CHAPTER IX

THE ITALIAN RENAISSANCE IN ENGLAND

No period of English history is less romantic than that in which

Humphrey of Gloucester's life was cast. Apart from the fleeting glories

of Agincourt, there is no outstanding event of transcendent interest, no

episode of which Englishmen may be honourably proud. A disastrous and

ill-conducted war abroad, bitter political dissensions at home, a feeble

regency followed by a still feebler King, personal ambitions rampant,

patriotic and unselfish action lost under the enervating influence of a

false idea of foreign conquest, a nation that had outgrown its strength,

a nobility that knew not the meaning of honour or disinterestedness--

such was the state of England during the first half of the fifteenth

century. This chaotic state was only to be wiped out by a long and

disastrous civil war, yet working underneath all this seething mass of

lost ideals there were forces which were to influence the formation of

modern England as it emerged from this state of transition. It may be

said that in one sense every age is one of transition, that the history

of the world is the story of a great development, in which the old order

is ever changing, giving place to the new; nevertheless we can note the

spirit of change more clearly in some periods than in others. Gloucester

lived at a time when the mind of man was broadening into a new phase of

intellectual development. Already Petrarch had lived and died, declaring

that he stood on the confines of two eras, looking back and looking

forward; already Italy had realised that the long sleep of the Middle

Ages was over; already that movement, which for lack of a better name

we call the Renaissance, had begun. The traditional scholarship and the

hereditary superstition which had dominated the Dark Ages was being

superseded; a new field of human knowledge had been opened for Western

Europe when Greek ceased to be an unknown tongue with the advent of

Chrysoloras; the true meaning of that prophecy which had sprung from the

lips of Joachim of Flora was dawning on men's minds--'the Gospel of the

Father is past, the Gospel of the Son is passing, the Gospel of the

Spirit is yet to be.' A spirit of uneasiness was abroad, a spirit which

proclaimed the emancipation of man from the bonds of ignorance and

tradition, a spirit which was to proclaim his individuality, and to

break down the trammels which had restrained the assertion of self.

Morally, as well as legally, man was passing from status to contract.

INFLUENCE ON GLOUCESTER

Humphrey felt the full force of this movement; his life was moulded

thereby. His activity and many-sided energy found their origin in this

new spirit. His fervid imagination, which led him into impossible

projects, his love of display, above all, his desire to stamp his

individuality on the politics of his country, all sprang from the new

realisation which was vouchsafed to him--the realisation of his own

individuality. In England, the new spirit was more manifest politically

than in isolated individuals; the country was throwing off the feudal

system, her merchants and traders were demanding the acknowledgment of

their importance, peasants and townsmen alike were preparing for that

long, uphill struggle which has culminated in the parliamentary system

of the nineteenth century. Humphrey, with all his senses ready to

receive the message of the Renaissance movement, did not, however, grasp

its true significance in England. The friend of the struggling masses,

he nevertheless had no real sympathy with the popular movement; he was

cast far more in the Italian than in the English mould. Though devoid of

the cunning, the lack of scruple, and the conscienceless criminality of

Machiavelli's _Principe_, he nevertheless in his ambitions anticipated

the type. He practised the art of popularity; he tried to make the

nation feel that he, and he alone, was essential to the welfare of the

kingdom, that the success of his policy was the only safeguard of the

state. He failed, and failed egregiously, but the idea was the same as

that which inspired the Florentine secretary; he had the idea, but in

that he had not the weight of personality necessary for the typical

tyrannus, he failed. More than this, the Italian type was not suited to

English methods of thought; England had not progressed far enough along

the road of new ideas to welcome despotism as the salvation of the

nation. What the Tudors accomplished was impossible to Humphrey, both on

account of his nature and on account of the temper of the people.

STATE OF ENGLISH SCHOLARSHIP

The comparison of Humphrey to the Italian despot must not be followed on

the same lines, as in the case of his great successor, John Tiptoft,

Earl of Worcester. The tyrannus who passed gaily and naturally from

cold-blooded murder to the society of the philosophers and poets of his

court, found no parallel in his career; violence and determined cruelty

were not among his characteristics. Indeed these are later

manifestations of the Renaissance movement, bastard products of a too

self-centred individuality. In Humphrey the Renaissance was manifested

in its first youth, and even then incompletely; it was not till after

his death that the new ideas began to be fully understood in England; he

led the van of the army which set out to conquer the realms of

knowledge, and perished before possession was assured. In no other

Englishman of the time do we find the same love of the ancient classics

which characterised Gloucester. His father had given books to the

University of Oxford, but only such as dealt with mediæval lore;[1163]

the Duke of Exeter had studied at an Italian University, but there the

traditions of mediævalism, based on a study of law, lasted long after

Petrarch and Boccaccio had pointed to the past as the teacher of the

future. Henry V. showed considerable interest in literature, and

possessed numerous books.[1164] Not once, however, is there mention of a

work of classical origin. That prolific versifier Lydgate translated the

Psalms of David into 'heroicall English metre' for him, and thus they

were sung in the royal chapel;[1165] the same writer dedicated his poem

_The Death of Hector_ to him, and it was at his request that this work

was undertaken;[1166] the same is true of the _Booke of the Nativitie of

our Lady_ from the same unskilled pen.[1167] Hoccleve, too, wrote at the

King's bidding, and bore testimony to his master's love of books, and

his enjoyment of a 'tale fresh and gay,'[1168] tastes which never

extended beyond the ephemeral literature of a decadent age, though

Hoccleve's _Regiment of Princes_, which was dedicated to Henry when

Prince of Wales, might boast of a distant classical ancestry.[1169] To

Henry also Walsingham dedicated his _Ipodigma Neustriæ_[1170] and at his

death we find him in possession of three books, the _Chronicles of

Jerusalem_, the _Voyage of Godfrey of Bouillon_, and a copy of the

_Works_ of St. Gregory.[1171]

Henry V., however, had no interest in the new learning which heralded

the Renaissance; his interests were confined to the productions of

inferior court poets, and works on theological questions. Indeed

theology, together with law, was the staple diet of the mediæval

scholar. Humphrey's originality lay in the fact that he looked to the

works of the Greeks and early Romans for his mental food, and therein

showed the distinction which lay between the old and new learning. It

was to Greece and her literature that both Petrarch and Boccaccio had

stretched out their hands, to the literature of an age which had passed

out of the ken of the mediæval scholar. Students during the Dark Ages

had known of Aristotle only through incomplete and erroneous Latin

translations, Plato was to them but a name, most of the works of Cicero

were lost, and only the later writers of decadent Rome were really

familiar to them. The new movement taught that the secret of progress

was to be found by enlarging the mental horizon, and by looking back to

the great writers who had written before the advent of Christianity, and

who taught the gospel of the goodliness of humanity--a gospel entirely

unknown under the sway of the scholastic theologians. As by degrees a

knowledge of Greek philosophy spread over Europe, men began to realise

that there was a goodliness in life which they had not hitherto

imagined. A love of beauty, a love of nature, a respect for humanity,

were all found in the works of the Greek authors, and these were the

ideas that revolutionised the mental attitude of the Western world. All

this realisation of self, which we have found so strongly developed in

Humphrey, was borrowed from ancient Greece; modern individualism is but

a reversion to an earlier civilisation. All the grandeur and the joy of

life and its surroundings flooded the imaginations of the new scholars;

a definite basis from which to leap into the future was secured; the

past was invoked to give birth to the future.

Thus the encouragement of scholars and the patronage of authors was not

the distinguishing mark of the Renaissance; it was the nature of the

studies thus encouraged which gave a tone to the movement; the

Humanists--the students of the _litteræ humaniores_--were the heralds of

the new era. Humphrey stood almost alone amongst the Englishmen of his

time in encouraging the new kind of learning. Cardinal Beaufort, it is

true, brought back Poggio Bracciolini, famous as a Humanist, and as a

diligent searcher after the lost writings of classical days, from the

Council of Constance, but he did not show any real appreciation of the

movement which was mirrored in his great follower, and though he

supplied books for the Cathedral Library at Canterbury, he himself seems

to have had but little respect for classical studies.[1172] Poggio,

though he soon tired of the somewhat chilling atmosphere of England, did

not sever all connection with his English patron, and during the last

year of the Cardinal's life wrote to him two letters calling himself his

'servitor et antiquus familiaris.'[1173] However, his impression of the

intellectual life of England was not very favourable, and in later life

he was accustomed to descant more on the wealth and the wonderful eating

power of Englishmen, than on the men of learning he met during his

sojourn in this country. As to the scholars, such as they were, he

declared that they showed their learning in dialectics and disputations

such as the old schoolmen had loved, not in a love of the doctrines of

the new learning.[1174]

Nor was Bedford any more imbued than his uncle with the spirit of the

new learning, though he showed considerable taste for artistically

adorned manuscripts, and collected a library at Rouen, of which the

basis was the fine collection of books which Charles V. had made at

Paris. His tastes were almost entirely confined to works studied by the

old schoolmen, and to French translations of Latin or late Greek

authors. Thus we find a treatise by the Greek medical writer Galen on

the Aphorisms of Hippocrates, another man of medicine, and a work by the

Arabian astronomer Aboo-l-Hassan on the stars--both translated into

French--amongst his books, not to mention that most beautiful

_Salisbury Breviary_, which will always rank amongst the marvels of

fifteenth-century French art.[1175] The only book of genuine classical

interest which we find in his possession was a French translation of

Livy, and this he presented to his brother Humphrey as more suited to

his tastes than to his own.[1176]

