It has been already observed, that in the year 1443 Eugenius earnestly
solicited the king of Naples to assist him in expelling Francesco Sforza
from the ecclesiastical territories, the possession of which constituted
such a formidable accession to his power. In compliance with the wishes
of the pontiff, Alfonso advanced at the head of a considerable army
into the Marca d’Ancona, almost the whole of which district he in a
short space of time restored to the dominion of the church.[365] [A. D.
1444.] In the course of the ensuing spring, however, Sforza invaded the
disputed territory with such vigour and military skill, that he once
more compelled the pontiff to confer upon him the feudal sovereignty of
all its cities, except Osimo, Recanati, Fabriano, and Ancona.[366] But
in the year 1445, Eugenius, having secured the assistance of the duke of
Milan and of the king of Naples, again violated his solemn engagements,
and declared war against his vassal. The perfidy of the pontiff was at
length crowned with success; for by the joint efforts of the allied
powers, Sforza was dispossessed of the whole extent of the Marca, except
the city of Jesi.[367] Thus had Eugenius the satisfaction of reducing
all the territories belonging to the church; Jesi and Bologna being the
only cities of the ecclesiastical states which refused to acknowledge his
authority. He did not long enjoy the fruit of his anxious deliberations
and strenuous exertions. In the commencement of the year 1447 he was
seized by a distemper which soon assumed a most serious aspect. In this
extremity he continued to manifest that undaunted resolution which was
a distinguishing feature of his character, and struggled against his
last enemy with all the vigour of an unyielding spirit. His attendants
witnessed his fortitude with the highest admiration, and for a time
flattered themselves that the strength of his constitution would baffle
the power of his disease. When his friends had at length lost all hope
of his recovery, the archbishop of Florence gave him intimation of their
opinion by preparing to administer to him the rites which are appointed
by the Catholic church for the comfort of the dying. But the pontiff
indignantly commanded him to forbear his officious interposition. “I am
not yet,” said he, “reduced to the last extremity—I will apprize you
when my time is come.” This promise he fulfilled, and in a manner which
evinced the intrepidity and even cheerfulness with which he foresaw
his approaching dissolution. “My friends,” said he to the attendant
ecclesiastics, during a pause which occurred in the reading of morning
prayers, “when the holy office is finished I will tell you a story.”
The devotional exercise being ended, he was reminded of his promise,
on which he thus addressed his assembled household.—“A certain Athenian
once came forth into the street, and in the midst of a large concourse
of people made the following proclamation.—If any one wishes to hang
himself on my fig-tree, let him make haste, for I am going to cut it
down. In like manner,” said the pontiff, “if my friends wish to solicit
from me any favours, they must not delay, for I am sensible that the
hour of my departure draws near.” The priest in waiting having informed
him that they were going to offer solemn prayers for his recovery—“Pray
rather,” said he, “that the Lord’s will may be done; for we often
petition for that which is not conducive to our good.” When he was
conscious of the near approach of death, he piously participated in the
customary ceremonies, and then caused himself to be raised from his bed
and conveyed to the chair of St. Peter, where he breathed his last on the
twenty-third day of February, 1447.[368]
The funeral eulogium of the deceased pontiff was pronounced by Tommaso
da Sarzana, who had lately been promoted by his favour to the bishopric
of Bologna, and to the dignity of cardinal. The acquisition of this
honour prepared the way for the exaltation of Tommaso to the summit
of ecclesiastical preferment. On the sixth of March he was by the
unanimous voice of the conclave invested with the pontifical purple,
on which occasion he assumed the name of Nicolas V. His biographer,
Gianozzo Manetti, asserts, that his advancement to this high dignity was
prognosticated to him in the following manner. When the conclave was
assembled for the purpose of filling the vacancy which had just occurred
in the chair of St. Peter, and Tommaso was sleeping at dead of night
in the small chamber allotted to him on that occasion, he dreamt that
Eugenius appeared before him arrayed in his pontifical robes, of which
he divested himself, and commanded him to put them on; and that on his
refusal to comply with this requisition, the deceased pontiff violently
enforced his obedience, and invested him with all the insignia of papal
authority. Gianozzo seems to intimate, that in this dream there was
something præternatural. But a slight acquaintance with the constitution
of the human mind would have convinced him, that there is nothing
miraculous in the circumstance of a cardinal’s dreaming that his brows
are encircled with the tiara.[369]
On his elevation to the chair of St. Peter, Nicolas found the
temporalities of the holy see in a lamentable state of disorder. The
military enterprizes of Eugenius had exhausted the pontifical treasury;
the anarchy to which the long absence of that pontiff from his capital
had given rise in the ecclesiastical territories, had impeded the
collection of the public revenues; and the schism occasioned by the
intemperance of the council of Basil had impaired the spiritual authority
of the church.[370] Whilst the unpropitious circumstances which thus
attended the commencement of his pontificate affected the mind of
Nicolas with well-founded anxiety, his uneasiness was encreased by the
contemplation of the distracted state of Italy. The Venetians and the
duke of Milan were engaged in an obstinate and bloody contest, which
spread devastation through the fertile provinces of Lombardy. Alfonso,
king of Naples, having been instigated by Eugenius to declare war against
the Florentines, had marched on his way to the Tuscan frontier as far
as Tivoli, where his army lay encamped at the time of that pontiff’s
death.[371] Justly apprehensive lest the collision of interests which
occurs in a period of general warfare should disturb the peace of the
pontifical dominions, Nicolas found himself surrounded by difficulties
which called into full exercise the extraordinary abilities which he
had cultivated with such successful industry. His first object was to
remedy the confusion which prevailed in the ecclesiastical states. This
object he speedily accomplished by a prudent choice of magistrates, by
the establishment of a well-regulated system of internal economy, and
by the mildness of a lenient administration of government. At the price
of thirty-five thousand florins of gold he purchased from Francesco
Sforza the possession of the city of Jesi.[372] The inhabitants of
Bologna, influenced by the remembrance of the benevolence which shone
conspicuous in his character, whilst he exercised amongst them the
episcopal functions, sacrificed their independence to their gratitude,
and voluntarily submitted to his authority.[373] The endeavours of
Nicolas to inspire the other potentates of Italy with the ardent desire
of peace which influenced his own actions were not crowned with equally
prompt success. Alfonso proceeded on his march to the Florentine state,
which he continued to harrass for the space of three years, at the end
of which period he agreed to terms of pacification. The death of Filippo
Maria, duke of Milan, which event took place on the thirteenth of August,
1447,[374] exposed his dominions to all the miseries of civil discord.
