Whilst the pontiff was guarding his interests in Italy, the council of
Basil was studiously employed in driving him to extremity. The decrees
of that assembly, whereby the payment of annates into the pontifical
treasury was prohibited, and the positive restrictions which it had
imposed upon the head of the church in the distribution of the temporal
powers and honours attached to the holy see, compelled Eugenius to
adopt decisive measures. Setting the council at defiance, he continued
to levy the taxes upon ecclesiastical promotions, which had been so
expressly condemned as simoniacal, and deprived of their benefices all
those who, in compliance with its requisitions, refused to pay the
sums which he demanded as his due. In the continuance of his nearest
relatives in places of power and trust, he evinced a similar contempt
of the ordinances of the synod. Irritated by these acts of contumacy,
the assembled fathers, on the thirty-first day of July, 1437, formally
impeached the pontiff as obstinately impeding the desired reformation of
the church—as violating the ecclesiastical constitutions—as guilty of
the scandalous offence of selling benefices to the highest bidder, and
bestowing them on unworthy candidates, in compliance with the desire of
powerful men. After reciting these and various other heads of accusation
against him, they summoned Eugenius to appear and answer for himself
within the space of sixty days, under pain of incurring such penalties
as the council, in case of his refusing to comply with its requisitions,
should think fit to impose upon him.[291]
Far from being intimidated by these menaces, Eugenius, in full consistory
held at Bologna, issued a bull, whereby he transferred the council from
Basil to Florence. On the twenty-sixth day of September, the fathers of
Basil, by a formal act, declared this proceeding of the pontiff null
and void;[292] and on the first of October they again summoned Eugenius
to appear and plead to the charges which had been exhibited against
him; and on his failing to appear, either in person or by proxy, they
pronounced him contumacious, and unanimously decreed that he should be
proceeded against accordingly.[293] The pontiff having issued a second
bull, summoning the representatives of the Christian community to
Ferrara, for the purpose of effecting an union between the Latin and the
Greek churches, the council, on the twelfth of October, prohibited all
ecclesiastics, under pain of excommunication, from yielding obedience to
the mandate of their spiritual sovereign.[294]
In the prosecution of these violent measures, the council was encouraged
by Alfonso of Arragon. This prince was highly incensed against Eugenius,
who had not only refused to bestow upon him the investiture of the
kingdom of Naples, but had supported the claim of his competitor, the
duke of Anjou, by sending Vitelleschi to his assistance at the head of
a considerable army. Though the warlike patriarch did not conduct this
expedition with his wonted success, the pontiff had, by thus imprudently
interfering in the affairs of the kingdom of Naples, given great offence
to the Arragonese monarch, who was naturally impelled to countenance the
proceedings of an assembly which was labouring to repress the power of
his adversary.[295]
The intrigues of Alfonso did not, however, deter Eugenius from
maintaining his spiritual authority. On the eighth day of January,
1438, the council of Ferrara was, according to the tenor of his bull,
opened with the customary solemnities.[296] When a sufficient number
of the ecclesiastics were assembled to give dignity and authority to
the proceedings of this new synod, he left Bologna, and repaired in
person to Ferrara, at which city he arrived on the twenty-seventh day of
January.[297]
The reconciliation of the Latin and Greek churches had, for many
centuries, been a subject of earnest desire to the zealous advocates for
an uniformity of faith amongst Christians. Whilst the Greeks possessed
the shadow of independence, their acuteness in disputation was by no
means inferior to the polemic ability of their antagonists; and they
strenuously persisted in maintaining the dogmas in which they differed
from the creed of their Latin brethren. But terror frequently produces
docility. The emperor John Palæologus II. alarmed by the growing power of
the Turks, which threatened his dominions with devastation and ruin, was
induced to hope, that if he could by a personal conference accommodate
his religious differences with the representatives of the Latin church,
the European powers might be persuaded to lend him effectual assistance
against the hostile attacks of the common enemy of the Christian
name. When the members of the council of Basil were apprised of the
conciliatory disposition of the Grecian monarch, they immediately issued
a decree, whereby they engaged to pay the expenses which he should incur
on his voyage to Italy, and during his residence in that country; and
moreover undertook to maintain seven hundred persons of his retinue,
including the ecclesiastics whom he might select to participate in their
deliberations.[298] When Eugenius had determined to hold a counter synod
at Ferrara, he was well aware that the Greeks would add considerable
weight to the assembly which they should resolve to countenance by their
presence. He accordingly sent a sufficient number of galleys to transport
Palæologus and his attendants, and, at the same time, transmitted to
the Grecian monarch a considerable sum of money to enable him to make
his appearance in Italy with a degree of splendour suitable to his
exalted station. Palæologus, from the prejudices of royalty more disposed
to accept the invitation of the sovereign pontiff than that of an
ecclesiastical senate, embarked in the papal galleys, and arrived on the
eighth day of February, 1438, at Venice, where he was received with the
most flattering testimonies of respect. On the fourth of March ensuing,
he made his public entry into Ferrara.[299] The ceremonials used upon
this occasion were wisely adapted to flatter the pride of the emperor,
and to dissipate the jealousy which he might be presumed to entertain of
the pretensions of the bishop of Rome. When he arrived at the pontifical
residence, Eugenius advanced to meet him at the door of his apartment,
declined receiving from him any mark of distinctive homage, and conducted
him to a seat on his left hand. The same discretion was manifested in
settling the arrangements of the council, where the Greek ecclesiastics
were received with all due honour and respect. The proceedings of that
assembly were by no means rapid. After the first session, it entered
upon no public acts for the space of six months. At the end of that
time, the plague having made its appearance at Ferrara, and the near
approach of the pontiff’s inveterate enemy Piccinino, who had taken the
cities of Bologna, Imola, and Ravenna,[300] exciting the fears of its
leading members, Eugenius transferred the orthodox synod to Florence,
at which city he arrived on the 24th day of January, 1439. His departure
from Ferrara was so precipitate, that it might justly be denominated a
flight; and in order to avoid the soldiers of Piccinino, he was compelled
to take a circuitous route by Modena, and through the passes of the
Pistoian mountains. He was soon followed by Palæologus and the deputies
of the Greek church, together with the other members of the council.[301]
Nothing of importance occurred in the deliberations of that assembly till
the sixth day of July.[302] On this memorable day, the great work of
the union of the Latin and Greek churches was in appearance completed,
by the assent of the Grecian deputies to a decree, whereby the disputed
points, the discussion of which had for so long a space of time excited
discord between the two grand divisions of the Christian community,
were decided by the concurrence of the highest authorities. The points
in question were, 1st. Whether leavened or unleavened bread should be
used in the communion of the body of Christ. 2nd. Whether the souls who
dwelt in purgatory were purified by elemental fire. 3rd. Whether the
bishop of Rome was the supreme head of the church: and 4th. Whether the
Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father and the Son, or from the Father
only. On the three first of these questions the Greeks assented without
any pertinacity of opposition to the dogmas of their Latin brethren.