GLOUCESTER'S EDUCATION

Gloucester therefore struck out a new line of thought when he turned to

the study of the Humane as well as the Divine letters, and laid

posterity in England under an obligation, which it is slow to

acknowledge. The impulse which led him to this course is impossible to

discover. His natural endowments were not calculated to produce a

scholar. His early active life was spent in camps and sieges, his

lightness of character and volatile nature promised to make him a

courtier and a politician, not a student; his many-sided political

ambitions would presuppose an absorption which would forbid a cult of

letters and learning, yet even amidst the distractions of court life,

the tumults of war, and the disturbances of an eventful political

career, he found time for study, and the encouragement of

scholars.[1177] The fact that he was in many ways the typical

Renaissance prince does not necessarily presuppose a natural aptitude

for this rôle; his actions in this respect are more the result of the

new influences to which he resigned himself, than the causes which led

him to become a patron of letters. On the other hand, it is probable

that in his early years his education was not neglected. We have shown

reason to believe that Bale's statement that he was educated at Balliol

College, Oxford, is founded on fact, and that there he imbibed a love of

learning, which later blossomed out into the cult of the new forms of

study then spreading over Europe. His brother Henry was also a student

at this University; indeed, all the four sons of Henry IV. were

carefully educated, and showed an aptitude for learning.[1178] There are

many circumstances, too, which point to the likelihood that Humphrey was

destined for a less active career than his brothers. Though only three

years younger than Thomas, and by one year the junior of John, he took

no part in the active life of the kingdom in which they largely shared

during the reign of Henry IV. Both these brothers held important

administrative posts under their father, and the eldest of all, Henry,

played no insignificant part before he succeeded to the throne. Humphrey

alone of the four is never mentioned either in official document or by

contemporary chronicler; he passed his time in seclusion and retirement

far from the gathering storm which was even then threatening the safety

of the House of Lancaster. HENRY IV. was by no means lacking in interest

in scholastic studies, and it is possible that he had destined his

youngest son for an ecclesiastical career, in which these studies would

rightly play a large part. In no other way can the absence of Humphrey

from public life, long after the age for beginning an active career, be

explained. Henry may have learnt the lesson of the dangers which had

resulted from the long list of royal princes who descended from Edward

III., and he may have wished to prevent a similar danger arising from

his offspring by devoting one son to a career in which descendants were

an impossibility. Certainly Humphrey, during this enforced seclusion,

had ample opportunity for study and reflection, his education was more

probably that of a scholar than of a politician.

Whatever may have been the plans of Henry IV. for his youngest son, they

ceased to be effective on his death. Almost immediately after that event

we find Humphrey carving out an active life for himself, and embarking

on that varied and interesting career which was only to end with the

tragedy of Bury. Yet the seeds had been sown. Never throughout his life

was the scholar quite swamped by the politician; his scholarly

instincts, nurtured in youth, survived to form a source of refreshment

and interest in the days of political misfortune. Nevertheless this

early training gives no clue to the originality of Humphrey's genius as

a scholar. Whence was it that he drew the inspiration which enabled him

to begin a new era in the development of the human intellect in England?

He had been trained in the dry-as-dust learning of the Middle Ages--no

other system was then known in England--he had been brought up on a

mental diet of law and theology seasoned with rhetoric; to our knowledge

he never had any opportunity of imbibing the new ideas which slowly and

feebly were climbing the Alps preparatory to the conquest of the Western

world; at that time he had never been out of England, he was never to

visit Italy. Yet stage by stage he outgrew the teaching of the ancient

schoolmen, and reached out to pick the fairest flowers of Greek

learning. In him we find a new spirit of inquiry, a desire for a wider

knowledge of the human mind. He was a son of the Renaissance before ever

that movement had sent its missionaries to the last outpost of mediæval

lore. There was no teacher to point the way for Humphrey, and we must

fall back on his inherent originality to explain the phenomenon. With no

promptings from the scholars of the new methods, he devoted himself to

their patronage; he himself became a teacher before ever he was taught.

As an apostle of progress Humphrey stands alone among his

fellow-countrymen, and we must hesitate to deny him a place amongst the

honoured disciples of Petrarch. What Petrarch did for the world,

Humphrey did for England.

GLOUCESTER AND THE ITALIANS

Dead and cold as England was to the new message which the Renaissance

had to teach humanity, it was natural that Humphrey should look to Italy

for help in his endeavours to study the forces which were being reborn

to give a character to the history of the future. Perhaps the most

interesting page in his history, therefore, deals with his relations to

the Italian humanists of his day; from them he borrowed something of the

spirit which was then becoming the most important element in Italian

life, something of that polish of refined scholarship which marks out

the humanistic scholar from the student of the Middle Ages. The effect

on English scholars of his time was visible, and Æneas Sylvius was not

slow to notice it. Writing to Adam Moleyns in answer to a letter from

that distinguished Englishman, he complimented him in somewhat

condescending language on his style; he marvelled how the reformed Latin

style had thus early reached England, and then proceeded to give praise

where praise was due. 'For this progress'--he wrote--'thanks are due to

the illustrious Duke of Gloucester, who zealously received polite

learning into your country. I hear that he cultivates poets and

venerates orators, and hereby many Englishmen have become really

eloquent. For as are princes so are servants, who improve by imitating

their masters.'[1179] Æneas showed no inclination to dwell on the

virtues of Humphrey when narrating his relations with Jacqueline, so

this praise from him deserves close attention, doubly so, as it must

have been in no way pleasant to the recipient of the letter, who was one

of the faction so bitterly opposed to Gloucester.

Humphrey, therefore, was instrumental in bringing the fruits of the

Italian scholarship to England, and he did this in two ways. He induced

some of those who had drunk of the new spring of intellectual life which

flowed from the teaching of Chrysoloras to come to England and enter his

service, and he also entered into communication with some of the

leading humanists who remained in Italy, and employed them on

translations of the Greek classics which were sent to England. In

England Greek was an unknown language, even as it had been in Italy

until the last decade of the fourteenth century, and it was only by

means of translations made by men who had a competent knowledge of

Greek, that the great philosophical treatises of Aristotle and Plato

could be read by Gloucester and his friends. Italy at this time was

embarking on that period in the history of Humanism which we may call

the age of translation and arrangement, the age when a minute knowledge

of the language of ancient Greece and a new critical faculty, born of

the emancipation from the hereditary theology of the Middle Ages,

produced a band of scholars who devoted their time to interpreting the

ideas of the past to the awakening intelligence of the present. These

men, with all their ardour for study, were not, and could not afford to

be, entirely disinterested in their work; to live, they must be paid for

their translations, and in an age when the art of printing had not come

to simplify the reproduction of books, they were compelled to appeal to

some particular patron to reward them for their toil, and to him in

return they dedicated their books. Many such patrons were to be found

among the princes of Italy, but outside that country they were not

common, and Humphrey stood out prominently amongst those patrons who

were not Italians. We cannot tell what first led him to embark on this

career, for he had, it would seem, no knowledge of Italy or the

Italians, when Poggio came to England, and he had probably at this time

evinced no desire to embark on the most interesting phase of his later

life. Not once does Poggio make even the most distant allusion to

Gloucester, either during his visit to England or after his return to

Italy in the autumn of 1423,[1180] and we cannot attribute this

entirely to his connection with the Duke's great rival.

ZANO OF BAYEUX

Humphrey's introduction to the Italian Humanists was due to his

friendship with Zano Castiglione, Bishop of Bayeux, a Frenchman by

birth, but descended from a famous Italian family. This prelate had

visited England, and had there become acquainted with the man who was to

be instrumental in bringing Italian scholarship to this country. A token

of their friendship is still extant at Paris in a manuscript collection

of the letters of Cicero presented by Zano to the Duke of

Gloucester.[1181]

In 1434 Zano was sent to the Council of Basel as representative of Henry

VI., and he took with him a commission from Humphrey to purchase for him

as many books as he could, especially such as had been written by

Guarino, the famous schoolmaster of Ferrara, and by Leonardo Bruni, the

biographer of Dante and Petrarch, whose reputation had already reached

the Duke in London.[1182] At Basel the Bishop came to know Francesco

Picolpasso, Archbishop of Milan, a scholarly ecclesiastic, who had

relations with all the leading Italian Humanists; and when he followed

the adjourned Council to Florence, this acquaintance became particularly

useful to him in view of his commission. In Florence Zano spent a year,

and we gather from the statements of Italian scholars, later to be

detailed, that he there devoted much of his time to singing the praises

of the English prince who took such an interest in literary matters. Of

his commission to buy books we hear no more, though it is probable that

when he returned to England especially to see Humphrey,[1183] he did not

go empty-handed. It is possible that Gloucester, though already a

collector of books, had not as yet thought of becoming the direct

patron of foreign scholars, and that his commission to Zano bore far

other and more important fruit than he had contemplated. Thus his

original interest in scholarship was moulded by the turn of events, and

the chance which took Zano from Basel to Florence laid the foundations

of one of the most important phases of the Duke's career. From this time

forward Humphrey continued to be in close relationship with several of

the best-known Humanists of the Italian Renaissance.

