), who subsequently became the subtle instrument of Cardinal Richelieu's intrigues. His object, it would seem, was to excite a crusade against the Turks; but the attempt was quickly defeated and punished by the Venetian Government, just then particularly desirous of peace with the Ottoman power. Count Daru, however, at once rejects this GENT. MAG. VOL. X.

version of the occurrence as improbable.

His own exposition of it, as detailed in his valuable History of Venice (7 vols. 8vo. Paris, 1819), after the most diligent investigation, to which he has devoted his thirty-first book (tome iv.), is equally declaratory of Bedemar's innocence. The real conspirators, according to this sagacious writer, were the Duke of Ossuna, and the Senate of Venice, in secret league to wrest Naples, of which the ambitious Duke was Viceroy, from Spain; but the project immaturely exploded, and as these high parties were too powerful to assail, even if suspected, the subordinate agents or dupes were as usual sacrificed as victims of propitiation. In fact, as Muratori (Annali d'Italia, Milano, 1749, ad annum 1618) observes, and the remark is confirmed by the laborious compilers of "L'Art de vérifier les Dates," (tom. xvii. p. 493, 8vo. ed.), the sole deducible certainty on the occasion is the execution of several obscure individuals, chiefly foreigners, necessary to impart a semblance and colouring of existence to some plot, whether the contrivance of Fra-Paolo or the enterprise of Ossuna. But the whole still remains an unsolved problem, and well may it be said, in reference to it

"De las cosas mas seguras, La mas segura es dudar." "Solum certum nihil esse certi.".

Plin. Hist. Nat. lib. ii. 7.

66

With respect, however, to the part assigned to Sarpi in D'Argenson's manuscript, though more creditable, it must be confessed, to his ingenuity than to his morality, it presents nothing inconsistent with his habits and general character. Nor does it fall under any impeachment of veracity from his writings, even if we admit the disclaimer of his friends, as to the authorship of the Memoria Presentata al Senato," though generally attributed to him by his contemporaries, and translated by the Abbé Marsey under the title of " Le Prince de FraPaolo." (Paris, 1751, 12mo.) was not by any means a novice in combining or unfolding state intrigues; and few indeed, in his day or in his country, would, from conscientious scruples, have recoiled from the act

T

He

ascribed to him. To eschew gratuitous evil, was the utmost stretch of their political morality; but when deemed necessary, they were not very delicate in the means of achieving their purpose. Non partirsi dal bene, potendo, ma saper entrare nel male necessitato," says their great oracle (Del Principe, p. 41, ed. 1550) ;* and this is not the worst maxim of that Italian code, which the Great Frederic undertook to refute, while meditating the practical illustration of its principles.†

It cannot be too much to assume, that Father Paul's political doctrine was not less equivocal or more scrupulous than his religious sentiments. "He had," states Burnet, in his Life of Bedel, who had intimately known him during a residence of eight years, as chaplain to Sir Henry Wotton, our ambassador at Venice, "He had a particular method by which he rather quieted than satisfied his conscience." Upon which, M. Armand de la Chapelle, the Protestant editor of the Bibliothèque Raisonnée (tom. xvii. p. 143) indignantly exclaims-" Que croirons nous donc du Père Paul et du Père Fulgence? leur profession ne fut-elle que grimace, et qu' hypocrisie?" In politics, too, we find that he was not fastidious in attaining his object, and that no instrument of delusion in accomplishing it was unacceptable. Burnet relates that, during the memorable collision with Rome, in 1607, a Jesuit published some theses with a dedication to the Pope, "Paulo V.-Vice Deo," the numeral letters of which words, as Bedel observed, exactly made the number of the beast of the Revelation (666). This grand discovery was exultingly communicated by FraPaolo to the Senate :-"It was entertained," says Burnet, "almost as if it came from heaven; and it was pub

licly preached over all their territories, that there was certain evidence that the Pope was Antichrist!" That Sarpi partook not of the credulity which he thus made instrumental in inflaming the popular mind, needs scarcely be insisted on; nor would it be difficult to adduce similar instances of unscrupulous political manœuvres on his part. Granting, also, that his patriotism was warmly excited on that occasion, it was not, we may easily believe, unmingled with personal resentment against the Roman Court. In 1600, he had been refused the see of Caorle, a small island in the Gulf of Venice, and in 1602, that of Nona, a maritime town of Dalmatia, by Clement VIII. though recommended to each successively by his governmenta repeated humiliation, which, working on a spirit that was necessarily conscious of its own superiority, could not have been without influence on his feelings. Suspicion of sentiments not quite in accord with those of Rome, was the cause of the papal refusal, which, if they did not precede, they surely followed. Nor can it be denied, that his habitual expression, as we learn from his biographer and disciple, Fra-Fulgenzio (Vita del FraPaoli, p. 43, Ven. 1677),—“Il futuro, ò non si può apere, ò non si può schiffare," savours of fatalism; while his resolution to prevent the seizure and abduction of his person to Rome, if attempted, by suicide, is little reconcilable to Christian principle, though it may sound well in the mouth of a Roman.

"Nous avons en nos mains la fin de nos douleurs;

Et qui veut bien mourir, peut braver les malheurs."-Corneille, Horac. iii. 5.‡

Friends and foes have, however, united in the acknowledgment of his