Produced by Barbara Kosker, Carl Hudkins, Jonathan Niehof
(media provider) and the Online Distributed Proofreading
Team at https://www.pgdp.net
By Henry D. Sedgwick
A SHORT HISTORY OF ITALY. With Maps. Crown 8vo, _$2.00 net_.
Postage 17 cents.
FRANCIS PARKMAN. 16mo, _$1.10 net_. Postage 10 cents. _In
American Men of Letters Series._
ESSAYS ON GREAT WRITERS. Crown 8vo, gilt top, _$1.50 net_.
Postage, 13 cents.
SAMUEL DE CHAMPLAIN. Small 16mo, 65 cents _net_. Postage, 6
cents. _In Riverside Biographical Series._
HOUGHTON, MIFFLIN & CO.
BOSTON AND NEW YORK.
A SHORT HISTORY OF ITALY
[Illustration: Map of Italy]
A SHORT
HISTORY OF ITALY
(476-1900)
BY
HENRY DWIGHT SEDGWICK
[Illustration]
BOSTON AND NEW YORK
HOUGHTON, MIFFLIN AND COMPANY
The Riverside Press, Cambridge
COPYRIGHT 1905 BY HENRY DWIGHT SEDGWICK
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
_Published November 1905_
TO
H. D. S., C. D. S., R. M. S., W. E. S.,
A. C. S., F. M. S., and T. S.
_O passi graviora ...
... forsan et haec olim meminisse juvabit._
PREFACE
This volume is a mere sketch in outline; it makes no pretence to
original investigation, or even to an extended examination of the
voluminous literature which deals with every part of its subject. It is
an attempt to give a correct impression of Italian history as a whole,
and employs details only here and there, and then merely for the sake of
giving greater clearness to the general outline. So brief a narrative is
mainly a work of selection; and perhaps no two persons would agree upon
what to put in and what to leave out. I have laid emphasis upon the
matters of greatest general interest, the Papacy, the Renaissance, and
the Risorgimento; and my special object has been to put in high relief
those achievements which make Italy so charming and so interesting to
the world, and to give what space was possible to the great men to whom
these achievements are due.
H. D. S.
NEW YORK, October 1, 1905.
CONTENTS
CHAPTER PAGE
I. THE FALL OF THE EMPIRE IN THE WEST
(476 A. D.) 1
II. THE OSTROGOTHS (489-553) 12
III. THE LOMBARD INVASION (568) 23
IV. THE CHURCH (568-700) 31
V. THE COMING OF THE FRANKS (726-768) 40
VI. CHARLEMAGNE (768-814) 49
VII. FROM CHARLEMAGNE TO NICHOLAS I (814-867) 57
VIII. THE DEGRADATION OF ITALY (867-962) 67
IX. THE REVIVAL OF THE PAPACY (962-1056) 79
X. THE STRUGGLE OVER INVESTITURES (1059-1123) 89
XI. TRADE AGAINST FEUDALISM (1152-1190) 102
XII. TRIUMPH OF THE PAPACY (1198-1216) 114
XIII. ST. FRANCIS (1182-1226) 125
XIV. THE FALL OF THE EMPIRE (1216-1250) 133
XV. THE FALL OF THE MEDIAEVAL PAPACY (1303) 145
XVI. LAST FLICKER OF THE EMPIRE (1309-1313) 152
XVII. A REVIEW OF THE STATES OF ITALY (about 1300) 161
XVIII. THE TRANSITION FROM THE MIDDLE AGES TO THE
RENAISSANCE 175
XIX. THE INTELLECTUAL DAWN AFTER THE MIDDLE
AGES (1260-1336) 182
XX. THE DESPOTISMS (1250-1350) 192
XXI. THE CLASSICAL REVIVAL (1350) 201
XXII. THE ILLS OF THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY 209
XXIII. A BIRD'S-EYE VIEW (1350-1450) 218
XXIV. THE EARLY RENAISSANCE (1400-1450) 231
XXV. THE RENAISSANCE (1450-1492) 242
XXVI. THE BARBARIAN INVASIONS (1494-1537) 253
XXVII. THE PAPAL MONARCHY (1471-1527) 267
XXVIII. THE HIGH RENAISSANCE (1499-1521) 281
XXIX. ITALY AND THE CATHOLIC REVIVAL (1527-1563) 293
XXX. THE CINQUECENTO (16th Century) 304
XXXI. A SURVEY OF ITALY (1580-1581) 319
XXXII. THE AGE OF STAGNATION, POLITICS (1580-1789) 335
XXXIII. THE AGE OF STAGNATION, THE ARTS (1580-1789) 348
XXXIV. THE NAPOLEONIC ERA (1789-1820) 361
XXXV. THE REAWAKENING (1820-1821) 369
XXXVI. PERTURBED INACTIVITY (1821-1847) 377
XXXVII. TUMULTUOUS YEARS (1848-1849) 386
XXXVIII. THE UNITY OF ITALY (1849-1871) 395
XXXIX. CONCLUSION (1872-1900) 409
APPENDIX
I. CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE OF POPES AND EMPERORS 421
II. GENEALOGY OF THE MEDICI 428
III. SKELETON TABLE OF THE KINGS OF THE TWO SICILIES 429
IV. LIST OF BOOKS FOR GENERAL READING 430
INDEX 433
A SHORT HISTORY OF ITALY
A SHORT HISTORY OF ITALY
CHAPTER I
THE FALL OF THE EMPIRE IN THE WEST (476 A. D.)