LEONARDO BRUNI

The first of these scholars to correspond with the new English patron

was Leonardo Bruni, better known by his title of Aretinus, taken from

Arezzo, the city of his birth. We have no evidence that Zano's visit was

the direct cause of his connection with the Duke, but the fact that the

latter had specially mentioned a desire for his works when Zano went to

Basel points to a strong probability that this was the case. It is

probable that Zano had sent over to England this author's translation of

Aristotle's _Ethics_; at any rate, it was after reading it that Humphrey

wrote and suggested that Bruni should undertake the _Politics_,[1184]

and in due course they were translated and dedicated to the Duke. In a

manuscript copy of this translation in the Bodleian Library we find the

dedication, and following it a letter from the author to Gloucester,

which is in no sense a dedicatory epistle, but evidently written after

the despatch of the volume to its destination, and later placed at the

beginning of a copy of the original work.

In this letter Bruni rejoices to hear of the arrival of his translation

of the books of Aristotle, which he had undertaken at the Duke's request

and suggestion, and to know that both Gloucester's desire, expressed in

several letters, has been fulfilled, and his own promise redeemed. He is

convinced that Gloucester will have already read the book, and he may

be sure that he has therein read the very words of Aristotle. To

Gloucester's action is due any value to the world in general that this

translation may have, for it was undertaken at his request, and finished

under pressure from him. In its completed form it stands as a monument

to Gloucester's love of learning.[1185] Throughout this letter we can

see the shadow of Gloucester's character; eager and impetuous in matters

political, he displayed the same characteristic when he turned his mind

to scholarship and learning; the same enthusiasm which took him to

Hainault led him to harass Bruni till the coveted book was ready.

Perhaps his eagerness to keep this shifty humanist to his work was well

advised, else he might not have got the book at all, for almost

immediately afterwards the dedication was changed, and that which Bruni

had declared would be a monument to Gloucester's glory, became by a

stroke of the pen a monument to the glory of Pope Eugenius IV.[1186] The

reason for this sudden change of patron is probably to be found in the

almost universal greediness of the Italian Humanists, though the

gossiping old bookseller Vespasiano ascribes it to the fact that Bruni

thought that his work was not sufficiently appreciated[1187]--perhaps a

polite way of putting the same truth.

PIER CANDIDO DECEMBRIO

Leonardo's own explanation of the incident is to be found in one of his

letters, and this throws light on the origin of the connection which

Humphrey about this time began with another well-known Italian, Pier

Candido Decembrio. This scholar, a native of Vigevano, near Pavia, was

at this time secretary to Filippo Maria Visconti of Milan, whose life he

ultimately wrote. Already famous as a translator of the Greek classics,

he now saw an opportunity of gaining an important patron, and wrote a

letter to Humphrey, in which he dwelt at some length on the fame which

the Duke had already attained in Italy as a patron of letters, owing to

the untiring praises of him which Zano had sung. Having heard, he

continued, that Bruni had dedicated his translation of Aristotle's

_Politics_ to the Pope instead of to the Duke as he had promised, he had

resolved to offer his services in his place, and to suggest that he

might translate Plato's _Republic_ for the distinguished Englishman of

whom he had heard so much, though he had never seen his face.[1188]

Being personally unknown to Gloucester, Candido determined to get an

introduction to his future patron, and so forwarded this letter to his

friend Rolando Talenti, a noble youth of Milan, who was at that time at

Bayeux, probably on some diplomatic errand.[1189] Talenti was willing to

do his friend a kindness, and promptly wrote to the Duke, enclosing

Candido's letter, and strongly advising him to accept the offer therein

contained.

This recommendation must have carried weight, although Talenti did not

at once receive an answer to his letter. The anxious humanist could not

brook delay, and though he had received assurance from his correspondent

that his work would not be done in vain, he wrote once more to Talenti

asking him to find out definitely from the Duke what he had decided to

do with respect to his offer to work for him. It was obviously of

considerable importance to Candido to know if his work was to procure

any reward, for though he was to prove more faithful than Bruni, he was

none the less greedy of gain.[1190] Talenti accordingly wrote once more

to Gloucester, asking him to let him know his decision about the offer

lately made to him.[1191] After characteristic delay Humphrey replied

to Talenti in enthusiastic terms, saying that he would gladly welcome

the translation of Candido, who would never have reason to regret the

offer of his services to a foreign patron.[1192] With this communication

he enclosed a reply to Candido, dating it February 7, the year, which is

omitted, being probably 1439.[1193] Herein he gladly accepted the offer,

and with his usual impetuosity urged his newly made friend to hasten the

completion of the translation; he gave devout thanks that there was in

Italy such a devoted band of scholars, who not only had restored the old

style of the Latin tongue, which had been altogether lost, but also had

brought to light those long-forgotten philosophers of Greece, and their

invaluable maxims for good living. He concluded with a warm assurance of

affection, and a hearty promise of acceptance of anything new which

Candido or any one else should bring to his notice.[1194]

Talenti accordingly forwarded the Duke's acceptance to Candido, and in

two successive letters to him urged that scholar to be industrious and

to hasten the work to its completion, so that his patron might be able

to appreciate to the full the depth of his scholarship.[1195]

Accordingly, Candido set to work with a will, and soon after wrote to

Zano, telling him of his undertaking and announcing the completion of

the fifth book. The Bishop of Bayeux was also to be used as an

intermediary between the Italian scholar and the English prince, for in

the same letter he was informed of the author's intention to forward the

translation, when completed, to him for transmission to

Gloucester.[1196] Zano was delighted at the news, and praised his

correspondent's intention, assuring him of a speedy reward for his work,

and ample recognition from his new patron.[1197] Both Talenti and Zano

therefore showed no slight respect both for Gloucester's literary taste

and for his generosity to those who worked for him, and this in spite of

the fact that they both knew the story of Bruni's relations with the

Duke. They would hardly have encouraged their friend to undertake this

work had they not been amply assured of his receiving an adequate

reward, and neither for a moment doubted the sincerity and ability of

this English patron. The readiness with which Gloucester's literary

interests were ministered to in Italy proves that his reputation must

have been very great, else the Italian humanists would not have been so

eager to work for a prince who dwelt in a land which was regarded as the

home of ignorance, and which visitors like Poggio Bracciolini had

painted in such unfavourable terms.

Zano and Talenti were not the only Italians to correspond with Humphrey

about Candido's translation. The completed fifth book was intrusted to

Francesco Piccolpasso, Archbishop of Milan, to be forwarded to England

as a sample of the whole work. In his covering letter this new

correspondent gave still further evidence of Gloucester's high repute in

Italy, telling him that ever since his brother Gerardo Landriani, then

Bishop of Lodi, had returned from a visit to England, he had been fired

with a desire to know that country, or at least to correspond with its

most famous son. So we see that Zano was not the only one to introduce

the Italian scholars to a knowledge of Gloucester's literary tastes.

Francesco then recapitulated the story of how Candido first thought of

translating the _Republic_, when he heard that Bruni had been breaking

his word, and added some words of commendation of the former, who, he

said, was equally well versed in Greek and Latin. It was merely with

the idea of pleasing Humphrey that Candido had undertaken the task of

translating the _Republic_, of which the fifth book, the first to be

translated, was now sent as a foretaste of the feast that was to come.

Francesco was delighted to be commissioned to send to the Duke a work of

such value, and he trusted that it would be approved, so that the

translator might be inspired to continue his work. He urged him further

to allow Candido to occupy the place lately held by Bruni, and, when

this work should be completed, to give him other commissions, which he

was sure would be right well performed. The letter closed with a

petition to Gloucester to use his influence to restore peace to the

Church.[1198]

LEONARDO BRUNI ENVIOUS

This letter, though, written in the first place to please a friend,

deepens our impression of the respect Humphrey had already obtained in

Italy, and also bears witness to the desire of Candido to take the place

of Bruni with regard to the Duke. It was therefore probably about this

time that this last-named humanist wrote an expostulatory letter to the

Archbishop of Milan, in which he betrayed his chagrin at having lost his

English patron, and gave his version of the change of dedications, of

which Candido had made such good use. He complained that he had received

copies of letters written by Francesco to Gloucester, informing the Duke

that he (Bruni) was dead, and to Candido slandering his good name;

besides this, the Duke had been told that his former translator was a

promise-breaker. In every case there were misstatements, prompted

probably by Candido. In justification of this assertion he gave a

summary of his relations with Gloucester, how the Duke had urged him to

translate the _Politics_, because he was so sensible of the use that

his earlier translation of the _Ethics_ would be to students. This Bruni

promised to do, and fulfilled his promise by sending the first copy of

his work to his lordship, who had asked him to undertake the translation

for the good of the community, and not that it might be dedicated to

him; indeed it was unlikely that the dedication thereof could have given

any pleasure to so great a prince. In conclusion, Bruni emphatically

stated that he never had received a penny from Gloucester for the work

he had done. 'I never sold my studies, nor made merchandise of

books.'[1199]

This last statement we may well doubt, else why should Bruni be so

angered at Gloucester being wrongly informed of his death? The case was

probably the reverse of what he stated, and he had calculated on

obtaining double payment for his work by securing for it two patrons,

who were so distant from one another that the deception would not be

discovered. The story told by Candido and the Archbishop of Milan, and

borne out by the statement of Vespasiano, is probably nearer the truth,

though Candido himself seems to have behaved in a somewhat underhand way

in trying to secure a monopoly of the Duke's favours. At all events,

henceforth Candido was Gloucester's chief literary representative in

Italy, and we can trace their relationship by means of their

correspondence, of which a part has been preserved.