The fourth afforded matter of acute and lengthened disputation, and
the subjugation of the prejudices of the learned ecclesiastics of
Constantinople called forth not only the polemic skill of the most
irrefragable doctors of the Latin church, but also the political talents
of the ablest negotiators of the Roman court. Vanquished by intrigue
rather than by argument, persuaded rather than convinced, the attendants
of Palæologus, with the exception of two obstinate theologians, at
length concurred in the decree which announced to the Christian world,
that the word _filioque_ was legally inserted in the Nicene creed, that
there is a purgatory of fire, and that the body of Christ is to be made
of unleavened bread.[303] This decree having been solemnly promulgated,
the Greeks quitted Florence on the 26th day of August, and returned to
Constantinople.
Whilst the council was sitting at Ferrara, the cause of decency and
morality was vindicated by the passing of a solemn censure upon a
collection of epigrams entitled Hermaphroditus, which was ignominiously
consigned to the flames in the most public part of the city. The author
of this publication, which exceeds the grossest effusions of heathenism
in the rankness of obscenity, was Antonio Beccatelli, a native of
Palermo, from which circumstance he is commonly distinguished by the
appellation of Panormita. Beccatelli was born in the year 1394, of an
ancient and honourable family.[304] When he had finished his studies
in the university of Pavia, he entered into the service of Filippo
Maria, duke of Milan, who studied history under his instructions, for
which he liberally requited him, by the payment of an annual stipend of
eight hundred crowns of gold.[305] Being wearied by the distractions
occasioned by the frequent wars which disturbed the peace of Lombardy,
Beccatelli quitted Milan some time between the years 1432 and 1436, with
the intention of residing in his native city. He did not, however, long
continue in retirement; for the fame of his wit and learning having
reached Alfonso, king of Naples, that liberal prince invited him to his
court, bestowed upon him the honourable office of private secretary, and
treated him with the most distinguished regard. He continued to occupy
stations of the highest eminence under Alfonso and his successors till
the time of his death, which event took place on the 6th of January,
1471.[306]
The Hermaphroditus of Beccatelli is dedicated to Cosmo de’ Medici. A copy
of this work was communicated to Poggio, who was so much scandalized by
its obscenity, that he wrote to Beccatelli a friendly letter, in which
he highly commended the elegance of his style, but exhorted him to be in
future more delicate in the choice of his subjects. “I am bound,” said
he, “by the obligation of mutual affection, which is imposed upon us all,
to admonish you to turn your attention to graver topics.