In the year 476 an unfortunate young man, mocked with the great names of
the founders of the City and of the Empire, Romulus Augustus, nicknamed
Augustulus, was deposed from the throne of the Caesars by a Barbarian
general in the Imperial service, and the Roman Empire in Italy came to
its end. This act was but the outward sign that the power of Italy was
utterly gone, and that in the West at least the Barbarians were
indisputably conquerors in the long struggle which they had carried on
for centuries with the Roman Empire.
That Empire, at the period of its greatness, embraced all the countries
around the Mediterranean Sea; it was the political embodiment of the
Mediterranean civilization. In Europe, to the northeast, it reached as
far as the Rhine and the Danube; it included England. Beyond the Rhine
and the Danube dwelt the Barbarians. Europe was thus divided into two
parts, the civilized and the Barbarian: one, a great Latin empire which
rested upon slavery, and was governed by a highly centralized
bureaucracy; the other, a collection of tribes of Teutonic blood, bound
together in a very simple form of society, and essentially democratic in
character.
The Empire, composed of many races, Etruscan, Ligurian, Iberian, Celtic,
Basque, Greek, Egyptian, and divers others, had been created and
maintained by the military and administrative genius of Rome. Over all
these people Roman law and Roman order prevailed. All enjoyed the _Pax
Romana_. From Cadiz to Milan, from Milan to Byzantium, from Byzantium to
Palmyra, stretched the great Roman roads. Coins, weights, and measures
were everywhere the same. The inhabitants of Africa, Asia, and Europe,
enfranchised by an Imperial edict, were thankful to be Roman citizens.
To this day Roman law, the Romance languages, and the Roman Catholic
Church testify to the vigour and solidity of Roman dominion. The city of
Rome was, and had been for centuries, the head of the world. From east
and west, from north and south, booty, spoils, taxes, tribute had flowed
into Rome. Even after the seat of government had been removed to
Constantinople (A. D. 330), visitors from the new capital were
astounded to behold the Roman temples, baths, amphitheatres, forums,
circuses, and palaces, all glittering with marble and bronze. But the
riches acquired by conquest and tribute had brought seeds of evil with
them. Society was divided into the very rich and the very poor; the
simple laborious life of the freemen of ancient Rome was gone; the
regular occupations of production had been abandoned to serfs and
slaves; moderate incomes and plain living had disappeared. The middle
class had been thrust down to the level of the plebs. In the country the
small proprietors had been reduced to a position little better than
that of the serfs, while the great landlords had got vast tracts of land
into their hands. Nearly half the population were slaves. Taxes had
become heavier and heavier as the exigencies of the Empire grew; great
numbers of officials were maintained, and great mercenary armies. The
rich controlled the government, and shifted almost the whole burden of
taxation from their own shoulders to those of the poor. In the cities,
each imitating Rome so far as it could, had grown up a vicious
unemployed class, living on the distribution of bread which was paid for
out of the public revenues.
On the farther side of the Rhine and the Danube, in marked contrast with
this society, the Teutonic Barbarians tilled their lands and herded
their flocks. They dwelt in little communities which were banded
together into tribes; and these in turn were united in a sort of loose
confederation, which assumed the semblance of a nation only when under
the necessity of military action, and then the adult male population
constituted the army. Their buildings were of the humblest character,
their clothes rude, their arts primitive; they could neither read nor
write, and their men cared for little besides hunting and fighting. They
were, however, a free, self-respecting, self-governing people, electing
their king, and meeting in one great assembly to enact their laws. On
the Roman borders the Barbarians had become Christians, unfortunately
not Trinitarians, but mere Arians, heretics in the eyes of the orthodox
Catholics; so their Christianity hardly served to smooth their relations
with the Romans.