Whilst the king of Naples asserted his title to the ducal crown by virtue
of a pretended will, said to have been executed by Filippo during his
last illness, Charles, duke of Orleans, maintained his own claim to the
inheritance of the sovereignty of the Milanese, in right of his wife,
Valentina Visconti, daughter of the late duke, who had died without
male issue. As the son-in-law of Filippo, Francesco Sforza also deemed
himself justified in aspiring to the throne of Milan.[375] In the mean
time the inhabitants of that city, rejecting the pretensions of all
the competitors, declared for independence, and instituted a republican
form of government. The infant commonwealth was, however, doomed to
struggle with unconquerable difficulties. Whilst it was harrassed by the
Venetians, its strength was enfeebled by the anarchy of faction. After
suffering a variety of calamities in the course of a protracted siege,
the inhabitants of Milan were, in the year 1450, compelled by famine to
open their gates to Sforza, who on the twenty-fifth of March, solemnly
assumed the ducal diadem.[376]
In the midst of these hostile operations, Nicolas had the prudence and
the skill to observe a strict neutrality, and thus to secure to the
ecclesiastical territories the blessings of public tranquillity. In the
contemplation of the growing prosperity of his subjects the pontiff found
an ample reward for his anxious endeavours to promote their welfare. The
flourishing state of his finances, the consequence of his cultivation
of the arts of peace, was also a source of considerable satisfaction to
him, as it furnished him with the means of gratifying his passion for
the encouragement of learning. Fostered by his patronage, the scholars
of Italy no longer had reason to complain that they were doomed to
obscurity and contempt. Nicolas invited to his court all those who were
distinguished by their proficiency in ancient literature; and whilst he
afforded them full scope for the exertion of their talents, he requited
their labours by liberal remunerations.
Poggio did not neglect to take advantage of the rising tide of fortune.
Eugenius IV. was the seventh pontiff in whose service he had continued
to hold the office of apostolic secretary, without being promoted to any
of the superior departments of the Roman chancery. His objections to the
ecclesiastical life had indeed shut against him one of the avenues to
preferment; and the negligence of his patrons, or the confused state of
the temporalities attached to the holy see, had hitherto prevented him
from receiving any recompense for his labours at all adequate to his
own estimate of their value.[377] But when Nicolas V. had ascended the
pontifical throne, his prospects were brightened by the hope of spending
the remainder of his days in the comforts of independence, if not in
affluence. In order that he might not be wanting to the prosecution of
his own interests, he resolved to testify his respectful attachment
to the newly-created pontiff, by addressing to him a congratulatory
oration. On this occasion, however, he could not but recollect that
not many years had elapsed since he had dedicated to his friend his
dialogue _De Infelicitate Principum_; and he was sensible that it was
absolutely necessary to preserve in his address to Nicolas V. some degree
of consistency with the principles which he had formerly endeavoured
to sanction by the patronage of Tommaso da Sarzana. In the exordium of
this oration, therefore, he professed that he could not conscientiously
congratulate the pontiff on his being summoned to undergo immense
labour of body, and to exert continual activity of mind. “For,” said
he, “if you are determined to guide the vessel of St. Peter properly,
and according to the precepts of God, you will not be able to indulge
yourself in the least relaxation, or to give yourself up, as you have
been accustomed to do, to the joys of friendship and of literature. You
must live according to the pleasure of others, and you must give up your
own ease, in order to promote the welfare of the Christian community.
You are placed as a sentinel to watch for the safety of all, and you are
doomed from henceforth never to know the blessings of repose.” After
enlarging on these topics, Poggio declared that he would not run the
risk of incurring the imputation of flattery, by detailing the virtues
which adorned the character of his holiness. “What then,” continued he,
“can I say? In treating on this subject, upon what circumstances can I
enlarge?—I answer, that they who are raised to the pontifical dignity may
be properly addressed in terms of admonition and exhortation.” Proceeding
in pursuance of this principle to enumerate the good qualities which
ought to confer lustre on the pontifical throne, he reminded the father
of the faithful, that it was incumbent upon him to be just, merciful,
beneficent, courteous, and humble. He warned him to beware of sycophants
and deceitful detractors, who frequently betray the best of princes into
dangerous errors; and finally, he exhorted him never to sell for money
those honours and sources of emolument which ought to be appropriated
as the meed of virtue. Having enlarged as much as prudence would permit
upon the head of admonition, Poggio thus skilfully introduced an eulogium
on the virtues of his patron. “But in this address, most holy father!
I labour under peculiar difficulties; for my knowledge of your singular
and transcendent virtues deprives me of the most copious subjects of
discourse. For what room is there for the administration of exhortation
or admonition to you, who are entitled by your wisdom to admonish
others?” After a long detail of the good qualities of the pontiff, the
orator thus proceeded.—“I may justly, and without imputation of flattery,
call upon you to imitate yourself—to remember by what arts and by what
practices you have reached this high dignity, and to persevere in that
line of conduct which has led you to the attainment of such illustrious
honours. Let me also entreat you, most holy father, not to forget your
ancient friends, of which number I profess myself to be one. You well
know that friendship originates in a similarity of studies, and in the
joint cultivation of virtuous principles. Though the attainment of high
authority by one of the parties is wont to separate those who have been
united by the bonds of mutual affection, yet he ought more especially
to retain his kind regard for his former associates, who does not seek
for friends amongst those who can promote his interests, but amongst the
virtuous. Forget not then to minister to the necessities of your ancient
companions. Become the protector of men of genius, and cause the liberal
arts to raise their drooping heads. You see that literature is neglected,
whilst men apply themselves to those studies which convert strife into a
source of gain. Small is the number of those who are inspired with the
love of science, and in an age in which ambition and wealth are more
highly esteemed than virtue and probity, they are regarded as inglorious
and ignoble. From you alone, most holy father, we expect a remedy for
these evils—for you alone is reserved the honour of restoring the dignity
of literature, and of providing for the welfare of the learned.” After
a brief enumeration of the advantages which would accrue to the pontiff
from his encouragement of men of letters, Poggio adverted to his own
situation and circumstances in the following terms. “I am now a veteran
soldier of the Roman court, in which I have resided for the space of
forty years, and certainly with less emolument than might have been
justly expected by one who is not entirely destitute of virtue and of
learning. It is now time for me to be discharged from the service, and
to dedicate the remainder of my old age to bodily rest and to mental
employment. But if, most holy father, I do not obtain the means of an
honourable retirement from your benevolence, I know not to whose favour
and assistance I can lay a claim.”[378]
So far was Nicolas V. from being offended by the freedom with which
Poggio in this oration reminded him of his duty, that he testified his
esteem for his monitor by conferring upon him very liberal presents. So
noble indeed was the munificence of the pontiff, that Poggio declared,
that in consequence of the generosity of this enlightened Mæcenas, he
regarded himself as at length reconciled to fortune.[379] The genial
warmth of the sunshine of prosperity did not, however, cause Poggio to
relax in his mental exertions. On the contrary, the prospect of honour
and profit, and the spirit of emulation excited by the success of his
learned competitors, stimulated him, notwithstanding the advanced period
of life to which he had now attained, to pursue his studies with renewed
assiduity. He had for a long space of time been occasionally employed in
collecting materials for a Dialogue _On the Vicissitudes of Fortune_.