“The licence which is allowed to youth may be pleaded in excuse of
the indelicacy of your late publication, and you can indeed allege
in your defence the example of Virgil, and of other writers. But it
is now incumbent upon you to have done with lasciviousness, and to
apply yourself to severer studies, lest your moral character should be
estimated by the impurity of your writings. You know, that we who profess
ourselves Christians cannot claim the same indulgences as those who were
ignorant of their duty. But I am in all probability teaching one who is
wiser then myself. I am persuaded, that on this subject you agree with me
in opinion.”[307]
To this salutary admonition Beccatelli replied in a long epistle, in
which he endeavoured to extenuate his fault, by quoting as precedents the
occasional pruriences of composition of a long list of ancient poets and
philosophers. He also attempted to vindicate himself by a few sophistical
arguments.[308] His reasoning was easily confuted by Poggio, who in
a second letter examined with laudable acuteness his precedents and
arguments, and fully demonstrated their insufficiency to vindicate the
licentiousness of imagery which disgusted every modest reader, whose eyes
happened to glance upon the impure pages of the Hermaphroditus.[309]
Whilst Eugenius was thus employed in subduing the heresy of the east,
he laboured under the high displeasure of the synod of Basil. After a
repetition of the various processes which had been issued against him
when he first refused to acknowledge their authority, the rebellious
fathers proceeded on the twenty-fifth of June, 1439, to depose him
from his pontifical honours. In the act of deposition which they
passed against him, they impeached him of contumacy and disobedience
to the commands of the church—they declared that he was a violator of
the canons, a disturber of unity, guilty of simony and perjury. They
furthermore denounced him as an incorrigible schismatic and heretic, and
a destroyer of the rights and possessions of the church.[310] On the
fifth of November, 1439, they filled up the measure of their offences by
electing Amedeus, duke of Savoy, to the pontifical chair.[311] Amedeus,
wearied by the cares of government, had lately resigned the ducal sceptre
to his eldest son, and had withdrawn to the hermitage of Ripaille, a
tranquil spot delightfully situated on the southern side of the lake
of Geneva, where he proposed to dedicate the remainder of his days to
devout meditation and prayer. When the intelligence of his election to
the pontificate was announced to him, he lamented the severity of his
destiny, which summoned him again to mingle in the cares and temptations
of a wicked world: but either seduced by the charms of pontifical
authority, or regarding the voice of the representatives of the Christian
community as the voice of God, he repaired to Basil, where the ceremony
of his coronation was performed with studied magnificence, on the
twenty-fourth of July, 1440.[312]
In the course of this contest between the councils of Ferrara and of
Basil, Eugenius derived considerable assistance from the advice and
support of Cardinal Julian, who, being at length convinced by experience
of the numerous evils arising from the precipitancy of the German synod,
of the probable occurrence of which he had been forewarned by Poggio, had
withdrawn from Basil, and by timely submission had easily made his peace
with his offended master.[313] The conversion of Julian was promoted by
the assiduous endeavours of Ambrogio Traversari. Before his accession to
the pontifical throne, Eugenius had honourably distinguished this learned
ecclesiastic by his friendship, and he did not forget him in the hour of
his exaltation. The general of the order of Camaldoli, who was impeached
of various evil practices, having resigned his office, Ambrogio was, by
the influence of the pontiff, appointed to succeed him on the 26th day of
October, 1431.[314] Inspired with gratitude for this act of friendship,
he readily undertook the office of watching over the interests of his
benefactor at the council of Basil, which he was deputed to attend,
as the representative of the city of Florence.[315] In combating the
enemies of the pontiff in that seditious, but enlightened assembly, he
manifested a high degree both of spirit and ability. His residence at
Basil was however but of short duration. Before the expiration of three
months after his arrival in that city, he was despatched by Eugenius
into Germany, with instructions to use his utmost endeavours to detach
the emperor Sigismund from the interests of the council. Having executed
this important commission with more fidelity than success, in the spring
of the year 1436 he returned to Florence, where he strove to forget
the intrigues of courts and synods in the discharge of the duties of
his office, and in the resumption of his studies. In the year 1438,
he was again summoned from retirement, to engage in the violence of
theological disputation. The pontiff having had sufficient experience
of his skill in conducting affairs of the greatest moment, delegated
to him the important office of opening the council of Ferrara.[316]
In the minute and delicate discussions of doctrinal points which took
place in this assembly he bore a distinguished part. On this occasion
he signalized his knowledge of the Greek language, by frequently acting
as interpreter between the respective representatives of the eastern
and western churches;[317] and it has been asserted, that his skill in
intrigue was not less conducive than his acuteness in disputation to
the settlement of the doctrine of the double procession.[318] Ambrogio
did not long survive the accomplishment of this pious work. When the
reconciliation of the Greek and Latin churches had been effected, he
once more retired to the tranquillity of his monastery, where he died
on the 20th of November, 1439. His remains were first deposited in the
abbey of St. Salvadore in Camaldoli, and were afterwards transferred to
a religious retreat belonging to his order, situated in the district
of Casentino. The writings of more than one of his contemporaries make
mention of a common report, that lilies grew upon his grave in the depth
of winter, and that when these miraculous flowers were with pious wonder
gathered by his surviving brethren, their place was immediately supplied
by the production of successive harvests.[319] Though the testimony of
these witnesses may, in an age of scepticism, be deemed insufficient to
establish the belief of this marvellous tale, the circulation of such a
report evinces the celebrity of Ambrogio’s fame, and the opinion which
was generally entertained of the extraordinary sanctity of his life.
Ambrogio Traversari is justly regarded as one of the literary luminaries
of his age. His knowledge was various and profound. He was well versed in
the Hebrew scriptures. It has been before observed, that the conferences
which took place between the deputies of the Latin and Greek churches
in the council of Ferrara, gave him an opportunity of displaying the
uncommon proficiency which he had made in the Grecian language. Rendering
his literary acquirements subservient to the duties of his profession,
he dedicated a considerable portion of his time to the translation of
the Greek fathers. Diogenes Laertius is the only profane author whose
works he illustrated by a Latin version. His style is flowing, but so
unpolished, that he seems to have fallen into the erroneous opinion, that
an attention to the elegancies of composition is unbecoming those who
are dedicated to sacred offices. His manners appear to have been simple,
and his dispositions benevolent. With his learned contemporaries he
maintained an extensive correspondence. A large collection of his letters
was published by P. Martene in the third volume of his Ancient Monuments.
This collection was afterwards republished, with several additions, by
P. Canetti; and lastly, the Abate Mehus, in two splendid folio volumes,
printed at Florence in the year 1759, has favoured the public with a
very correct impression of Ambrogio’s epistles and orations, to which he
has prefixed a most elaborate history of his life, and of the revival
of literature in Florence. These epistles, and the Hodœporicon, or
journal kept by Traversari of the observations which he made in the
course of several journeys which he took to various parts of Italy,
after his elevation to the generalship of his order, afford much curious
information concerning the manners and customs of the times in which he
lived.