Considering the facts which had enabled Candido to replace Bruni in the

service of Duke Humphrey, it is rather extraordinary that he had the

temerity to forward the first sample of his work without an inscription

to his new patron. This omission was promptly noted by Gloucester, and

in his reply to the letter of the Archbishop of Milan he complained

about it, and with memories of the action of Bruni fresh in his mind,

he asked his correspondent to urge Candido not only to hasten the

completion of the translation, but also not to forget to dedicate it as

he had promised.[1200] He wrote much in the same strain to Candido,

expressing some surprise that the book was not dedicated to him, but

supposing that this was so because it was only a portion of the whole

translation. Again he urged Candido to renewed efforts, and promised

that his friendship would not be unprofitable.[1201] Candido replied to

this in most effusive terms. Giving devout thanks for the existence of a

prince endowed with such an excess of virtue, he replied that though the

whole work was to be dedicated to Gloucester, yet three separate books

were to be dedicated to three other friends; the fifth to Giovanni

Amadeo, a lawyer of Milan; the sixth to Alfonso, Bishop of Burgos; and

the last to the Archbishop of Milan.[1202] The fervour of the praises

lavished on the Duke in this letter suggest a fear on the part of the

writer that offence might be taken at these subsidiary dedications, and

still further to propitiate the Duke another letter followed almost

immediately, announcing the despatch of the first five books of the

translated _Republic_, which were already read to the honour and glory

of Humphrey not only throughout Italy, but also in Spain. Happy would he

be were he able to place his gracious patron's name in all his

books.[1203]

TRANSLATION OF THE 'REPUBLIC'

The translation of the first five books had been sent according to

promise to Talenti, who was to have them carefully copied and sent to

the Duke. At the same time Candido had promised that, when the whole

work was completed, he would have all the books copied into a single

volume and sent to his patron, and showing some distrust of

Gloucester's appreciation of his work, had asked his friend to convey

his assurances of devotion.[1204] In due course this portion of the

translation reached its destination, bearing a long dedicatory epistle,

in which Candido once more laid stress on the way Zano had made

Gloucester's name a household word amongst the Italian Humanists. The

dedication concludes with an account of the origin of the translation,

telling how it was originally the work of Chrysoloras, but by reason of

his defective Latin style was passed on to the writer's father, who died

before its completion, leaving it to be finished by his son.[1205] This

genesis of the translation probably explains why Candido was able so

quickly to prepare the first five books, for they must have been

completed some time before they were sent, if their contents were

already known throughout Italy and also in Spain; most likely the fifth

book, which he had first sent to Gloucester, was the only one of the

first five which was entirely his own translation.

[Illustration: THE DUKE OF GLOUCESTER'S AUTOGRAPH IN HIS COPY OF

DECEMBRIO'S TRANSLATION OF "THE REPUBLIC" OF PLATO.]

[Illustration: LABEL ON THE FLY-LEAF OF A BOOK GIVEN BY THE DUKE OF

GLOUCESTER TO THE OXFORD LIBRARY.]

GLOUCESTER AND DECEMBRIO

Gloucester's acknowledgment of the first five books of the _Republic_

shows him to have been so thoroughly imbued with the peculiar spirit of

the Renaissance scholars, that it is well to give it in full. 'We have

received your longed-for letters with the books of Plato,' he writes,

'which have given us much pleasure. Nothing could give us more pleasure,

especially since they will reflect honour and glory on us, as you say.

We are therefore very grateful to you for having done so much hard work

in our name, whence both we and you will receive great praise. The books

are of such a kind that they invite even the unwilling to read them;

such is the dignity and grace of Plato, and so successful is your

interpretation of him, that we cannot say to whom we owe most, to him

for drawing a prince of such wise statesmanship, or to you for labouring

to bring to light this statesmanship hidden and almost lost by our

negligence. You have chosen a noble and worthy province which cannot

be taken from you in any age, nor be lost by any forgetfulness, that is,

if what the wisest men say be true, and glory is indeed immortal. We

have read and re-read these books, and with such pleasure that we have

determined that they shall never leave our side, whether we be at home

or on military service, for if your translation cannot be compared to

the divine eloquence of Plato, nevertheless in our opinion it is hardly

inferior. These books shall be always kept at hand, so that we may ever

have something to give us pleasure, and that they may be almost as

counsellors and companions for so much of our life as is left to us, as

was the wisdom of Nestor to Agamemnon, and that of Achates to Æneas. On

the same page Plato and Candido can be read and admired together, and

the latter, no less than ourselves, be seen labouring to increase our

dignity. We exhort, and would compel you to labour hard at the

completion of the other books which we await impatiently. Do not think

that anything can give us more pleasure than that which relates to

learning and the cult of letters. You have and shall have whatsoever you

wish from us, who have always favoured your studies. We possess Livy and

other eminent writers, and nearly all the works of Cicero which have

been hitherto found. If you have anything of great value, we beg of you

to tell us.'[1206]

This letter is a typical example of Humphrey's style, and the Latin has

an unexpectedly classical tinge, though this was doubtless the work of

one of his secretaries. The sentiments betray a love of learning for its

own sake, and a genuine pleasure, not only in the possession of this

translation of the _Republic_, but also in reading and re-reading it,

for Humphrey was never one of those ignorant book-collectors who are

made to writhe under the scornful lash of Lucian of Samosata. Still more

interesting is the almost childish desire for fame and glory, that

desire to live in the memory of posterity. Though to us this seems small

and unworthy of either a great prince or a famous patron of scholars, we

must remember that the desire to establish an unforgetable name was

typical of the earlier Humanists, and sprang from a far from ignoble

motive. In the Middle Ages man had looked on life as a weary pilgrimage,

a disagreeable though necessary preliminary to a life of eternal bliss;

the men of the new world looked on the happy side of things, and

rejoiced in the goodliness of that life which God had given them. Man's

actions, therefore, became more important--more to be praised or blamed

as the case might be. Thus to live a famous life, and to be remembered

after death, were among the chief desires of the scholars of the new

learning, desires which became intensified when the gospel of man's

individuality was more clearly understood. The glorification of the

individual was part of the glorification of the world; and before the

cult of the world became a mere striving after sensual indulgence, this

desire for glory was a worthy ambition. In Humphrey this ambition is not

the last phase of a selfish egotism, as the story of his life might

suggest, but part of that new spirit of self-realisation, which had led

Petrarch and Boccaccio to seek for fame as the only justification for

their existence.

GLOUCESTER'S CHOICE OF BOOKS

Candido was well pleased with his patron's praises, and was able to

reply with the grateful news that the other five books had just been

finished, though the transcribing of a copy for the Duke would still

take some time, especially as all ten books were to be copied into one

volume, with the translator's latest additions and corrections. Every

care was to be bestowed upon it, to make it one of the most elegant

works in the Latin language.[1207] In the meantime, however, Candido was

not idle, since he had already received a commission to act as

Humphrey's literary agent in Italy, for there was no hope of getting

translations of the Greek classics, or even faithful copies of the works

of Latin authors, in England. He had by him some books which Humphrey

had ordered, and in their purchase he had had a free hand, as his patron

had declared that he was not to be deterred by any price, though in

their selection he was guided by Humphrey's choice. The Duke had a clear

idea as to what he wanted in the way of books, and was in no way

inclined to submit to what Candido cared to advise. Accordingly he sent

a list, of which the chief items were the works of Cornelius Celsus, the

medical writer of the Augustinian age, the _Natural History_ of the

elder Pliny, the _Panegyricon on Trajan_ of the younger Pliny, and the

works of Apuleius, the famous pagan philosopher, whose chief attraction

was probably his treatise on the philosophy of Plato, and as many of the

works of Varro, the friend of Cicero, as could be found, especially his

treatise _De Lingua Latina_[1208]--a list which showed considerable

catholicity of taste. Other books, too, Gloucester had ordered, but they

had seemingly not found favour, as fit objects of purchase, with

Candido. The Duke, however, insisted on his choice, 'although we know

them to be wrong frequently, owing to an absurd interpretation of the

authors, yet they cannot be disregarded, if only on account of their

authority and their proved learning'; at any rate, Candido would not

suffer from their purchase, for he was bidden to send the prices of the

various books whether ready copied, or to be copied in the future, and

the money would be forwarded to him through those Italian merchants who

made banking one of the chief branches of their trade.[1209]

At a later date Humphrey sent the catalogue of his library to his

correspondent, who was genuinely surprised at the wonderful variety of

the books therein detailed, but he modestly suggested that it lacked at

least a hundred books which were indispensable for a collection that

aimed at such completeness, and which he was quite prepared to procure.

'You know my diligence and trustworthiness in this matter,' he wrote

with the usual guile of the Italian humanist, 'I who desire nothing but

your honour and glory, and that your name be handed down to everlasting

repute as far as I can make it so.' Truly this man knew how to win the

heart of Humphrey, and wanted more of those lucrative commissions from

the open-handed Duke. He went on to explain that the books could not be

bought in a day, but they could be ordered, so there would be always

some treasure coming to hand with which he could delight his

patron.[1210]

Gloucester welcomed this list of desirable books, and therefrom compiled

another list of volumes which Candido was to purchase for him; the rest

he declared were in his possession, though not mentioned in the

catalogue he had sent lately. This last statement reads as if he were

asserting his own power of criticism, and did not choose to have all the

books that his friend pressed upon him. At the same time Humphrey wrote

to Filippo Mario Visconti, explaining to him how he was using his

secretary, so that no difficulties might be placed in the way of

Candido's purchases, and that access to the Ducal Library at Milan might

be allowed him.[1211] Copyists were promptly set to work to fulfil the

Duke's order, but as there was 'no small love of libraries' in Italy,

the work progressed slowly, for the scribes had more than they could do.