These materials he now began to arrange, and having finished and
carefully corrected his work, he submitted it to the public inspection,
[A. D. 1447.] under the patronage of the pontiff, to whom he respectfully
inscribed it by a dedicatory epistle. In this address he descanted on the
utility of history, and pointed out the moral tendency of his Dialogue,
which, by demonstrating the instability of human things, would repress
the confidence of pride and the aspiring views of ambition. He remarked,
that the subject of the work which he now presented to his patron was
nearly allied to that of the Dialogue _On the Unhappiness of Princes_,
which he had formerly dedicated to him, and that it consequently had a
peculiar claim to his protection. He moreover reminded his illustrious
friend, that though in his ecclesiastical capacity he might be regarded
as beyond the reach of misfortune, yet as the sovereigns of the temporal
dominions of the church, the pontiffs themselves are not exempted from
the common lot of mortality; and expressed his persuasion, that by
becoming acquainted with the distresses of his predecessors, he would
learn the salutary lesson of caution.[380]
The opening of the Dialogue _On the Vicissitudes of Fortune_ is
singularly grand and interesting. It exhibits Poggio and his confidential
associate, Antonio Lusco, fatigued by the inspection of the remains of
Roman magnificence, reposing themselves amidst the venerable ruins of the
capitol, which building commands a prospect of almost the whole extent
of the city. After Antonio has gazed for a few minutes upon the waste of
years, he exclaims with a sigh, “How unlike, Poggio! is this capitol to
that which Maro sung, as—
“Chang’d from horrid thorn to glittering gold.”
“The gold has now disappeared, and thorns and briers resume their reign.
When I consider our present situation, I cannot but remember how Caius
Marius, the pillar of the Roman republic, when he was banished from
his country, landed in Africa, and seated himself amidst the ruins of
Carthage, where he meditated upon the fate of that city, and could
not determine whether he himself or the rival of Rome afforded a more
striking spectacle of the instability of human things. But with respect
to the devastation of Rome, there is nothing to which it can be compared.
The calamity which has befallen the mistress of the world exceeds in
magnitude every misfortune recorded in the annals of history.—It is a
truly lamentable circumstance, that this city, which formerly produced
so many illustrious heroes and commanders, the parent of such signal
virtues, the nurse of arts, the inventress of military discipline,
the pattern of sanctity, the establisher of laws, the protectress of
good morals, the queen of the nations, should now, by the injustice of
fortune, not only be stripped of her dignity, but should also be doomed
to the most wretched servitude, and should become so deformed and abject,
as to exhibit no traces of her former grandeur, except what are to be
found in her ruins.”[381] These observations lead Poggio to remark,
how wonderfully few are the vestiges of ancient art which remain in
the extensive precincts of Rome. Of these vestiges he gives a complete
and interesting catalogue, which affords a very minute account of the
appearance of the ruins of Rome in the fifteenth century. At the close
of this enumeration, Lusco resumes his reflections on the mutability
of Fortune, on which Poggio inquires of his friend what he means by
that term. In answer to this question, Lusco gives the Aristotelian
definition of Fortune, describing it as an accidental cause, and says,
that those circumstances happen by Fortune which happen to man contrary
to his design and intention. To this definition he observes that Aquinas
accedes. Poggio, remarking that we speak of the good fortune of Alexander
or Cæsar, though they laid plans to accomplish what they effected,
objects to the foregoing definition, in the place of which Antonio
substitutes another, which attributes events that are commonly esteemed
fortuitous to the over-ruling providence of God. After this preliminary
conversation, Poggio proceeds briefly to recount some ancient examples of
the mutability of fortune, and then describes the astonishing success of
the arms of Tamerlane, and the calamities of Bajazet. He then requests
Antonio to detail some of the more modern instances of a calamitous
reverse of circumstances. With this request Lusco complies, and the
instances which he recounts occupy the whole of the second book of the
Dialogue, in which various changes which had taken place in different
parts of Europe, and particularly in Italy, from the year 1377 to the
period of the death of Martin V. are narrated with great perspicuity
and elegance.—The third book comprises an entertaining epitome of the
history of Italy during the pontificate of Eugenius IV. The fourth book
is not strictly relevant to the subject of this dialogue, and ought to
be considered as a separate and detached composition. It contains an
account of Persia and India, which Poggio collected from the narrative
of Niccolo Conti, a Venetian, who in the course of a peregrination of
twenty-five years, had penetrated into the regions situated beyond the
Ganges. This bold adventurer having, during his residence in Arabia, been
obliged to abjure the Christian faith, immediately after his return to
Italy repaired to the pontifical court to solicit from Eugenius IV. the
remission of his sin of apostacy. On this occasion Poggio procured from
him an account of his route, and of his observations on the manners,
customs, and natural history of the eastern nations. This account he
digested into a narrative, which will be found not a little amusing by
the modern inquirer, and must have excited an extraordinary degree of
attention at the time of its publication.