With Poggio, Ambrogio maintained the most familiar intimacy. The
friendship of these industrious revivers of literature originated in
the community of their studies, and was confirmed by mutual acts of
good will. But the jealousy with which Poggio regarded the whole body
of monks led him to suspect, that Ambrogio, after his advancement to
the generalship of his order, divested himself of that simplicity and
singleness of heart which may be reasonably expected from those who
make a profession of extraordinary sanctity, and that he disguised the
selfishness of ambition in the garb of pretended humility.[320] This
suspicion, however, he advanced with becoming doubt; and perhaps justice
to Ambrogio might trace its origin to that superior gravity which he
might think it incumbent upon himself to assume, when he was called to
fill offices of high dignity, and which might sometimes restrain that
familiarity with which he was accustomed to converse with Poggio and his
other friends, when he dwelt, in cloistered seclusion, a simple monk of
Camaldoli.
Whilst Ambrogio was employed at Ferrara in the correction of creeds, and
the conversion of heretics, Poggio was occupied by domestic cares in
the retirement of his Tuscan villa. In the year 1438 his wife presented
him with a son, to whom he gave the name of Pietro Paulo. Amongst the
number of his friends who congratulated him on this event was Cincio,
one of the apostolic secretaries, a descendant of the noble Roman family
of Rustica.[321] Monsieur L’Enfant has published the letter which
Cincio wrote on this occasion, wherein he intimates to Poggio his firm
persuasion, that this child, being the offspring of a man of consummate
learning, and of a mother descended from an honourable family, will be
naturally inclined to every thing excellent and praise-worthy. In the
prospect of his being educated at Florence, also, he finds a presage
of his future attainments in knowledge and in virtue. Anxious for the
welfare of an infant born under such happy auspices, he admonishes his
friend, that should any consideration induce him to prohibit Vaggia
from performing the first duty of a mother, it would be incumbent upon
him to be fastidiously careful in the choice of a nurse. “Let her
be,” says he, “a woman of a robust constitution, of good complexion,
as well as of a good disposition, and also of ingenuous manners; for
nurses have a wonderful influence in forming the habits of children.”
He then exhorts Poggio assiduously to watch over the progress of his
son’s understanding, and to inculcate upon him lessons of the strictest
temperance. After having enlarged upon these topics, he concludes in the
following terms:—“Lastly, I must inform you, that your presence is very
earnestly desired in the Roman court. Come, then, and we will celebrate
the birth of your son in a friendly festival. You shall be the master of
the feast, and you shall have the honour of entertaining as your guests a
number of Latin and Greek philosophers. We will converse upon a variety
of topics, particularly upon the nature of pleasure. The exquisiteness
of the dishes, and the excellence of the wine, will ensure the alluring
goddess abundance of advocates. Even I, who have just been vilifying her,
as not to be tolerated in human society, may possibly on this occasion
once more enter into her good graces.”[322] In reply to this friendly
epistle, Poggio assured Cincio that in the choice of a nurse for his
infant son, he had paid due regard to the qualities enumerated by him,
and that he would spare no pains in his education; but at the same time,
in opposition to the opinion of his correspondent, he maintained by many
arguments, and by examples of great weight, that education is of little
avail in the formation of character, independently of a naturally good
disposition of mind.[323]
During the time when the domestic concerns of Poggio caused him to be
absent from the pontifical court, the list of his correspondents was
enlarged by the name of a sovereign prince, who occupied the foremost
rank amongst the potentates of Italy, namely Filippo Maria, duke of
Milan. This restless chieftain had in the year 1436 renewed hostilities
against the Florentines, in contempt of the pacification which had been
concluded at Ferrara, only three years before that period. This war was
not, however, of long duration. The Florentines, being dissatisfied with
the conduct of the Venetians, their allies, concluded a separate peace
with the duke on very advantageous terms, in the year 1438.
The alliance between the Florentines and the Venetians had always been
a most formidable obstacle to the ambitious projects of Filippo, and
he had nothing more at heart than to create a jealousy between those
two republics. It was probably with a view of engaging the party of
the Medici in his interest, that soon after the conclusion of the
above-mentioned peace, he addressed to Poggio a long epistle, in which
he artfully attempted to gratify his well known enthusiastic love of
his native country, by a studied eulogium on the Florentine state, and
also endeavoured to conciliate his favour, by assuring him that he had
always entertained the highest respect for his personal qualities and
his literary attainments. It appears from the commencement of Filippo’s
letter, that some persons having stigmatized the Florentines as a
short-sighted people, Poggio had remarked that the duke of Milan was
well qualified to prove the contrary.[324] The duke, affecting not to
be sensible of the sarcasm couched in this observation, professed to be
greatly flattered by the high opinion which Poggio appeared to entertain
of his talents; and commending the zeal which he manifested in defending
the reputation of his country, declared, that so far from finding the
Florentines short-sighted, he had always witnessed their skill, their
prudence, and their sagacity. The valour of the Tuscans, he observed, his
ancestors had experienced to their cost. Nor was he himself insensible
of the power of their arms, or of the wisdom of their councils. In
the late war they had so skilfully and courageously frustrated his
hostile attempts, that they had proved themselves truly worthy of the
blessings of freedom. Nor were the Florentines less accomplished in the
arts of peace than in those of war. Their moderation was universally
acknowledged. By their patronage of the liberal sciences they had
acquired an honourable distinction amongst the states of Italy. A people
of this character, Filippo observed, he could not but esteem and love;
and he protested that he would henceforth be as assiduous in cultivating
their friendship, as he had lately been active in troubling their repose.