However, in May 1442 a small parcel of books was handed to the Borromei

merchants for transmission to Gloucester.[1212] About this time, too,

Zano returned from Florence, bearing with him manifold messages of

fidelity from Candido, which he delivered in person to the Duke.[1213]

The books arrived quite safely, and with them the copy of Candido's

translation of the _Republic_, which had been long delayed owing to the

author's illness at the time of the completion of the translation, which

had prevented him from revising and correcting the text as he had

wished.[1214] This last volume was delivered in person by Scaramuccia

Balbo, a personal friend of the translator and a servant of the Duke of

Milan.[1215] When writing about the final completion of the _Republic_,

in a letter which probably accompanied the book, Candido gives us an

insight into the scholarship of Duke Humphrey. Casting aside all

personal appeals or unctuous flatteries, he writes as one scholar to

another, and declares that he had neither added to nor detracted from

the work of Plato, he had simply put that work within the reach of those

who knew no Greek.[1216] Humphrey was equally restrained when

acknowledging the receipt of the completed work, declaring that he had

had an immense desire to study the 'great and broad mind of Plato, which

indeed we find to be a heavenly constellation.' At the same time he

recorded the arrival of nine other volumes, and told Candido that he

awaited the rest with great impatience, most especially Cicero's _De

Productione et Creatione Mundi_; the complete works of Aulus Gellius,

the author of the _Noctes Atticæ_, a copy of which was included in the

books given to Oxford in 1439; Cerelius, _De Natali Die_;[1217]

Appuleius, _De Magia_; and the books of Lucius Florus. Amongst others,

he desired Columella's famous treatise on ancient agriculture, and that

on architecture by Vitruvius; the works of the geographer, Pomponius

Mela; Ptolemy's _Cosmographia_ and his treatise on the heavenly bodies;

Pomponius Festus, _De Vocabulis_, and a book on the dignities and

insignia of the Roman Empire.[1218] In a later letter he thanked Candido

for sending a selection of the books he had ordered, together with some

declamations written by the translator himself.[1219] These last were

probably the two volumes of letters dealing with the controversy which

had raged round Candido's translation of the _Ethics_, which the author

had dedicated to his English patron.[1220]

Four more books followed these in quick succession, but they were

acknowledged in a somewhat curt letter in which Gloucester told his

correspondent not to confide any more books to the merchants who had

brought them, as they had been unduly long in fulfilling their

commission.[1221] A year passed without further interchange of letters,

and then the Duke wrote reproachfully, complaining of Candido's long

silence and the cessation of the supply of books. With thinly veiled

sarcasm he attributed this to ill-health on the part of his agent, and

concluded: 'On this account we have determined to write this letter to

you, in which we ask you to complete the work you have begun, and not to

let our long silence about the reward of your labours affect you, for in

the end, perhaps, you will get what you thought at the beginning, as we

have never let any one who has done work for us go unrewarded.'[1222]

QUARREL OF GLOUCESTER AND DECEMBRIO

The tone of Gloucester's letter is distinctly arrogant, but he was

undoubtedly right when he conceived that it was a matter of reward which

had risen up between him and his correspondent. On receiving the

completed translation of the _Republic_ he had written to Candido,

saying that he wished to reward him for his exertions, and had decided

to settle on him a salary of one hundred ducats a year. Having made all

the preliminary arrangements, it occurred to him that this might give

offence to Candido's master, the Duke of Milan. In fear, therefore, of

doing his friend more harm than good by this action, he had determined

to postpone the idea till he had consulted Candido himself, whom he had

asked to give his opinion.[1223] In a later letter Humphrey had written

again to much the same effect, saying that he feared that Candido

distrusted his honest realisation of the obligation he owed him. He

urged him not to listen to empty rumours, and repeated the substance of

what he had said before.[1224] It seems that Candido refused this offer,

and in its place desired to be given what he called 'Petrarch's

Villa'--possibly the house once owned by Petrarch at Gavignano near

Milan. In making this request he was probably influenced by the fact

that the scholar Filelfo had just received such a gift from Duke Filippo

Maria, and by a desire to be equal with this great rival, who had so

lately come to Milan. Be this as it may, Humphrey ignored his request,

not vouchsafing an answer one way or the other. All this Candido stated

in his answer to the Duke's complaint of silence, and he pointed to his

disinterested services in the past, and to the way he had spent three

long years in translating the _Republic_, merely to win his patron's

friendship. It was not forgetfulness, but fear, caused by the Duke's

ignoring his request, that had induced his long silence, and in

refutation of Gloucester's suggestion of failing strength, he pointed to

the fact that he was not yet forty years old, an age when Plato declared

that a man was not past his prime. For himself, he was ready to continue

to serve his old patron, and though busy at Rome of late, he had,

during the time of silence, secured Columella's treatise on agriculture

and all the works of Apuleius in an emended transcript, besides other

works, but since exception to sending them by merchants had been taken,

there was no means of despatching them to their destination. If a means

of conveyance were to be suggested by Gloucester, he would gladly avail

himself thereof. This letter of great dignity and of veiled reproach

ended on a pathetic note. 'It is your silence, not the fear of no

reward, that disturbs me, so I will not ask of you anything but

friendship and kindness; my fidelity I will keep unshaken, and though my

affairs are in no sound condition, I will pass that over. Nothing can be

worse than to lose your favour.'[1225]

Thus ends one of the most interesting series of letters of the period,

and we are left in the dark as to the ultimate decision of the matter.

It seems probable, from the absence of any further letters, that

Humphrey never replied to this, though the obvious loss of letters

earlier in the correspondence makes this deduction inconclusive. If

Candido's statements are true, the Duke appears in a very unfavourable

light. Some payments, of course, must have been made by him, and it is

possible that they were sufficiently large to wipe out any obligation he

might owe to the man who had worked so well for him, but it is equally

possible that the exceeding liberality, of which he makes boast, was

mostly confined to words. Instability--that canker which lay at the root

of the 'Good Duke's' character--had again asserted itself. He had

disappointed Bruni of his hopes, he now did the same by Candido. Is this

a true estimate of his relations with the Italian Humanists? We must

remember that as a race these men were proverbially greedy, and that in

both cases we have no definite statement of Humphrey's case. How far

with respect to Candido was the danger of alienating Filippo Maria of

Milan a reality? More perhaps than we might think, for a few months

after Gloucester's death we find Candido petitioning for some

recognition of his services from the governors of Milan, and he bases

his claim on long and faithful service to the Visconti, to serve whom he

had refused and contemned many valuable efforts made by both Humphrey,

Duke of Gloucester, and the King of Spain.[1226] When it served his

purpose, therefore, Candido stated the case more in favour of his

English patron than his last letter would lead us to believe possible.

We can form no exact estimate of the number of books sent over by

Candido to Gloucester. We hear of the safe arrival of at least

thirty-one,[1227] and there is mention of many more in the

correspondence. For the most part they were books by Latin authors, and

those not always of the Golden Age of Latin literature. However, they

show a great advance on the studies of the Middle Ages, and display a

wonderful breadth of interest. We have no evidence that it was for

practical purposes that Humphrey evinced a peculiar interest in

agriculture, but his known liking for astrology is represented, and his

wish to possess the treatise of Vitruvius on Architecture shows that he

had an intimate knowledge of the writings of the past. Of these books

and their indication of the tastes of their owner more will be said

later.

PIERO DEL MONTE

Humphrey was acquainted with other Italian scholars less famous than

Bruni and Candido. Among these was Piero del Monte, a learned Venetian,

who had been a pupil of Guarino, and had studied at the Universities of

Paris and Brescia. Appointed apostolic protonotary to Eugenius IV., he

was sent to England as papal collector about 1434, being recommended to

Cardinal Beaufort, who does not seem to have taken any interest in his

scholarly visitor.[1228] Unlike Poggio, however, Piero became acquainted

with Humphrey, of whom he conceived a very high opinion. On his return

to Italy at the end of his mission, he dedicated to the Duke a moral

treatise, which was the solitary product of his pen, if indeed a work,

in which Guarino, Francesco Barbaro, and Andrea Giuliano were all

collaborators,[1229] can legitimately be put down to any one man's

authorship. The title runs 'Petrus de Monte ad illustrissimum principem

Ducem Gloucestrie de virtutum et viciorum inter se differentia,' and the

dedicatory epistle is full of Gloucester's praises. In this case we have

no reason to suspect the genuineness of the laudatory remarks, for the

writer was not one of the regular Italian translators and authors who

looked to secure further employment by means of the fulsomeness of their

dedications. Piero had a secure position and a fixed salary, and was

compelled to bow down to no prince to eke out a precarious livelihood.