The Dialogue _On the Vicissitudes of Fortune_ is the most interesting
of the works of Poggio. It inculcates maxims of sublime philosophy,
enforced by a detail of splendid and striking events. The account which
it contains of the changes which took place in Italy at the end of the
fourteenth, and at the commencement of the fifteenth centuries, presents
a succinct and clear view of the politics of that period; and the journey
of the Venetian traveller merits the attentive perusal of the curious
inquirer into the history of man.[382]
Soon after the publication of the Dialogue _On the Vicissitudes of
Fortune_, Poggio gave a striking proof of the confidence with which he
relied on the protection of the pontiff, by publishing a Dialogue _On
Hypocrisy_. The astonishing boldness with which he lashes the follies
and vices of the clergy in this composition has been already noticed.
Had he ventured to advance the sentiments which it contains in the days
of Eugenius, he would in all probability have expiated his temerity
by the forfeiture of his life. The predecessor of Nicolas felt little
veneration for learning, and he united in his character the restlessness
of ambition, and the rigour of religious austerity. As the manners of
a court universally take their complexion from those of the sovereign,
the retinue of Eugenius was crowded with ecclesiastics who assiduously
endeavoured to rise to preferment by assuming a sanctity of deportment
which they well knew to be the ready passport to the favour of the
pontiff. These men, who attempted to disguise their pride under the garb
of humility, and who, whilst they made a public profession of excessive
piety, secretly indulged themselves in the grossest debauchery, Poggio
had long regarded with contempt and indignation; and in his Dialogue
_On Hypocrisy_ he attacked them with all the severity of sarcastic
wit. This dialogue he inscribed to one of his friends, named Francesco
Accolti, of Arezzo, a celebrated lawyer, to whom he observed in his
prefatory address, that as he had formerly endeavoured to display the
despicable nature of Avarice, he had lately undertaken to describe, in
its true colours, Hypocrisy, a vice of a much more odious complexion. He
also intimated to Francesco, that he was fully apprized, that by the
publication of the work which he then transmitted to him, he should give
very great offence; but at the same time he sarcastically remarked, that
they who complained of the severity of his animadversions would virtually
acknowledge themselves guilty of the crime which it was his intention to
hold up to general reprobation.
In the introductory part of the dialogue we are informed, that Poggio
was accustomed to take frequent journeys to Florence; on which occasions
his first visit was generally paid to Carlo Aretino: that the last time
he had an opportunity of paying his respects to that eminent scholar, he
found him in his library engaged in reading Plato’s Politia; and that
after the customary interchange of civilities, Carlo, inquiring into the
state of the Roman court, asked him whether it was as much frequented by
hypocrites as it formerly was, during the pontificate of Eugenius. To
this inquiry Poggio answered, that the reign of hypocrites was come to an
end. Carlo rejoicing in this information, uttered a vehement philippic
against hypocrisy, which, he observed, was more severely reproved by
Jesus Christ than any other vice. Displaying its evil consequences, he
remarked, that hypocrisy tends to destroy confidence between man and man,
and to throw suspicion on virtue itself.
After the detail of this conversation, Poggio introduces as a third
interlocutor, Jeronimo Aretino, Abbot of Santa Fiore, an ecclesiastic
of considerable learning and of unblemished manners, who is represented
as unexpectedly paying a visit to Carlo. On the arrival of Jeronimo,
Poggio observes, that as this respectable dignitary had spent so large
a portion of his days amongst the clergy, he must be well qualified to
detail the characteristics of hypocrisy. This task, however, Jeronimo
declines, as being an invidious one, and attended with no small degree
of danger. But at the solicitation of his friends, and under the
assurance of secrecy, he proceeds to advert to the derivation of the
word _hypocrite_, which he defines as a term used to express the idea
of a man who, for the promotion of some evil purpose, pretends to
be what he is not. This definition he observes, includes not merely
pretenders to extraordinary sanctity, but impostors of every species.
Carlo, however, wishes to limit the meaning of the term to religious
deceivers, whom he thus describes.—“They who assume the appearance of
uncommon sanctimoniousness—who walk the street with squalid countenances,
in thread-bare garments, and with naked feet—who affect to despise
money—who are continually talking about Jesus Christ—who wish to be
esteemed virtuous, whilst their deeds do not correspond with their
outward appearance—who seduce foolish women—who quit their cloisters, and
travel up and down the country in quest of fame—who make an ostentatious
display of abstinence—who deceive and defraud—these men, I think may be
justly denominated hypocrites.” After this description of the character
of a hypocrite, Poggio proposes the question, whether men who are thus
guilty of imposture are not less dangerous to society than those who
openly profess to despise the obligations of morality; since whatever
vices hypocrites may privately practise, they inculcate upon others the
principles of virtue, and endeavour to palliate their very crimes by
attributing the commission of them to good motives. This last remark
gives Carlo occasion to detail several scandalous anecdotes of certain
ecclesiastics, who, under the cloak of religious austerity, had indulged
themselves in the most abominable gratification of their appetites.
In the sequel of his speech, Carlo utters an eloquent invective
against the ambition of the clergy who then frequented the Roman
court. Poggio, concurring with him in sentiment, attacks the popular
preachers of that time. He next animadverts upon the begging friars,
the confessors, and the ecclesiastics who pretend to an extraordinary
degree of temperance and maceration of the flesh. In speaking of this
last description of hypocrites, he relates an anecdote of an Augustine
friar, who undertook to subsist for eight days upon the holy wafer
used in the Eucharist, and who actually quitted his cell at the end of
the prescribed term in perfectly good health, and without the least
diminution of his corpulency. This impostor gained great celebrity by
his apparently miraculous abstinence; but after the lapse of some years
it was discovered, that in spite of the vigilance of his guards, he had
conveyed into his apartment a quantity of bread saturated with wine,
which he had injected into his large leathern girdle, and that he had
moreover provided himself with candles composed of sugar, slightly coated
over with wax, which afforded him a plentiful supply of nourishment.