The differences between these two divisions of Europe were about as
great as between ourselves and the Don Cossacks. A Roman gentleman
living in Gaul, for example, would have a villa in Auvergne, built high
upon the hills in order to get the breezes and the view. Here was a
bath-house, a fish-pond, separate apartments for the women, a pillared
portico that overlooked a lake, a winter drawing-room, a summer parlour,
etc. In this agreeable place, in his times of leisure, the owner would
stroll about his grounds, play tennis, cultivate his garden, read Virgil
and Claudian, compose epigrams, write letters to his friends in the vein
of Horace's Satires, gossip about the doings at the Imperial court or
talk philosophy. The pleasant, luxurious life of Roman gentlemen was not
very different from luxurious life in America to-day.
The Barbarians in their native forests were hardly aware of Roman
civilization; and those on the border made a marked contrast with the
Romans. The young kings were superb athletes, sparing at table, and
attentive to their kingly duties. The Barbarian elders admired Roman
civilization, but were "stiff and lumpish in body and mind." The young
men, six feet or more in height, with long, yellow hair, were great
eaters of garlic and indelicate viands; they went about bare-legged,
booted with rough ox-leather, and wore short-sleeved garments of divers
colours, belted tight, with swords dangling at their backs, shields at
side, and battle-axes in their hands.
It would be a mistake, however, to draw a very sharp line between these
two opposing divisions of Europe. The Teutons were called Barbarians
because they were not Romans, but many of them had been trained in the
Roman armies and had lived in Constantinople, Trier, or Milan, and were
well accustomed to Roman military arts and discipline; in fact, the
Roman army was recruited mainly from among the Barbarians. Roman traders
dealt with them regularly. In one way and another the Barbarians,
especially their leaders, had come under the educating influence of
Roman civilization, and they regarded that civilization with an
amazement and a respect that at times deepened into awe.
But though a sharp line cannot be drawn, yet at bottom Romans and
Barbarians were far apart. It was impossible that two societies of such
divergent civilization should exist side by side in peace; one must
conquer the other. The struggle between the Empire and its enemies had
been almost continuous since the days of Julius Caesar, and for several
centuries the Empire had prevailed; but social disintegration within had
proceeded rapidly, and by the beginning of the fifth century the
Empire's doom had come. Rome herself, the original home of empire, lay
"nerveless, dead, unsceptred," open to any takers; and takers came. The
Visigoths, under Alaric, captured the city in 410 and were merciful; the
Vandals, under Genseric, captured it in 455 and were cruel.
The fall of Rome, which we now see to have been inevitable, came,
however, with a terrible shock to the civilized world. St. Jerome, who
had gone to the wilderness near Bethlehem in order to meditate upon the
prophets, wrote: "My voice is choked and my sobs interrupt the words
which I write; the city is subdued which subdued the world.... Who could
believe that Rome, which was built of the spoils of the whole earth,
would fall, that the city could, at the same time, be the cradle and
grave of her people; that all the coasts of Asia, Egypt, and Africa
should be filled with the slaves and maidens of Rome? That holy
Bethlehem should daily receive, as beggars, men and women who formerly
were conspicuous for their wealth and luxury?"[1]
The city of Rome had been deemed immortal; it had become almost sacred
from long veneration; and when Rome fell, the Empire in the West had not
a prop to rest upon. Spain was taken by the Suevi and the Visigoths,
Gaul by the Franks, Burgundians, and Alemanni, England by Angles and
Saxons, Africa by the Vandals; and, with the deposition of Romulus
Augustulus, Italy, too, became the prize of a Barbarian general.
The succeeding period of European history, in Gaul, Spain, Africa, and
Italy, is the mingling or attempted mingling of the old populations of
the Empire with the Barbarian conquerors. The process had, indeed, as I
have intimated, begun before the fall of the Empire. For several
generations Barbarians had not only been received as colonists and taken
as soldiers, but even whole tribes had been admitted within the Roman
boundaries. Imperial statesmen had realized that the Empire could only
be upheld by an infusion of Barbarian virility, and they had favoured
the process. But assimilation had not taken place, and now that the
Empire had passed into the hands of the Barbarians there were two social
strata,--the rude martial conquerors on top, and the civilized, feeble,
subject race, ten times as numerous, underneath. It was obvious to the
wiser Barbarian chiefs, trained as they were in Roman ways, that if they
were to get stable dominion and civilized government, they must adopt
the complicated Imperial machinery. They saw that unless the Barbarians
learned Roman civilization, they would need hundreds of years to create
any such civilization of their own. This was especially true in Italy.