The very first words of the dedication strike the right note of genuine

friendship, when Humphrey's position as a prince among men by reason of

birth is set aside, and his true title to respect is based on his

scholarly interests. 'You have no real pleasure,' writes Piero, 'apart

from the reading of books.' Still more stress is laid on the Duke's

energy, which enabled him to take an active part in the affairs of

state, as well as to be a man of letters--a very unusual combination, so

says the author. In this respect he is compared to Julius Cæsar, who

waged war and wrote his _Commentaries_ at the same time; to Augustus,

and to Theodosius, who fought and judged by day, and wrote books by

night, for, unlike his compatriots, he did not spend his leisure in

hunting or pleasure, but preferred to ponder over books in some

library.[1230] This versatile activity which characterised Humphrey was

part of the Renaissance spirit which brightened his imagination. The

men of the new birth were vigorous and enthusiastic in the days of their

mental youth, no obstacle daunted them, no branch of life's interests

seemed unworthy of their attention. It is the astounding versatility of

these men of the Renaissance which causes our wonder, even more than

their enlightened originality, and it was the same inspiration which

enabled men like Leonardo da Vinci to be painters, poets, musicians,

inventors, and scientists all in one, that also enabled the English Duke

to combine an active military career and vast political ambitions with

an enthusiastic study of the ancient classics.

The latter half of Piero's dedication again lays stress on Humphrey's

many interests, his delight, 'not only in one art and science, which

might be considered sufficient, but in nearly all of them.' We also get

an interesting sketch of Humphrey as he appeared to a man who had spent

much time in his society. His power of discussing literary matters, we

are told, was great, and the tenacity of his memory for all he both read

and heard was astounding, and so accurate that he could quote chapter

and verse in support of his statements. His kindness to Piero had been

very great, and it was in memory of the happy days spent in his company

that the present work was hesitatingly, yet hopefully, dedicated to

him.[1231]

After Piero had returned to Italy he seems to have kept up a

correspondence with his friend in England, at least so we gather from

the one letter which survives. Indeed, Humphrey had commissioned him to

procure something for him in Italy, books for his library probably,

though Piero, it seems, forgot what he had been asked to do. However, on

his own initiative he got some manuscripts copied for the Duke, though

we have no evidence that they were ever despatched.[1232] It is to be

deplored that this correspondence has not been preserved even to the

imperfect extent that the letters which passed between Humphrey and

Candido have survived. In the latter case the connection was between

master and servant, between employer and employed, who had no personal

knowledge of each other. In the case of Piero del Monte the relationship

was of a different order. Two scholars with similar tastes and

aspirations had struck up a friendship based on a strong intellectual

sympathy, and the mercenary motives, which obtruded themselves where

Candido was concerned, were here absent. We can listen to the praise of

Del Monte without any nauseating suspicion of the reality of the

sentiments expressed.

LAPO DA CASTIGLIONCHIO

Yet another Italian scholar do we find sending books from Italy to

Humphrey in the person of Lapo da Castiglionchio, a pupil of Filelfo,

and a great translator of Lucian, Xenophon, Isocrates, Demosthenes, and

Plutarch. His abilities were recognised by his contemporaries as of the

highest order, and for his work of translation he possessed the

essential equipment of an excellent Latin style; but a premature death

cut short what promised to be a brilliant career. Lapo was one of those

numerous poor scholars, who were compelled to appeal to powerful and

wealthy patrons for the means of subsistence, and he numbered among

these Eugenius IV., Cosimo de' Medici, and the Cardinals Vitelleschi,

Cesarini and Orsini, ultimately becoming secretary to the papal

court.[1233] It was through Zano that he came to think of Gloucester as

a possible patron, and in both the dedications, which he inscribed to

the Duke, he made mention of the Bishop. Of the _Lives_ of Plutarch

translated by Lapo, at least one, the _Life of Artaxerxes_, was

dedicated 'Ad Illustrissimum Principem Enfridum, Gloucestrie Ducem et

Pembrochie Comitem,'[1234] and his original treatise, _Comparatio

Studiorum et Rei militaris_, is addressed to the same person. The

question discussed in this second work is one of great difficulty, so

says the author in his dedicatory preface, and fittingly inscribed to

one who is renowned not only in England, but also in France, Germany,

Spain, 'Besia,'[1235] and Italy, as a famous soldier, and who at the

same time surpasses all other contemporary princes in 'learning,

eloquence, and the humane studies.' With all humility the attempt to

compare these two spheres of human activity is therefore submitted to

his criticism. Together with this treatise Lapo sent 'three orations of

Socrates,' one of which instructed youth in the way of virtue, whilst

the other two dealt with the relations of prince and subject, all of

which the translator thought would be useful to one who had the charge

of a youthful king, and was busied with the government of a great

kingdom.[1236]

The _Life of Artaxerxes_ was translated for the Duke at a later date

than this, and together with it Lapo sent other translations from the

Greek of Plutarch, including the Lives of Theseus, Romulus, Solon,

Publicola, Pericles, Fabius Maximus, Themistocles, Camillus, and Aratus.

The dedication is too highly coloured to be taken seriously, and the

list of virtues possessed by the Duke, according to the conversation of

Zano as recorded by the author, only speaks to the writer's ingenuity.

Yet there are some signs of real feeling beneath this fulsome flattery,

and the praise accorded the Duke for his interest in all study,

especially that of the humanities, rings true. It tells how Humphrey

devoted to the acquisition of learning much time that others spent in

feasting and pleasure, and how therein he resembled some of the most

celebrated men of the past, both Greeks and Romans. This alone would

account for Lapo's decision that, though the men of the present compared

very poorly with those of the past, an exception must be made in the

case of the 'illustrious Duke of Gloucester.'[1237] The sifting of the

chaff from the wheat in this dedication is not so hard a task as it

might at first seem. Zano had evidently spoken in no measured terms of

the greatness of his princely friend, and the literary leanings of this

patron had appealed to the inflammable imaginations of the Italian

scholars. Lapo was speaking with knowledge when he alluded to the Duke's

love of learning, of hearsay only when he embarked on a personal and

political eulogy, and whilst we may accept as genuine his admiration of

Gloucester's scholarship, we must ignore his statements as to his

patron's other virtues. Further evidence as to the relations between

Lapo and Humphrey we do not possess, though doubtless, did we but know

it, a correspondence passed between them. Castiglionchio at any rate was

not the least of that band of Italian scholars who acknowledged this

English patron.

The list of those men who worked for Duke Humphrey in Italy ends with

the name of Antonio Pasini of Todi, well known for his Latin

translations of Plutarch, which were much sought after, and were

frequently reproduced by the early Italian printers, there being at

least seven complete editions of them between 1470 and 1558. His

translation of the _Life of Marius_ was dedicated to the Duke, and in

his preface we find that he, like so many of his fellow-scholars, had

been induced to work for him by the way Zano had spoken of his patronage

of learning. It seems, too, that it was due to Zano that Humphrey

possessed so great a military reputation in Italy, which is alluded to

by nearly all his Italian scholar friends. Still more is said in a

somewhat fulsome strain about the kindness and generosity of the Duke,

and the usual eulogy of his literary tastes is naturally

emphasised.[1238] This somewhat trite and commonplace effusion is the

least interesting of all the dedications to Gloucester still extant:

there is a servility and a lack of genuine feeling which shines through

the flattering words. Of all the Italians, Pasini wrote most obviously

for lucre and not for love.

ALFONSO OF NAPLES

Besides the professional Italian Humanists Humphrey numbered at least

one of the princes of Italy amongst his friends and correspondents, for

in the Vatican Library there is preserved a copy of a letter written by

him to Alfonso, King of Aragon and Naples. This prince, though of

Spanish origin, had asserted his right to the crown of Naples, and had

become more Italian than the Italians themselves, just as a later

Spanish importation in the Chair of St. Peter was to be. He was one of

the most devoted patrons of the Renaissance in Italy, converting his

court into an assembly of scholars, and even when on a campaign refusing

to be separated from his beloved books. To this typical prince of the

Italian Renaissance Humphrey wrote as a man of like sympathies, dating

his letter from Greenwich on July 12, 1445. The tone of this letter

would lead us to believe that the two princes had already corresponded,

and that some agent or follower of the King of Naples had lately visited

the Duke, who strangely enough praises his correspondent in very similar

terms to those used by Lapo da Castiglionchio of himself, alluding to

the great reputation which Alfonso possessed both as a soldier and as a

scholar. Chancing to be reading a French translation of Livy when Philip

Boyl arrived,[1239] he happened on a passage that dealt with learning,

which convinced him that the book would form an ideal present for

Alfonso, and he accordingly sent it to him as a token of his great

esteem.[1240] No present could be more acceptable to the King of

Naples, who, it is said, treated one of the bones of Livy, sent to him

by the Republic of Venice, as a mediæval churchman would have treated

the relic of a saint. Strangely enough, another great prince of the new

learning presented a copy of Livy to Alfonso, for this was the present

with which Cosimo de' Medici made a friend of a former opponent.[1241]

The copy which Humphrey sent was probably that one which Bedford had

presented to him, and which is now in the Bibliothèque de Sainte

Geneviève at Paris; for when Charles VIII. of France invaded Naples,

Alfonso's fine library was dispersed, and it is therefore possible that

this item found its way back to the land of its origin by this

circuitous route.