When Poggio has finished his remarks, Carlo attacks the _Fratres
Observantiæ_; and the remainder of the dialogue is occupied by strictures
on the character and conduct of several individuals, who, during the time
of Poggio’s residence in the Roman court, had distinguished themselves by
the gravity of their demeanour, and by the sanctity of their religious
profession.[383]
The talent of sarcastic wit which Poggio displayed in this dialogue, and
in his invectives against Francesco Filelfo, in all probability caused
Nicolas V. to delegate to him the task of drawing up a philippic against
Amedæus of Savoy, who, under the title of Felix, persisted in claiming
the honours of the pontificate. On the death of Eugenius, this antipope
had endeavoured, by proceeding to the election of cardinals, and by the
mission of embassadors to several of the Christian powers, to vindicate
his rights, as the only legitimate successor of St. Peter.[384] Nicolas,
naturally watching the conduct of his competitor with a jealous eye, not
only aimed at his devoted head the thunders of the church, but threatened
to deprive him of the sovereignty of Savoy, which he destined as the
reward of Charles, king of France, whom he solicited to assist him in
the subjugation of the pertinacious schismatic.[385] Eagerly taking
up the quarrel of his master, Poggio attacked the offender in a long
invective. A few extracts from this composition will demonstrate, that in
the impartiality of his acrimony, he did not treat the ducal hermit of
Ripaille with more lenity than he had shewn to the humble professor of
rhetoric.
In his exordium he says, “I cannot suppress the grief which I feel when I
see another Cerberus, whom we thought to have been lulled asleep, newly
roused from the infernal regions to the disturbance of religion, and the
destruction of the church. For what true believer is not deeply affected
with sorrow, when he beholds a rapacious wolf, who was formerly fed on
the blood of the faithful, now putting on the semblance of a lamb, for
the purpose of invading, under the guise of humility, the peace of the
church, which he has in vain attacked by open violence. Who is there that
does not lament that a golden calf, set up by an assembly of abandoned
men, to the disgrace of the faith, in contempt of Christ and his
doctrine, should, under the pretence of peace, endeavour by his envoys
and letters to pervert the minds of faithful and upright princes from
the true belief?—Who would not call upon God to punish such hypocrisy,
such villany, such baseness? Who would not detest the perverter of the
faith, the enemy of religion, the author of schism, the high-priest
of malignity?—This is the issue of his affected sanctity of manners,
his relinquishment of the world, his solitary retirement, in which he
pretended to dedicate himself to the service of God for the purpose of
shamefully demonstrating his infidelity; in which he arrayed himself in
humble apparel, in order that he might afterwards, like a roaring lion
seeking whom he might devour, destroy all religion, excite a schism, and
rend the unseamed garment of Christ.”
Having thus put in a railing accusation against Amedæus, Poggio proceeded
to utter a philippic against the members of the council of Basil, who had
attempted to raise him to the pontificate. “I wonder,” says he, “that any
one is so void of understanding as to believe, that any thing good could
proceed from that sink of iniquity, the synagogue of Basil. Is there any
one so foolish as to imagine, that this conventicle of reprobates could
produce any thing but a monstrous birth, or that it has any authority
to ordain the meanest priest, much less to create a pontiff, except the
authority which it may have derived from the devil and his followers?
For who,” says he, “is ignorant of the character of that tumultuary
band of most debauched men? Who does not know what sort of people, how
nefarious, how abandoned, how wicked, were assembled in that sink of
iniquity?—apostates, fornicators, ravishers, deserters, men convicted
of the most shameful crimes, blasphemers, rebels against God and their
superiors.”
From such an assembly as this, Poggio observed, that nothing salutary
could proceed, since a bad tree can never bring forth wholesome fruit.
After ridiculing the steps which Amedæus had taken to establish his
authority, and charging him with endeavouring to promote his own
interest by the arts of corruption, he reminded him that he was now
deserted by the few partizans who had formerly espoused his cause, and
that all the princes of Christendom had declared themselves in favour
of Nicolas. “Since this is the case,” continued he, “what have you left
but empty hopes? Why then do you trouble kings and princes? why do you
continue to weary their ears, and to tempt them by your evil practices?
why do you call all people your sons, when nobody acknowledges you as a
father? Awake from your long slumber, and consider that you were once a
Christian. Return to that Saviour whom you have renounced. Peter, the
chief of the apostles, once denied his Lord, and obtained pardon by a
confession of his crime. Imitate his contrition, and acknowledge that you
have sinned against the Lord. No longer wish to deceive yourself or the
people of Christ. Confess that you are what you are. Resume your ancient
manners and your former life: enter upon a train of thought worthy of a
good man: return into favour with God, and gain the good will of men:
cast off the burthen of conscience which must of necessity weigh heavy
upon you day and night: begin to be wise in your old age: lay aside
foreign ornaments, and divest yourself with a good grace of the honours
which you have so basely seized: consult for your reputation, your
honour, and the dignity of your hoary hairs. Consider for a moment what
men say and think of you. All the world execrates the schism, and you
the sower and instigator of it. Wash away then this stain, this disgrace
to your family. Suffer not posterity to abhor you as the origin of
strife. If you contemn the judgment of men, if you despise infamy, yet
remember that God suffers no wicked action to pass unpunished. Remember,
that if you do not repent, you will incur the pain of damnation. Other
punishments are comparatively light, because they endure but for a
season. But the soul, when once lost, is lost to all eternity; and unless
you repent, you will be doomed, with other heresiarchs, to sustain the
horrors of everlasting fire.”[386]
These animadversions of Poggio upon the conduct of Amedæus and his
abettors, were calculated to inflame resentment rather than to prepare
the way for conciliation. The pacific spirit of Nicolas suggested
measures much more conducive to the extinction of the schism. By the
grant of a cardinal’s hat, and the privilege of precedence in the
conclave, the antipope was induced to renounce the equivocal honours
which he held by so dubious a title, and to render homage to his rival,
as the true successor of St. Peter. After the fulfilment of these terms
of pacification, which were concluded in the year 1449, Amedæus retired
to his hermitage of Ripaille, where he devoted the remainder of his days
to works of piety, and in the neighbourhood of which he terminated his
mortal career on the seventh of January, 1451.[387]
Nicolas being thus freed from the vexation and apprehension which had
been excited in his mind by the claims of his rival, applied himself
with renewed spirit to the promotion of classical learning. At his