He advised Poggio to treat the malevolent speeches of calumniators with
contempt; and at the close of his epistle, he assured him that he would
always be ready to exert his power and abilities to promote the welfare
of the Tuscan republic.
In his answer to this extraordinary letter, Poggio expressed the grateful
sense which he entertained of the polite condescension manifested by
the duke, in thus honouring a private and obscure individual with his
unsolicited correspondence. He assured Filippo that he was highly
gratified by the flattering terms in which he had complimented him on
his literary attainments, but yet more by the eulogium which he had
pronounced upon the city of Florence, and by the pledge which he had
given of his friendship for the Tuscan state. He then expressed his
hope, and indeed his confidence, that the pacific professions of the
duke would not be found fallacious, but that his actions would prove the
sincerity of his declarations. Proceeding to remind him of different
conjunctures in which the Florentines had testified their good will
towards him, he observed to his illustrious correspondent, that whenever
the administrators of the Tuscan republic had engaged in hostilities
against him, they had not been prompted to take up arms by the ambitious
hope of extending their territories, but by a determination to defend
their liberties. “And if,” said he, “liberty ought to be dear to any
people, it ought to be dear to the Florentines; for freedom is the very
essence of our constitution. We are not ruled by the arbitrary will of an
individual, nor by a faction of nobles. The mass of the people enjoy an
equality of rights, and the way to civic honours is open to all. Hence
it happens, that the high and the low, the noble and the ignoble, the
rich and the poor, unite in the defence of their common freedom, and that
in so glorious a cause they spare no expense, shrink from no labour,
and dread no danger.” Poggio then proceeded to express his persuasion,
that in the wars in which the duke had engaged against the Florentine
state, he had imagined that he was fighting in defence of his honour and
glory; for it was not to be supposed, that so generous a prince could
for a moment entertain the unworthy desire to oppress a republic, whose
power and splendour, the consequences of its free constitution, were the
pride of Italy. Nothing, he assured the duke, could be more grateful
to his feelings, than the friendly dispositions towards his countrymen
announced in his letter, which he fondly regarded as the herald of a
lasting peace. “Peace,” said he, “I must always regard as preferable
to war—provided it be not the cloak of insidious stratagem. You see,”
continued Poggio, “that your condescension encourages me to express my
sentiments with the utmost freedom. At the same time do not imagine that
I mean to insinuate any doubt of your sincerity. I am confident that your
well known wisdom will prompt you to lay the foundations of a firm and
lasting friendship, which will be mutually advantageous to yourself and
to the Florentine state. Let this be your conduct, and you will find me
a joyful herald of your praise; and inconsiderable as my talents may be,
my efforts will be the means of exciting others, whose abilities will do
ample justice to your merits.”[325]
If it was the intention of the duke of Milan, by thus honouring Poggio
with the offer of his friendship, to make an experiment upon his vanity,
the tenor of the foregoing answer to his condescending epistle must have
convinced him that his experiment had entirely failed. Divesting himself
of the humility of the papal secretary, Poggio addressed his illustrious
correspondent with the firm ingenuousness of a citizen of a free state.
He pleaded the cause of his country with all the energy of liberty; and
though he prudently smoothed the harshness of distrust by the polish of
urbanity, the penetration of Filippo would easily discern, that he was
far from giving implicit credit to his professions of friendship for the
Florentine republic.
Whatever might be the views of the duke in this affair, not many months
had elapsed after the occurrence of this interchange of suspicious
civility, before he found that the privileged walls of the palace of
Milan could not protect a literary delinquent from the rage of scholastic
vengeance; and that the interposition of his patronage could not deter
Poggio from reiterating his attacks upon Francesco Filelfo. It has been
already related, that this wandering professor, when he was compelled
to fly from Florence, withdrew to Siena, where he arrived early in the
year 1435. In this city he commenced a series of lectures on rhetoric,
for which he was remunerated by the payment of an annual salary of three
hundred and fifty gold crowns.[326] His literary labours were however
disturbed by the apprehensions which he entertained of the machinations
of his adversaries. But his fears for his personal safety did not
restrain the intemperance of his pen. On the thirteenth of August, 1437,
he transmitted to one of his friends, named Pietro Pierleoni, a new
satire against Poggio and Cosmo de’ Medici. Soon after the publication
of this satire, he visited the baths of Petriolæ, where he had not long
resided before he received a letter from Siena, informing him that a man
of a very suspicious appearance had been making minute inquiries into
his present situation and habits of life. On the receipt of this letter
Filelfo returned to Siena, where he soon recognized in the person in
question, the ruffian who had formerly made an attack upon him in the
streets of Florence. He immediately gave the necessary information to the
captain of the city guard. This officer without loss of time apprehended
the villain, from whom, according to the barbarous practice of the times,
he endeavoured to extract a declaration of the object of his visit to
Siena by the pains of the rack. By this uncertain mode of investigation,
the prisoner was compelled to confess, that he came to that city for the
purpose of assassinating Filelfo. The captain of the guard did not deem
it necessary to inquire whether any person had suborned him to perpetrate
so execrable a deed; but the ready conjecture of Filelfo fixed upon the
Medici an imputation, which a direct interrogatory ably introduced on a