ANTONIO DI BECCARIA

Humphrey was not content merely to correspond with the Italian

Humanists; he brought several of them over to England to assist him in

the study of the books he procured from their fellow-countrymen. So well

known was this custom of his, that Æneas Sylvius, when writing to

Sigismund of Austria, alluded to it in laudatory terms.[1242] No more

striking evidence of the great reputation which the Duke of Gloucester

possessed in Italy is to be found, than the way that this distinguished

scholar, who, as far as we know, was personally unknown to him, on more

than one occasion alluded to his literary qualities. Of the foreigners

whom we find in connection with Humphrey from time to time some mention

must be made of Vincent Clement, who represented him for some time at

the papal court. A Spaniard by birth, but an Italian by education,

Vincent was a man of considerable scholarly interests, a friend of

Gloucester's chancellor Beckington, and at one time favoured by Henry

VI., who recommended him to Oxford as a suitable recipient of academic

honours.[1243] A certain Maufurney, of French origin, acted as

Humphrey's private secretary for a considerable time, and in that

capacity received the honour of naturalisation in 1426.[1244] Also among

the Duke's secretaries we find Antonio di Beccaria, a native of Verona,

who had studied under that prince of Renaissance schoolmasters,

Vittorino da Feltre. He was one of Filelfo's many friends, and devoted

his attention to writing erotic verse and to the translation of Greek

authors, amongst whom mention may be made of Dionysius Periegetes, whose

geographical poem appeared in a Latin translation under the title of 'De

Situ Orbis.'[1245] For the Duke of Gloucester Beccaria translated

several of the less well-known treatises of St. Athanasius, which are

contained in two volumes now bound as one, and preserved in the British

Museum.[1246] At the end of each an inscription by Humphrey records that

they were translated for him by Antonio, his secretary, but some words

in the opening preamble of the second volume lead us to believe that

this latter work was finished after the translator had returned to his

native land.[1247] Yet another of Antonio's translations of

Athanasius--in this case the famous tract against the Arian heresy--was

dedicated to Humphrey,[1248] who, however, did not employ this secretary

for theological purposes alone.

The Renaissance scholar had wide interests, and from Athanasius Antonio

turned at the bidding of his master to the translation into Latin of one

of Boccaccio's works. This was one of the poet's minor poems, probably

little read at the present day, though not without its importance in the

fifteenth century. The 'Corbaccio' or 'Laberinto d'Amore' is a bitter

tirade against women, and is described by the translator as 'Corvaccium

adversum mulieres' with a commendable frankness, for which he apologises

to the sex generally towards the end of his dedicatory letter. It was

written originally for the purpose of humiliating a certain lady who had

not welcomed Boccaccio's advances, and it may be possible that it was

with somewhat similar feelings that Duke Humphrey bade his secretary

translate the work, though Antonio is at some pains to emphasise that it

was the literary form, not the sentiments, that appealed to his

master.[1249] The existence and the origin of the translation, which

have been hitherto unknown, throw considerable light on Gloucester's

literary tastes, and we gather from the wording of the dedicatory

epistle addressed to him, that he had a considerable knowledge of the

Italian writings of this famous scholar, and been especially anxious for

a translation of this particular poem. Though this is the only Italian

work we know to have been translated for him, its existence suggests

that it was not a unique example, and that, unlike most Renaissance

scholars, the Duke took an interest in Italian literature, and refused

to ignore the poetry of Boccaccio in favour of his scholarly works, as

did Villani and Domenico of Arezzo when selecting that poet's niche in

the temple of fame.

Antonio's dedication follows the worthy traditions of other Italian

writers, and exalts Duke Humphrey in no measured terms, but it is almost

entirely confined to a description of his literary tastes, and passes

over his personal virtues and political triumphs. The translator knew

England well, and was fully conscious of his patron's unique position in

that country. He describes him as learned in the humane letters, and

well versed in the literature of other countries besides his own. He

touches on his knowledge of history past and present, his energy in

procuring translation of the Greek classics, not sparing trouble or

expense; his diligent study, which led him to waste no moment of his

time; but the greatest stress is laid on the fact that in an age of

darkness he shone forth as the one true light. Julius Cæsar and Augustus

might deserve their meed of praise as students and patrons in times when

to be unlearned was a disgrace, but to Humphrey fell the greater glory

of having recalled scholarship and literature 'from death unto life' at

a time of literary decadence and decay.[1250] Undoubtedly Antonio was

fully justified in selecting this point of view as the most important

aspect of his master's career, and it shows that the problem, whence

came the inspiration which led the Duke to become a patron of letters

and a friend of the new learning, was as inexplicable to his

contemporaries as it is to us.

TITUS LIVIUS OF FERRARA

One of the best known of Gloucester's Italian followers in England was

the man whose name, obviously partly borrowed from the famous Roman

author, varies as it occurs in different places. On the title-page of

his history it appears as 'Titus Livius Forojuliensis,'[1251] whilst in

an official document of the year 1437 he is called 'Titus Livius de

Fralovisiis de Ferraria.'[1252] He has been called in modern times 'Tito

Livio of Forli'[1253] and 'Tito Livio of Friuli,'[1254] but we have his

own statement as evidence that he was born at Ferrara.[1255] He is

described as 'poet and orator' of Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, and

himself tells us that poverty and love of travel drove him to leave his

native place, and to come to England, where he applied to Humphrey for

patronage and support. By him he was welcomed and honoured, and it was

at the suggestion of his patron that he undertook to write the _Vita

Henrici Quinti_, which still remains one of the most important

authorities for the reign of that King.[1256] He must have been in

Gloucester's service before 1437, for on March 7 of that year his

patron secured his naturalisation by letters-patent.[1257] For long it

was thought that this scholar who settled in England was totally unknown

to the humanists of his native land,[1258] but it now appears that he

was a correspondent of Pier Candido Decembrio. From a still extant

letter of his to this translator we gather, that he was in communication

with certain humanists in Italy, and that he had a complaint against

some Italian prince, which probably was the original reason for his

leaving Italy. He showed himself to be interested not only in literary

studies, but also in physics and medicine, and was the subject of

compliments on the part of the scientists of Tolsa. Like his master, he

commissioned Candido to procure him books, mentioning as his chief

desiderata the works of Celsus, the distinguished writer on rhetoric,

agriculture, and medicine, whose treatise _De Medecina_ is the only

product of his pen still extant, and of Galen, the Greek physician, who

was patronised by Marcus Aurelius.[1259] Of his relations with Humphrey,

beyond the bare facts already stated, we know nothing, but it is

interesting to find among the followers of the 'Good Duke' the first

Italian who contributed anything towards the study of English

history--the precursor of the Italian Polydore Vergil, who came to

England as a papal collector, and stayed to write the history of the

English people.

GLOUCESTER'S PHYSICIANS

The interest that Livius--to use the name by which we have quoted him as

an authority for the reign of Henry V.--showed in medical lore was only

a reflection of one of the branches of knowledge which attracted his

patron, for throughout his life Humphrey studied both the theory and

practice of medicine. Many medical works are to be found in the list of

the books that he gave to Oxford, and the description of his own health,

which is preserved in the _Dietarium de Sanitatis Custodia_, already

cited, probably owes its immense detail to his proclivities in this

direction; indeed, it is conceivable that this should be considered as a

scientific treatise, more than as a faithful report of the Duke's

health. The author of this dietary was one Gilbert Kymer, who seems to

have held an important position in the household of the Duke of

Gloucester--'Celsitudinis vestre clericum,' as he is called by the

University of Oxford.[1260] It was this Kymer who was responsible for

conveying to Oxford the gift of books made in 1439;[1261] and he it was

whom the University petitioned to use his influence with the Duke at a

time of internal trouble,[1262] and only a few months before

Gloucester's death the same University re-elected this physician to be

Chancellor, in order that he might suggest any steps which they might

take to give pleasure to their friend and constant patron.[1263] Yet

another physician was an inmate of Gloucester's house, for he took steps

to bring over from Italy Giovanni dei Signorelli, a native of Ferrara,

whom he attached to his household in this professional capacity, and

whose naturalisation he secured in 1433.[1264]

With the name of this man ends the long list of Italian scholars and

students with whom Humphrey came in contact. They are sufficiently

numerous to give him the proud title of being the first Englishman to

bring the Renaissance influence to this country by introducing the

learning of Italy to his fellow-countrymen. His patronage of letters had

given him a great reputation in the Italian peninsula, for apart from

the flowery praises of those who sought his financial sympathy, the

fact remains that he was well enough known to be cultivated by men who

could find patrons in almost every town in Italy, and this at a time

when communication with any one at such a distance was arduous and

dangerous. Humphrey renounced the circumscribed limits of the old

schoolmen, and appreciated the new learning and the new spirit thereby

engendered, yet he was perhaps not wholly conscious of the great step he

had taken. When he first brought Italian scholars and Italian

scholarship to his native land, he originated a movement which has not

ceased to have its influence even in the twentieth century, though many

may be as unconscious of the true origin of this movement, as was he of

its far-reaching effects.

FOOTNOTES:

[1163] Macray, _Annals of the Bodleian_, 4, 5.

[1164] We find payments made for covering the King's books in velvet

and satin; Rymer, IV. ii. 155.

[1165] Stow, 344. He tells us that he had himself seen copies of

these translations.

[1166] Tyler, _Henry of Monmouth_, i. 394-400, where the poem is

printed.

[1167] Ashmole MS., 59, f. 135.

[1168] Tyler, _Henry of Monmouth_, 331.

[1169] Hoccleve's _Works_, iii. 75.

[1170] _Ipodigma Neustriæ_, 1-5.