request, and under his patronage, the scholars who frequented his court
applied themselves with the most earnest assiduity to the study of the
Greek tongue. Among the rest, Poggio contributed to the illustration of
Grecian literature, by publishing a Latin version of the work of Diodorus
Siculus,[388] which he dedicated to his revered patron. This was not,
however, his first essay as a translator from the Greek. A little before
the accession of Nicolas to the pontificate he had translated into
Latin the Cyropædia of Xenophon.[389] Having completed this task, he
deliberated for some time on the choice of a patron under whose auspices
he might submit it to the inspection of the learned. At length the fame
of the splendid talents and liberal disposition of Alfonso, king of
Naples, determined him to inscribe his translation to that monarch.[390]
On this occasion some of the Neapolitan scholars, who regarded Poggio
with a considerable degree of animosity, gratified their malevolence,
by vilifying his work to the king, who seems to have lent too ready an
ear to their censures. Poggio highly resented this conduct of Alfonso,
whom he stigmatized in a letter to Bartolomeo Facio, one of the learned
men who enjoyed that monarch’s favour and protection,[391] as a prince
who, in consequence of his own ignorance, gave implicit credit to the
opinions of others, and declared, that he would avail himself of the
earliest opportunity to retract every thing which he had said in his
commendation.[392] It should appear, that these remonstrances of Poggio
produced an effect little to be expected to arise from the threats of an
author against a sovereign prince. In process of time, Alfonso, being
convinced that the strictures of his critics were inspired by personal
hostility rather than by justice, remunerated him for his version, by a
donation which exceeded his first and most sanguine hopes.[393]
The indignant manner in which Poggio commented on the cool reception
which his version of the Cyropædia had experienced at the court of Naples
evinced, that the influence of age had not abated his spirit. Indeed the
unrestrained license of his speech about this time betrayed him into a
contest with one of his fellow-labourers in the field of literature, in
which he appears to have manifested not only the petulance, but also the
prowess of youth. The antagonist whom he encountered on this occasion
was George of Trebisond, a native of the isle of Candia, who adopted
the designation of _Trapezuntius_, or of Trebisond, in reference to the
residence of his ancestors. He was induced to quit the place of his
nativity by the invitation of Francesco Barbaro, who on his arrival in
Italy procured him the honour of being enrolled amongst the citizens
of Venice.[394] Having made a competent progress in the knowledge of
the Latin tongue, he went to Padua, and afterwards to Vicenza, in which
latter city he was employed in the capacity of public tutor.[395] His
residence in Vicenza was however not of long duration. Finding himself
harrassed by the intrigues of Guarino Veronese, who regarded him with
sentiments of determined hostility, he gave up his professorship, and
repaired to Rome, in which city he arrived in the year 1430.[396] His
Venetian friends having recommended him to the protection of Eugenius
IV., that pontiff conferred upon him the office of apostolic secretary.
He continued to hold this office under Nicolas V., who employed him
in translating the works of various Greek authors. When, however,
Nicolas had assembled at his court the most accomplished scholars of
the time, who were able to detect the errors of literary pretenders by
the touchstone of enlightened criticism, the reputation of George of
Trebisond began rapidly to decline.[397] This circumstance probably had
an unhappy effect upon his temper, and by rendering him apt to take
offence, prepared the way for his quarrel with Poggio. This quarrel he
certainly took up on very slight grounds; namely, an opinion expressed by
Poggio in a letter to a friend, that he had without just reason charged
Guarino Veronese with attacking him in an anonymous epistle. This remark
drew from the Trapezuntian an angry written remonstrance, to which Poggio
replied with exemplary forbearance. Here the matter might have rested,
had not a dispute arisen between the two secretaries about a sum of
money which fell to them in common. The discussions to which this affair
gave rise were carried on by Poggio with a praise-worthy frankness and
generosity of spirit; whilst his antagonist, in the bitterness of his
feeling, tried to overwhelm him by an accusation of practising against
his life, which he embodied in a letter to their common master. By this
proceeding George found the mind of the pontiff so much alienated from
him, that he thought it expedient to quit the Roman court. He accordingly
retired to Naples, where he was honourably received by king Alfonso. But
in the year 1453, the good offices of Filelfo restored him to the favour
of Nicolas V., who reinstated him in his ancient situation in the Roman
chancery.[398]
George of Trebisond was not the only member of the court of Nicolas
V. whom Poggio regarded with sentiments of enmity. Tommaso da Rieti, a
man of infamous character, who by his interposition had been refused
admittance into the Roman chancery, and whom, under the designation of
_Eques Reatinus_, he had stigmatized in the letter to Lionello d’Este,
which is quoted in the ninth chapter of this work, having provoked him to
hostility, he composed an invective against him, a copy of which is still
extant in the Laurentian Library.[399]
In the year 1450, the celebration of the Jubilee attracted to Rome a
prodigious concourse of people. As the plague was at this time raging
in various parts of Italy, the multitude of devotees who were assembled
to assist at the splendid solemnities of this festive season rendered
the pontifical capital a focus of infection.[400] As soon therefore as
Nicolas had finished the customary religious exercises, he fled from the
impending danger to Fabriano, a town situated in the Marca d’Ancona.
Poggio availed himself of this opportunity to visit his native place,
where he dedicated his leisure to the prosecution of his studies, and to
the enjoyment of social intercourse with his surviving Tuscan friends.
It was during this season of relaxation from the duties of his office,
that he published what may be called the first edition of his _Liber
Facetiarum_, or Collection of Jocose Tales.[401] In the preface to this
curious miscellany he intimates, that he had engaged in a work of such
levity, with a view of exercising himself in Latin composition.[402] The
recording of these witticisms revived in his recollection the occurrence
of days of pleasure which were past, never to return. From the postscript
to the _Liber Facetiarum_ we learn, that during the pontificate of
Martin V. the officers of the Roman chancery were accustomed to assemble
in a kind of common hall. In this apartment, which from the nature of
the conversation of its frequenters, who were much more studious of
wit than of truth, acquired the name of _Bugiale_;[403] they discussed
the news of the day, and amused themselves by the communication of
entertaining anecdotes. On these occasions they indulged themselves in
the utmost latitude of satiric remark, dealing out their sarcasms with
such impartiality, that they did not spare even the pontiff himself.
