The history of the popes, from the close of the middle ages : drawn ...

326 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
should return to Vienna, and trouble hintself no further about
the Council.^ The Cardinal of Lorraine, too, who was at that
time in strong opposition to Rome, expressed his dissatisfaction
at the Emperor's compliance, especially in the matter of the
right of proposition.'^
In whatever way the results of the Innsbruck conferences
may be judged, it is beyond doubt that the great diplomatic
skill of Morone had brought about an understanding between
the Emperor and the Pope.^ His ability and prudence were
1 See BucHOLTZ, IX., 689. Cf. Goxz, Beitrage zur Geschichte
Albrechts V. in the Briefe und Akten, V., 263 n. 2 ; Steinherz,
III., 313-
2 See SiCKEL, Konzil, 509.
' Pallavicini, who had at his disposal the report of Morone
of May 17, and the correspondence with the Emperor, has given
(20, 1 5) a very good account of the Innsbruck conferences. Instead
of using this, Ranke (Papste, 16., 218) lays the greatest stress
upon a " Relatione sommaria del Card. Morone sopra la legatione
sua " in the Altieri Library, and remarks concerning it that it is
the most important document on the proceedings at Trent that
he has come upon ;
neither Sarpi nor Pallavicini had noticed it.
The Relatione, which is often to be found elsewhere (the authentic
text in Steinherz, III., 312, in the Papal Secret Archives, Con-
cilio, 31, n. 67
; to the copies noted by SAGMtJLLER, Papstwahl-
bullen, 150 n., may be added one in the Archivio Borghese,
Ser. 2, H. x8, p. 87 seq.), can hardly have been unknown to Palla-
vicini ; he did not quote it because it is not certain whether it
was written by Morone himself, or by Gherio (see Steinherz,
loc. cit.). In any case this Relatione, which in the meantime
has been published, though not quite accurately, by Maurenbrecher
in the Zeitschr. fiir Kirchengesch., III., 653 seq., can
only be considered as of secondary importance, as it is drawn up
in a shorter form, and appeared later, than the classical final
report of Morone of May 17, which is remarkable for its clearness
and precision, and to which Pallavicini rightly adheres. Ranke
had all the more reason for putting forward this report, because
it had already been noted by Schelhorn (Sammlung fur die
Geschicte, I., 210). But Ranke paid no attention, either to
Schelhorn, or to the very important publication of the correspondence
between Morone and the Emperor by Planck. The