new distension of his sinews, would have induced the wretched Filippo
to confirm by a judicial declaration. An acknowledgment of guilt having
been thus extorted from the culprit, the captain of the guard proceeded
to condemn him to pay a fine of five hundred pounds of silver. Filelfo,
not satisfied with this penalty, appealed to the governor of the city,
who proceeding upon his recorded confession, punished the offender by
cutting off his right hand. Nothing indeed but the earnest request of
Filelfo would have prevented the chief magistrate from dooming the
wretch to the punishment of death. Filelfo was not, however, prompted
by any emotions of compassion to desire that the life of the assassin
might be prolonged. “I interfered to prevent his execution,” said he,
in a letter to Æneas Sylvius, “because I wished that he should live
mutilated and disgraced, rather than that he should be freed by a speedy
death from the anguish of a suffering mind. For as it is the duty of a
man of a magnanimous spirit to forgive slight offences, so justice and
prudence require us to inflict vengeance on a common enemy of the human
race.”[327] Filelfo was so much alarmed by the appearance of the Tuscan
bravo, that he did not deem himself secure in the precincts of Siena. He
accordingly returned from thence to Bologna.[328] After a short residence
in that place, in the month of May, 1439, he repaired to Milan, to which
city he was attracted by the munificence of the duke.[329] Encouraged
by the protection of this powerful patron, he exulted in his security,
and proudly bade defiance to his enemies. Mistaking the emotions of
wrath for the inspiration of the muse, he poured forth torrent after
torrent of abusive verses. Ringing over and over again the changes of
virulent scurrility, he renewed his attack upon the person and reputation
of Poggio. The vengeance of Poggio was not long dormant. He moved to
the combat with the cumbrous artillery of a long invective, in which
he continued his invidious strictures on the life and conversation of
his adversary. Adverting in the beginning of this composition to the
scandalous imputations which had been aimed at him by Filelfo, he thus
compared his own history with that of his antagonist. “Of myself I shall
only say, that in consequence of these crimes which you impute to me, I
have lived with honour and dignity in the service of seven successive
pontiffs, from whom I have experienced the most satisfactory proofs
of their kind regard; whilst you, adorned as you represent yourself
to be with virtues, have been wandering about like a Scythian flying
from city to city; oppressed with poverty, continually reduced to
the necessity of suing for foreign aid, never able to retain a fixed
habitation for any length of time; but, like a harpy, spreading such a
foul contagion wherever you come, that they who afforded you an asylum
were soon compelled to banish you.”[330]—Upbraiding his antagonist with
the obscurity of his origin, Poggio affirmed that he was the offspring
of an adulterous intercourse between a parish priest and the wife of a
rustic, whose hands, he said, were so rough with continual labour, that
he was accustomed to use them instead of a curry comb in dressing his
horses.[331] Tracing the course of Filelfo’s early life, he noticed his
residence in Padua, and his visit to Venice and Constantinople, from all
which places he affirmed that he was driven by the infamy of his vices.
Narrating his transactions after his return to Italy, he charged him
with fraudulently retaining certain books, in payment for which he had
received sums of money from Leonardo Giustiniano and Guarino Veronese.
He also enumerated many more instances of his alleged dishonesty.
Amongst other imputations of this nature, he asserted, that Filelfo,
being once admitted into Leonardo Aretino’s library, took advantage of
the absence of his host to steal a box of gold rings. He reminded him
of the precipitancy of his flight from Florence, and affirmed that he
left Siena in disgrace, and fled to Milan in circumstances of the utmost
distress. Having exhausted all the topics of obloquy which suggested
themselves to his fertile imagination, Poggio concluded his invective
with the following peroration. “Since you are conscious that these
things are true, I wonder that you do not withdraw from the light,
and fly from the aspect of men into some distant solitudes, where the
villany of Filelfo is unknown. But your mind, delighting in wickedness
and blinded by passion, your obscene manners, your abandoned life, your
secret vices, hurry you headlong to your fate, drive you onward by the
instigation of the furies, prevent you from profiting by wholesome
counsel, and render you insensible of the distinction between right and
wrong. As Hercules traversed the world to benefit mankind by his labours,
so you have visited every country and climate to disgust them by your
vices. Whither would you betake yourself should you be deprived of the
countenance of your present patron? You have now wandered like a common
mendicant through every district of Italy. What will you do if your
present resources fail you? Whose assistance will you implore? To whose
protection will you commend yourself? I know what you will do. You will
enlist into some army; and, such is your ambition, you will have the
vanity to aspire to the chief command. But you will make your exit at the
gallows—an exit well befitting a man of your vicious character. For when
your patron shall perceive that he does not obtain praise, but ignominy
from your ridiculous writings his sentiments will be changed, and he will
drag you from your obscene retreat, and inflict upon you the punishment
due to your crimes.”[332]
The exhibition of a few specimens of the virulence which distinguished
the hostility of these learned gladiators is perhaps necessary to give
a true idea of the character of the combatants, and of the times in
which they lived. It may also be subservient to another useful purpose.
The odious nature of vice, as well as the beauty of virtue, is most
strikingly demonstrated by examples; and perhaps nothing will tend more
to convince men of the folly of evil speaking, lying, and slandering,
than the perusal of the invectives of Poggio, and the satires of Filelfo.