The leading orators of the Bugiale were Razello of Bologna, Antonio
Lusco,[404] Cincio, and Poggio; and the pointed jests and humorous
stories which occurred in the course of the unrestrained conversations,
in which these mirthful scribes bore a principal part, furnished the
greater portion of the materials for the _Liber Facetiarum_.[405]
This work is highly interesting on account of the anecdotes which it
contains of several eminent men, who flourished during the fourteenth
and fifteenth centuries. In the course of its perusal, we find that
many an humorous tale, which the modern jester narrates as the account
of circumstances that occurred under his own observation, were of the
number of those which caused the walls of the _Bugiale_ to re-echo with
laughter. Like all collections of the kind, the _Liber Facetiarum_
contains, amongst a number of pieces of merit, some stories, in which
we look in vain for the pungency of wit. When, however, we are inclined
to condemn Poggio as guilty of the crime of chronicling a dull joke,
we should remember, that _bons mots_ frequently borrow their interest
from aptness of introduction, and an humorous mode of delivery; and that
though the spirit of a witticism, which enlivened the conversation of a
Lusco or a Cincio, may evaporate when it is committed to paper, yet at
the time when it was recorded by Poggio, it sported in his recollection
with all the hilarity of its concomitant circumstances. But too many
of the _Facetiæ_ are liable to a more serious objection than that of
dulness. It is a striking proof of the licentiousness of the times, that
an apostolic secretary, who enjoyed the friendship and esteem of the
pontiff, should have published a number of stories which outrage the laws
of decency, and put modesty to the blush; and that the dignitaries of the
Roman hierarchy should have tolerated a book, various passages of which
tend not merely to expose the ignorance and hypocrisy of individuals
of the clerical profession, but to throw ridicule on the most sacred
ceremonies of the Catholic church. Recanati indeed endeavours to defend
the fame of Poggio, by suggesting the idea, that many of the most
licentious stories were added to his collection by posterior writers; and
he supports this opinion by asserting, that he has seen two manuscript
copies of the _Facetiæ_, in which many of the obnoxious passages in
question are not to be found.[406] The validity of this defence is,
however, rendered extremely questionable by the consideration of a fact,
of which Recanati was probably ignorant, namely, that Lorenzo Valla,
in the fourth book of his _Antidotus in Poggium_, which was published
about the year 1452, not only impeaches the _Facetiæ_ of blasphemy and
indecency; but recites, by way of holding that work up to reprobation,
the most scandalous stories which are now to be found in the whole
collection.[407]
It has been ascertained by Monsieur le Grand, that a few of the stories
which occur in the _Facetiæ_ are to be found in the _Fabliaux_, or tales
which were circulated in various parts of Europe by the Provençal bards
of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, whose sportive effusions of
fancy furnished a rich fund of materials for the poets and novelists of
Italy and of England.[408]
The _Liber Facetiarum_, soon after its publication, acquired a
considerable degree of popularity, and was eagerly read, not only in the
native country of its author, but also in France, in Spain, in Germany,
and in Britain.[409] This is by no means a surprising circumstance.
Wit and humour possess almost irresistible charms. The idle and the
dissipated are pleased with a sally of hilarity, which gives a stimulus
to their fancy; and they who are habituated to study, or who are fatigued
by the more weighty concerns of life, are happy to enjoy an opportunity
of occasional relaxation. As a vehicle of sentiment, a book may be
considered as the representative of its author; and in a world of anxiety
and trouble, he who is endued with the happy talent of causing the
wrinkle of care to give place to the pleasing convulsion of mirth, will
find few circles of society in which he is not a welcome guest.
In the _Facetiæ_ Poggio aimed a most mischievous thrust at his old
antagonist, Filelfo, by making him the hero of a tale, the ridiculous
oddity of which disturbs the steady countenance of gravity itself, and
causes the strictest severity for a moment to smile at the indelicacy
which it condemns.[410] The war between these redoubted champions
was carried on till the year 1453, when they were reconciled by the
interposition of their common friend, Pietro Tommasi.[411]
During Poggio’s temporary residence at Terranuova, he was one day visited
by Benedetto Aretino, a civilian of distinguished reputation; by Niccolo
di Foligni, a physician of considerable eminence;[412] and by Carlo
Aretino, the chancellor of the Florentine republic. These guests Poggio
hospitably entertained in his villa; and from the conversation which
occurred after their repast, he collected materials for a work which he
dedicated, in the year 1451, under the title of _Historia disceptativa
convivialis_, to the cardinal Prospero Colonna. This work consists of
three parts, the subject of the first of which is not a little whimsical,
namely—Whether the master of a feast ought to thank his guests for the
honour of their company, or whether the guests should express their
gratitude to their host for his hospitality. The discussion of this
singular question does not afford any thing very interesting. The second
part contains the detail of a dispute which took place between Niccolo
di Foligni and Benedetto Aretino, on the comparative dignity of their
respective professions. Niccolo, pleading on behalf of the healing
art, observes, that if antiquity can confer honour, the practice of
medicine existed in times so remote, that its first professors are
enrolled amongst the number of the Gods. He also maintains, that the
medical profession must needs be more honourable than the profession of
law, since the doctrines of medicine are built upon the principles of
science, whilst the maxims of law depend upon caprice; and that of course
physicians are obliged to qualify themselves for the discharge of their
duty by diligent researches into the fixed and established course of
nature; whilst those who are esteemed learned in the law confine their
researches to their professional books. With regard to the civil law in
particular, he reminds Benedetto, that there are few states which are
regulated by its dictates; whereas the inhabitants of almost all the
nations in the world pay homage to the professors of the healing art,
by having recourse to their assistance. Niccolo having finished his
arguments, Benedetto undertakes the defence of legal studies, and asserts
the high antiquity of laws, which he maintains must have existed before
the practice of medicine, since medicine could not have been reduced to
a science before the assemblage of men in civil communities, which are
held together by the bonds of law. He also maintains the dignity of laws,
as being the conclusions of reason, and the support of society. Niccolo,
in reply, denies that the civil law is the result of the conclusions of
reason, and vilifies it as a crude collection of regulations, adopted
to suit the exigencies of the moment, without any reference to natural
law, which civilians do not study—as a mass of opinions and not a
collection of truths. Impeaching the general character of the professors
of law, he accuses them of an inordinate thirst for gain, which leads
them to nourish strife, to prolong discord by the tediousness of legal
proceedings, and to pride themselves on their success in patronizing a
bad cause. Benedetto, roused by these pointed reflections, observes,
that it ill becomes a physician to treat with severity the characters
of the professors of law; “for,” says he, “what is more notorious than
the folly of many of your brethren, who kill more than they cure, and
build their art upon experiments made at the risk of their wretched
patients? The errors of lawyers are of trivial consequence, in comparison
with those of physicians. Our unskilfulness empties the purses of our
clients, but your mistakes endanger the lives of those who employ you.