[1171] Rymer, IV. iv. 105.

[1172] Voigt, ii. 254-256.

[1173] _Vatican Transcripts_, v. 34-42, copied from Bibl. Vat. MS.,

5221.

[1174] Vespasiano, 547, 548. Cf. Voigt, ii. 255.

[1175] Delisle, _Sir Kenelm Digby_, Paris, 1892, p. 11; Delisle,

_Cabinet des Manuscrits_, i. 52, 53.

[1176] Bibliothèque de Sainte Geneviève, MS. français, 777.

[1177] See Bale, 583, and the testimony of several Italian

humanists.

[1178] Monstrelet, 265.

[1179] Æn. Sylv., _Opera_, 548, _Epistola_ lxiv.

[1180] For this date see Voigt, ii. 256. For Poggio's visit to

England see Shepherd's _Life of Poggio_, 136.

[1181] Bibliothèque Nationale, MS. latin, 8537, f. 300.

[1182] _Archivio Lombardo_, vol. x. Anno xx. p. 62.

[1183] _Engl. Hist. Review_, xix. 519. Letter of Candidus to

Gloucester.

[1184] Leonardi Bruni, _Epistolæ_, vol. ii. lib. VIII. No. 6.

[1185] Bodley MS., 2143 (Auct. F., v. 27), f. 1. The dedication is

printed in _Chandler Catalogue_ of the editions of Aristotle,

41-44.

[1186] This dedication can be seen in Bodley MS., Laud. Lat., 60. No

mention is made of Gloucester.

[1187] Vespasiano, 437. Gloucester is mixed up with John Tiptoft,

Earl of Worcester, by Vespasiano, who ought to have known

better, as he was the latter's friend.

[1188] _Eng. Hist. Review_, xix. 512-513. A summary of the letter is

given in _Bibliographia_, i. 325, 326.

[1189] _Cod. Riccardiano_, 827, f. 55.

[1190] _Ibid._, ff. 55vo, 56vo.

[1191] _Ibid._, f. 57vo.

[1192] _Cod. Riccardiano_, 827, f. 58.

[1193] Voigt, ii. 259, says that Gloucester's relations with Candido

dated back from the time when he translated the _Vita Henrici

Quinti_ of Livius into Italian. As this was done in 1463,

after Gloucester's death, it cannot exactly be said to have

originated his connection with the translator. See _Tabulæ

Codicum Palatina Vindobonensi_, ii. 106.

[1194] _Eng. Hist. Review_, xix. 513, 514; _Bibliographia_, i. 326.

[1195] _Cod. Riccardiano_, 827, ff. 59, 60.

[1196] _Ibid._, f. 13vo.

[1197] _Cod. Riccardiano_, 827, f. 31vo.

[1198] Durham MS., C. iv. 3, ff. 6, 7. Since securing a transcript

of this letter I find that it has been printed by Dr. W. L.

Newman, in _Eng. Hist. Review_, xx. 496-498, together with a

discussion of the rest of the correspondence between

Gloucester and Candido. Cf. Sassi, _Historia

Literaria-Typographica_, p. ccc.

[1199] Leonardi Bruni, _Epistolæ_, vol. ii. lib. VIII. No. 6, pp.

119-122.

[1200] _Cod. Riccardiano_, 827, f. 61vo.

[1201] _Eng. Hist. Review_, xix. 514; _Bibliographia_, i. 326.

[1202] _Eng. Hist. Review_, xix. 514, 515; _Bibliographia_, i. 327.

Two of these dedications--those to the sixth and tenth

book--are in Durham MS., C. iv. 3.

[1203] _Eng. Hist. Review_, xix. 515.

[1204] _Cod. Riccardiano_, 827, f. 60vo.

[1205] _Eng. Hist. Review_, xix. 525.

[1206] _Eng. Hist. Review_, xix. 515, 516. Dated March 23, 1439

(1440, New Style), in Durham MS., C. iv. 3. This is not a

literal translation of the letter.

[1207] _Eng. Hist. Review_, xix. 516. Letter of Candido to

Gloucester.

[1208] Of these the two volumes of the two Plinies and the Varro

were in Gloucester's last gift of books to Oxford; _Epist.

Acad._, 235, 236.

[1209] _Eng. Hist. Review_, xix. 517. Letter of Gloucester to

Candido.

[1210] _Eng. Hist. Review_, xix. 517, 518. Letter of Candido to

Gloucester.

[1211] _Ibid._, xix. 518-520. Letter of Gloucester to Candido.

[1212] _Ibid._, xix. 519. Letter of Candido to Gloucester. The same

merchants had brought Bruni's translation of the _Politics_

to Gloucester; Leonardi Bruni, _Epistolæ_, vol. ii. liber

VIII. No. 6.

[1213] _Eng. Hist. Review_, xix. 520. Letter of Gloucester to

Candido.

[1214] _Cod. Riccardiano_, 827, f. 82vo.

[1215] _Eng. Hist. Review_, xix. 524. Letter of Candido to

Gloucester.

[1216] _Ibid._, xix. 519. Letter of Candido to Gloucester.

[1217] Probably the third-century grammarian, Censorius, who wrote a

still extant work, _De Die Natali_, is here meant.

[1218] _Eng. Hist. Review_, xix. 524. Letter of Gloucester to

Candido.

[1219] _Ibid._, xix. 522. Letter of Gloucester to Candido.

[1220] Sassi, _Historia Literaria-Typographia_, 293. Letter of

Candido to Nicomedus Tranchedinus.

[1221] _Eng. Hist. Review_, xix. 523. Letter of Gloucester to

Candido.

[1222] _Ibid._, xix. 523. Letter of Gloucester to Candido.

[1223] _Eng. Hist. Review_, xix. 524. Letter of Gloucester to

Candido.

[1224] _Ibid._, xix. 522, 523. Letter of Gloucester to Candido.

[1225] _Eng. Hist. Review_, xix. 520-522. Letter of Candido to

Gloucester.

[1226] _Archivio Lombardo_, vol. x. Anno xx. p. 432. Letter of

Candido to the governor of Milan.

[1227] _Ibid._, vol. x. Anno xx. p. 66; _Eng. Hist. Review_, xix.

523, 524.

[1228] Agostini, _Scrittori Veneziani_, i. 346-372; Voigt, ii. 259.

[1229] Voigt, ii. 39.

[1230] Bodley MS., 3618 (E. Museo, 119), f. 1.

[1231] Bodley MS., 3618 (E. Museo, 119), f. 2.

[1232] _Eng. Hist. Review_, x. 100, 101. Letter of Piero del Monte

to Gloucester.

[1233] _Cent Dix Lettres Grecques_, 25-28; Voigt, ii. 37, 176, 177.

[1234] _Cod. Laurentiano_, Plut., lxiii. 30, f. 1vo. Cf. _Cent Dix

Lettres Grecques_, 25.

[1235] This is undoubtedly 'Besia' in the MS. I cannot suggest an

interpretation.

[1236] Bodley MS., 3618 (E. Museo, 119), ff. 116-118.

[1237] _Cod. Laurentiano_, Plut., lxiii. 30, ff. 1vo., 2vo.

[1238] Magdalen MS., 37, ff. 1, 2.

[1239] I presume from the way this man is alluded to without comment

or explanation that he had come from Alfonso, or at least

that through him the two friends had become acquainted by

letter.

[1240] _Eng. Hist. Review_, x. 102, 103. Letter of Gloucester to

Alfonso V. of Aragon.

[1241] This MS. is said to be now in the library of Holkham Hall.

See Roscoe, _Life of Lorenzo de Medici_ (London, 1846), 64,

485.

[1242] Æn. Sylv., _Opera_, 602, _Epist._ cv.

[1243] _Beckington Correspondence_, i. 223, _et passim_.

[1244] _Rot. Parl._, iv. 314.

[1245] See Giuliani, _Della Letteratura Veronese_, 66; Warton, iii.

51; Voigt, ii. 258.

[1246] Royal MS., 5, F. ii.

[1247] 'Postquam, serenissime princeps, ex peregrinatione mea redii,

quam in visendo hac tua clarissima patria suscipam, etc.'

Royal MS., 5, F. ii. f. 92.

[1248] King's College, Cambridge, MS., 27, f. 3.

[1249] MS. in a private library, f. 1vo.

[1250] MS. in a private library, ff. 1, 2.

[1251] _Titi Livii Forojuliensis Vita Henrici Quinti_, ed. Th.

Hearne, Oxon., 1716.

[1252] Rymer, V. i. 37.

[1253] Einstein, 4.

[1254] Warton, iii. 51.

[1255] Livius, 2.

[1256] _Ibid._

[1257] Rymer, V. i. 37.

[1258] Voigt, ii. 258.

[1259] _Archivio Lombardo_, vol. x. Anno. xx. p. 428. Letter of

Livius to P. C. Decembrio.

[1260] _Epist. Acad._, 256.

[1261] _Ibid._, 177.

[1262] _Ibid._, 116.

[1263] _Ibid._, 256. Kymer had been Chancellor formerly for two

years (1431-1433); on this occasion he did not resign till

1453. Anthony Wood, _History of Oxford_, App. 44, 51.

[1264] _Rot. Parl._, iv. 473. A certain 'John Swanwych,' who is

described as a 'Clerk' of Gloucester, was also a Bachelor of

Physick. Rymer, IV. iv. 84.