The art of diplomacy, the technique of carrying on continuing diplomatic relations between states, was first developed to a high degree by the Italians, especially in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. The cultivation of methods of communication and information gathering flourished in part because of the multiplicity of states in Italy and the intense competition among them. Thus there grew a need to use every means possible to acquire knowledge about the intentions of adversaries. This was achieved initially through informal agents, such as merchants and bankers (who had networks of information and a presence throughout the peninsula and beyond that made them particularly useful), and then through publicly recognized and accredited diplomats, for whom there developed codes of practice and protocols to follow. Indeed, with respect to formal diplomatic relations, the Italians were the first to employ regular envoys, and among the leading states in this was the Republic of Venice, which came to have ambassadors at virtually all princely courts of Europe.

Yet, as Diego Pirillo argues in The Refugee-Diplomat: Venice, England, and the Reformation, not all who practiced the art of diplomacy were accredited representatives of La Serenissima—quite to the contrary, some were religious dissenters and refugees who at their own initiative sought both to represent what they took to be the best interests of the republic but also to advance the cause of Reform in Venice and throughout the Italian peninsula and to make Venice the “Geneva” of Italy as a center for that cause. Indeed, this lies at the heart of the argument in this book: the heretofore neglected role played by these independent players in developing the contours of diplomacy in the early modern world, as opposed to the evolving state system and formally accredited ambassadors on which attention is so often focused.

Religious refugees are the central figures in this study because, Pirillo argues, they were of prime importance for diplomacy in the sixteenth century as gatherers of intelligence, as intermediaries between the culture of Italy and that of Northern Europe (especially England), and as shapers of the information that passed through their hands. Pirillo makes his argument on the basis of four types of sources: state records found in archival repositories in Venice and London; diplomatic reports found in private libraries; records of the Venetian and Roman Inquisitions; and literary sources, especially Gerusalemme liberate by Torquato Tasso.

The book consists of seven chapters, most of which serve as case-studies for Pirillo's larger argument; also shed light on lesser-known individuals who played a key role in Anglo-Venetian diplomacy. The first chapter provides an overview of relations between Tudor England and Venice, setting the stage for the break in formal relations between the two for the duration of the reign of Elizabeth I, due not so much to the Reformation itself but to the aggressive enforcement of the Counter Reformation at the behest of Pope Paul IV. The second chapter introduces Edmund Harvel, the English ambassador to Venice in the 1540s, and Baldassare Altieri, his secretary. Attention is given to the role that heterodox Italians identified by the term “Philo-Protestants” (evangelically minded Catholics open to reform, but also those who crossed over from Catholicism to Protestantism) came to play in English–Venetian relations even before the suspension of formal diplomatic contacts after 1557. This naturally leads to the studies found in chapters 3 and 4 on how, despite the break in relations, England nonetheless was able to remain informed about things Venetian and Italian, more broadly, especially—in chapter 3—about the proceedings of the Council of Trent. This was accomplished through the agency of religious dissenters and refugees and, in the case of Trent, especially through the letters of Guido Gianetti and the various publications of Pier Paolo Vergerio but also through the work of the Venetian merchants Giacomo and Placido Ragazzoni (the subjects of chapter 4). In chapter 5, Pirillo shifts the focus away from more straightforward diplomatic history (albeit conducted by individuals who were not formal diplomats) to something more akin to intellectual history with an analysis of how Tasso's Gerusalemme liberate was annotated by the refugees Alberico and Scipione Gentili in their role as “cultural brokers” between Italy and England. In like manner were Venetian relazioni (the reports of Venetian diplomats) treated by refugee readers/commenters, Giacomo Castelvetro in particular, as they sought through annotations to shape the way in which the information contained within these reports was received and understood, the subject of chapter 6. In the seventh, and final, chapter, Pirillo takes up the restoration of formal diplomatic relations between England and Venice with the reopening of the English embassy in 1603 and the arrival of Henry Wotton as ambassador, when the embassy served as a support for Venetian dissidents, most notably Castelvetro but also the historian and ecclesiastic Paolo Sarpi, who hoped to use the Venetian Interdict of 1606–1607 to persuade the patricians to break with Rome (and, for some, to thus effect a Venetian Reformation as a prelude to a wider Italian Reformation).

Pirillo certainly makes his case in this book (especially with respect to diplomacy) and brings to bear attention on an aspect of diplomatic history that has not received its due in existing historiography on the subject. He also demonstrates the broader role the Reformation played in matters not theological. Choosing to examine the relations between England and Venice during the decades when there were no formal contacts makes for an ideal context in which to examine the role of non-state players in English/Venetian diplomacy, while raising the question of how this might inform our understanding of diplomacy elsewhere in Europe in these centuries (especially as Italy is seen as the “trend-setter” for the development of the art). The diplomatic activities of the religious refugees were still directed to the state (in this case, Venice). However, it is clear, as Pirillo has amply demonstrated, that diplomatic activity in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries was not confined to officially credentialed envoys, and the future study of early modern diplomatic history will need to take account of the role of non-state players.