Poggio did not, however, waste the whole of the leisure time which
he enjoyed in the retirement of his Tuscan villa, in the disgraceful
occupation of bestowing a literary garb on the grossest abuse. At the
commencement of the year 1440 he published his dialogue on Nobility,
a work which greatly increased his reputation by the luminousness of
its method, the elegance of its diction, and the learned references
with which it was interspersed. In a short prefatory address, by which
he dedicated this dialogue to Gerardo Landriani, bishop of Como, he
observed, that it was a remarkable circumstance, that this subject, which
opened so wide a field for discussion, had been in a manner neglected
by the learned. He professed his conviction of his own inability to do
justice to it, but expressed his hopes that his example might induce
scholars of more brilliant talents to correct his errors, and to supply
his deficiencies.
The interlocutors of this dialogue are Niccolo Niccoli and Lorenzo de’
Medici, the brother of Cosmo. The scene of the conversation is laid in
the villa of Poggio, which these lovers of the fine arts had visited for
the purpose of inspecting some ancient statues which had been lately
conveyed thither from Rome. The sight of these statues arranged in the
garden of Poggio’s rural retreat reminds Lorenzo of the manners of the
ancient Romans, who, he observes, were accustomed to adorn the halls
of their palaces with the effigies of their ancestors, the lustre of
whose nobility they imagined reflected honour on themselves. This remark
draws from Niccolo a declaration of his opinion, that in founding their
fame on the glory of their progenitors, they were greatly deceived, as
the seat of true nobility is the mind. Lorenzo, granting the position,
that virtue is a source of nobility, affirms that this honour may also
be acquired by the ornaments of wealth and dignity. In proof of his
assertion, he enlarges on the meaning of the word _nobilis_, shewing,
by various quotations from Latin authors, that it is used to signify
in general the quality of being remarkable, without any reference to
the cause of notoriety. He moreover observes, that the common opinion
of men attaches the idea of nobility to eminence of station, splendour
of birth, and other adventitious circumstances of a similar nature.
Niccolo, replying to this observation, that if the opinion of the vulgar
is to be regarded, their ideas are so various upon the subject, that
no certain criterion can be derived from them, is desired to enumerate
the characteristics of nobility which occur in different countries.
In compliance with this request, he thus describes the nobles of his
native land. “To begin with the Italians, who have disseminated amongst
other nations the arts which adorn human life, what a difference there
subsists between the nobility of Naples, of Venice, and of Rome. The
Neapolitans, who pride themselves on their patrician dignity, seem to
imagine, that nobility consists in the indulgence of idleness and sloth;
for they enter into no active pursuits, but live in indolence upon the
revenues of their estates. They deem it unbecoming a nobleman to attend
to agriculture, or to take any cognizance of the state of his affairs.
They spend their time in loitering in the halls of their palaces, or in
equestrian exercises. However bad a man’s moral character may be, or
however mean his talents, if he be descended from an ancient family, he
a ranks amongst the nobility. As to merchandize, they regard it with
contempt; and so ridiculous is their pride, that though they be reduced
to the most abject state of poverty, they would rather starve than suffer
any branch of their family to form a matrimonial alliance with the most
opulent tradesman. Nay, so great is their dislike of traffic, that they
deem it more honourable to support themselves by robbery, than to gain a
livelihood by engaging in any species of commerce. I know a Neapolitan of
a most illustrious family, who was regarded by his brother patricians in
so degrading a light, because he had exposed to sale a quantity of wine,
the produce of his estates, that he experienced the utmost difficulty in
marrying his daughter, though he was able to bestow upon her a very large
fortune.
“To this absurdity the customs of the Venetians afford a striking
contrast. In their state the nobility compose a kind of faction distinct
from the body of the people, and are all engaged in merchandize. All
those who have discharged public offices, and all the members of the
senate, are graced with the honours of nobility. And so vain are they of
this distinction, that the foolish and needy son of a foolish and needy
father, looks down with disdain upon a plebeian, whatever may be his
learning or his worth. The ranks of the Venetian nobility are sometimes
recruited in an extraordinary manner. For he who has done any signal
service to the state, however culpable may have been the means of which
he has made use to promote this end, is immediately enrolled in the list
of the patricians.
“The Roman nobles are taught to regard merchandize as a sordid pursuit,
and they employ themselves in the cultivation of their lands, and in
the breeding of cattle. So far are they from thinking it beneath their
dignity to convert their agricultural knowledge into a source of gain,
that property thus acquired will raise ignoble families to the honour of
noble birth.
“The Florentines seem to have more correct notions of nobility than any
of the above-mentioned communities. For amongst us those are accounted
noble who are descended from ancient families, and whose ancestors have
held distinguished places in the administration of public affairs;
but their nobility is by no means dependant upon the nature of their
occupation. For some of them engage in merchandize; others live upon the
income of their property, and amuse themselves with the rural diversions
of hawking and hunting. The Genoese who live on the coast are all
indiscriminately engaged in commerce, and their nobility depends upon
their origin. The Lombard nobles reside in fortresses built upon the
mountains, and, by their predatory excursions, strike terror into the
traveller. The nobility of the Terra Firma of Venice live on the revenue
of their estates, and spend their time in rural sports. Amongst them,
nobility depends upon high descent, and independence of property. Why
should I mention other nations whose customs differ but little from our
own? The Germans esteem those noble who inherit a patrimony sufficient
for their maintenance; and they bestow this title on those formidable
plunderers who retire from towns and cities to the security of their
castles. Throughout the whole of France the privilege of nobility is
held by one uniform tenure. The Gallic lords live in the country, and
think it a disgrace for a man of exalted birth to reside in a town. They
despise merchants as a vile and abject race of beings. Prodigality and
carelessness with regard to futurity they esteem a certain indication of
a noble spirit. The nobility of France is continually increased by the
accession either of the wealthy, or of the retainers of the great barons.