Odoacer, the general who deposed Romulus Augustulus, well knew that a
state which had its military service all Barbarian and its civil service
all Roman could not stand firm. Barbarian sovereignty needed support,
especially legal support, in the eyes of the subject population. Such
legitimacy could only come from the Empire. Odoacer and other
intelligent Barbarians turned instinctively to Constantinople for
recognition. They did not think that they had overturned or suppressed
the Empire. Nobody thought that there were two Empires, one Eastern and
one Western, one enduring and one destroyed in 476. To the Roman world
the Empire had always been single, had always been a unit. The division
into eastern and western parts had been made for convenience of
administration; the Empire itself had never been divided. Even after the
western countries of Europe had been overrun by the Barbarians, the
Emperor at Constantinople remained the supreme and sole source of
authority and law. The very Barbarians could not free themselves from
this theory, however little heed they paid to it in practice. Odoacer
acknowledged the sovereignty of the Empire without question. He merely
wished to control the civil and military administration in Italy.
Before beginning a sketch of the attempts to found a permanent Barbarian
government in Italy and to combine Barbarians and Romans in one people,
it is necessary to speak of a rising power which already constituted the
most important element in the situation. The Church was not only the one
vigorous body in Italy, but it had already begun to foreshadow its
future greatness. In the time of Constantine (323-337) and his immediate
successors, the bishops of Rome had no primacy over other bishops, but
they had claims to precedence, which they soon put to good use. Their
city was the cradle and home of Roman dominion. St. Paul had lived and
died there. Above all, as was universally acknowledged, the apostle
Peter had founded their bishopric. Theirs, in an especial sense, was the
Church to which Christ referred when He said to the apostle, "Thou art
Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell
shall not prevail against it." The bishops of Rome also derived immense
advantage from the absence of a temporal prince; whereas their chief
rivals, the patriarchs of Constantinople, were wholly eclipsed by the
presence of the Emperor. The removal of the great offices of government
to Constantinople and the absence of any real civil life, had left Rome
even then a mere ecclesiastical city, and the head of the Church became
the most important personage there. It was so generally acknowledged
that Roman bishops were entitled to that precedence in rank over other
bishops, which Rome enjoyed over other cities, that in 344 an Ecumenical
Council submitted a most important question to the decision of the Roman
See. One hundred years later the great pope, Leo I, merely gave
utterance to the general opinion when he said: "St. Peter and St. Paul
are the Romulus and Remus of the new Rome, as much superior to the old
as truth is to error. If ancient Rome was at the head of the pagan
world, St. Peter, prince of the Apostles, came to teach in the new Rome,
so that from her the light of Christianity should be shed over the
world."
The Roman Church gathered to herself whatever remained of the
administrative ability of ancient Rome. With acute practical sense she
condemned those subtle doctrines that kept springing up in the East,
late flashes of Greek metaphysics; and though she may have cut herself
off from certain spiritual Neoplatonic thought, and have set her heart
too much upon domination, yet by her very adherence to dogma, by her
very insistence upon uniform law and obedience, by steadfastly
maintaining the purity and the unity of the Faith, she became the great
cohesive force in Europe, and by creating Christendom contributed
immensely to the cause of European civilization. Partly by good fortune,
partly by her success in making her cause prevail, Rome was always
orthodox. She remained staunchly Trinitarian. She fought the Arians, who
believed that the Son, created by the Father, could not be identical
with Him and could not have existed from the beginning. She fought the
Nestorians, who alleged that the Virgin was the mother of Christ only in
so far as He was man. She fought the Monophysites, who denied that
Christ had two distinct natures, human and divine. She fought always
gallantly, and always, or almost always, in the end triumphantly. In
those days ecclesiastical affairs were inseparable from political
affairs; no man dreamed of severing them either in fact or in theory;
the State and the Church were one fabric under a double aspect. The idea
of the State apart from the Church, or the Church apart from the State,
was no more imagined than the Darwinian theory.
If we now go back to Odoacer, and to his Barbarian successors, we shall
find that in their endeavours to establish an Italian kingdom they were
confronted by a threefold task,--to blend the Barbarian conquerors and
the subject Latins, to establish friendly relations with the Empire, and
to win the confidence and support of the Orthodox Church. In all the
long period of Barbarian dominion, each Barbarian chief in turn had to
face the imminent danger that these three political powers, the subject
people, the Church, and the Empire, should make common cause against
him. The Barbarians, in fact, were always unsuccessful. They never were
able to make Italy into one kingdom. These three enemies were too strong
for them. The inherent difficulties of the situation appear at once on
the deposition of Romulus Augustulus, and give whatever interest there
is to Odoacer's brief career. Over that career, which bridges the years
476 to 489, we need not pause, for Odoacer's attempt to establish a
permanent government over all Italy was so ephemeral, and also so
similar in all essential features to that of the Ostrogoths, his
successors, that an account of their attempt may serve for his as well.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] _Rome in the Middle Ages_, Gregorovius, vol. i, pp. 167, 168.