For the sons of merchants and tradesmen who have inherited large fortunes
from their fathers, by purchasing an estate and living in the country on
its produce, compose an inferior order of nobility, and transmit to their
sons all the honours of the aristocracy: and those who have lived in the
service of the great barons, by receiving from their liege lords a grant
of land, attain to the rank of nobility. The customs of the English are
in this respect very similar to those of the French. In Spain nobility
is attached to the descendants of ancient houses who are possessed of
competent property, whether they reside in cities or in the country.”
Having thus noticed the different ideas of nobility which are entertained
in the European states, Niccolo proceeds slightly to animadvert upon the
notions of the Asiatics upon this subject; and from this induction of
particulars, he draws the general inference, that nobility, in the vulgar
acceptation of the term, cannot be traced to any fixed principles. On
Lorenzo’s intimating that the title of noble should be granted to all
those who are esteemed so by the institutions of their country, Niccolo
refuses his assent to this proposition, and proceeds to argue the matter
at large with much sound reasoning, proving that nobility does not
depend upon externals. Lorenzo in reply to Niccolo adduces the definition
of nobility proposed by Aristotle, who asserts in his dialogue on
Politics, that the virtuous descendants of virtuous and wealthy ancestors
are noble. This definition is examined by Niccolo, who maintains that
it is faulty, because a virtuous man does not lose his nobility, should
he happen to be deprived of his wealth. In opposition to the opinion
of the Stagyrite, he quotes the opinion of Plato and the Stoics, who
assert, that true nobility consists in virtue. Lorenzo acknowledges
that virtue is requisite to true nobility; but still contends that to
complete the idea of this distinction, to virtue must be added those
external advantages which render a man conspicuous. Niccolo grants
that these are desirable adjuncts; but at the same time adheres to his
original position, that purity of moral principle is an indispensable
characteristic of genuine nobility, and concludes the conference by
inviting the company to enjoy the coolness of the evening in walking
along the banks of the river.[333]
Though this dialogue on nobility was received with great applause by
the generality of learned men, the description which it contained of
the Venetian nobles offended the patriotic pride of Gregorio Coriario,
prothonotary of the apostolic see, who remonstrated with Poggio on the
unfavourable light in which he had represented the patricians of his
country, as a kind of faction distinct from the body of the people,
and as being ready to confer the highest civil honours on those who
had served their country, even by dishonourable means. In reply to
the animadversions of Gregorio, Poggio expressed his wish that he had
communicated his dialogue to him previously to its publication, declaring
that he would with the utmost readiness have altered or expunged any
objectionable passage which might have been pointed out to him. At the
same time he endeavoured to palliate the offence which he had committed
against the dignity of the Venetian aristocracy, by observing, that he
had adopted the word _factio_ merely to express the idea of a class
or party of men, in which innocent or indifferent sense it was used
by the best Latin authors. As to the second cause of displeasure, he
protested that he had made the obnoxious assertion in question upon what
he conceived to be good authority, and that he was persuaded that the
Venetians had sometimes conferred the honours of nobility upon men of
equivocal character. “You ask me,” continued he, “to quote some instance
of the occurrence of this circumstance. Believe me, if I recollected
any I would rather acknowledge myself in an error, than defend my cause
at the expense of any one’s good name. I wish my lucubrations to be
favourably received by the public. On this account it is much more my
interest to praise than to condemn. I therefore beg that you will freely
correct my mistakes, and do not fear exciting my displeasure. I esteem
myself greatly indebted to you for that kindness which prompts you
to be watchful over my honour, and zealous to prevent me from giving
unnecessary offence. Nor must I forget to express the sense which I feel
of the modesty and urbanity which render your letter the clear expression
of the mildness and gentleness of your manners. _Florence, April 8th,
1440._”[334]
By introducing Lorenzo de’ Medici as an interlocutor in this dialogue,
Poggio no doubt intended to preserve to distant times the memory of the
familiar terms on which he had lived with one of the most illustrious
citizens of Florence.
Lorenzo did not long survive the publication of this testimony of
esteem. On the twenty-third of September, 1440, he paid the great debt
of nature. In him Poggio was at once deprived of a father, a brother,
and a friend—of one who was always ready to sympathize in his cares, and
to assist him in his distresses.[335] Whilst Lorenzo lived he was free
from anxiety with regard to pecuniary affairs, as in his liberality he
constantly found the most copious resources in the hour of need. By the
death of this generous benefactor, he was deeply affected; and as soon as
his grief would permit him to collect his scattered thoughts, he hastened
to celebrate the virtues of his deceased friend, in an eulogium on his
character, which he addressed to Carlo Aretino. From this effusion of
affectionate esteem, we learn that Lorenzo was endued with the elegance
of taste, the liberality of spirit, and the urbanity of manners, which
for so long a period distinguished all the branches of his renowned
family. His kinsmen no doubt deemed his memory highly honoured by the
respectful attendance of Eugenius IV. at his funeral obsequies.[336]
But they were probably little aware, that the duteous zeal of an humble
secretary would be more conducive to the diffusion and the permanence of
his fame, than the splendour of a pontifical procession, or the grandeur
of monumental memorials.