We cause somebody to be the gainer, whilst you both rob a man of his
life, and defraud his surviving relations of the amount of your fees.
Whilst we may possibly occasion the loss of a legacy, or an inheritance,
you disturb the peace of nations by slaying kings and princes. And let
me ask, what dignity is there in your profession? You are called in to
visit a patient—you examine his natural discharges, wrinkle your brows,
and assume a countenance of uncommon gravity, in order to persuade the
bye-standers, that he is in a very critical situation. Then you feel
his pulse, in order to ascertain the powers of nature. After this you
hold a consultation, and write your prescription, in the composition
of which you are not guided by any fixed rules, as is plain from the
different receipts which are in the same case recommended by different
practitioners. If your potion happen by chance to be followed by good
symptoms, you extol the cure as a marvellous effect of art; but if it
does any mischief, all the blame is laid on the poor patient. I will
relate to you a curious circumstance which happened to one Angelo, a
bishop of Arezzo. This ecclesiastic being afflicted by a very dangerous
disorder, was told by his physicians, that if he would not take the
potions which they prescribed, he would run the risk of losing his life.
He for some time positively refused to take their nauseous draughts, but
was at length persuaded by his friends to conform to the instructions
of his doctors. The physicians then sent him a number of phials, all of
which he emptied into a certain utensil, which was deposited under his
bed. In the morning the physicians paid him another visit, and finding
him almost free from his fever, intimated to him, that they hoped he
was convinced of his folly in having so long refused to follow their
prescriptions. To this remark he replied—the effect of your medicines
is indeed marvellous, for by merely putting them under my bed I have
recovered my health. If I had swallowed them, no doubt I should have
become immortal.”[413] After the narration of this anecdote, Benedetto
proceeds to enlarge upon the utility of laws, which he maintains to have
been the foundation of the dignity of states and empires. This position
is denied by Niccolo, who asserts, that the dominions of monarchs
and republics have constantly been extended by power, which is so
incompatible with law, that the powerful and mighty universally despise
all legal obligations, which are binding only on the poor and humble.
In the third part of the _Historia disceptativa convivialis_ Poggio
discusses the question, whether the Latin language was universally spoken
by the Romans, or whether the learned made use of a language different
from that of the vulgar. Poggio maintains, in opposition to the opinion
of his deceased friend, Leonardo Aretino,[414] and others, that the
language used by the well-educated Romans was the vernacular language
of their country, and that it differed from that of the lower classes
in no other respect, than as the language of the well-educated in every
country is more elegant and polished than that of the inferior orders of
the community. In defence of his opinion, he quotes a considerable number
of curious passages from the Roman historians and rhetoricians, which
clearly prove his point, and evince his profound acquaintance with Latin
literature.
The discussion of the comparative dignity of the professions of medicine
and civil law naturally led to satirical remarks on the part of the
respective interlocutors, on the abuse of those two branches of science;
and the perusal of this dialogue will serve to shew that its author
was fully competent to expose the pompous ignorances of empirics, and
to display the detriment which arises to society from those most
mischievous of knaves, the unprincipled practitioners of the law. It must
also be allowed, that the enumeration which Benedetto Aretino and Niccolo
di Foglini set forth of the merits of their respective professions,
forcibly inculcates the benefits which accrue to mankind from the study
of medicine and of jurisprudence, and the true principles upon which
those studies ought to be conducted.[415] The following letter, which
Poggio addressed to his friend Benedetto, in the year 1436, demonstrates,
that the result of his serious meditations had convinced him that
legal practice was not only compatible with moral rectitude, but was
most likely to be productive of gain when regulated by the dictates of
integrity.
“I have been highly gratified, my dear Benedetto, by your kind letter;
and I cannot but admire the versatility of your genius, who have united
to the most profound knowledge of the civil law, an elegance and grace of
expression, which entitles you, in my opinion, to as high a rank in the
school of rhetoric, as you hold among the professors of the science of
jurisprudence. It is indeed a proof of an extraordinary capacity, and of
a wonderful proficiency in letters, to have successfully cultivated two
departments of knowledge, the cultivation of each of which is attended
with no small degree of difficulty. The acquisition of the knowledge of
the civil law is a work of immense labour, on account of the discordance
of sentiments which occurs amongst those who have treated upon this
subject, but still more on account of the almost endless volumes
written by commentators, which distract the minds of their readers by
the difference of opinions which they contain, and weary them by the
prolixity of their style. Far from imbibing the neatness and elegance
of the old lawyers, these commentators, by their perplexity and minute
distinctions, shut up the road to truth. The difficulty of attaining
the graces of eloquence is evinced by the fact, that in all ages truly
eloquent writers are very few in number. When therefore I see you endowed
with both these accomplishments, I congratulate you on your having
bestowed your labour on pursuits which will confer upon you both honour
and emolument. For your knowledge of the law will bestow upon you riches,
which are the necessary support of human life; and the study of polite
letters will be highly ornamental to you, and will tend to improve and
display to the best advantage your legal talents.
“I would wish you to avoid the common error of too many legal
practitioners, who, for the sake of money, wrest the law to the purposes
of injustice. It has, indeed, always happened, that the bad have been
more in number than the good, and the old proverb justly says, that
excellence is of rare occurrence. Almost all law students, when they
enter upon their profession, are stimulated by a love of gain; and by
making gain the object of their unremitted pursuit, they acquire a habit
of appreciating the merits of a cause, not according to the rules of
equity, but according to the probability of profit. When there is no
prospect of emolument, justice is disregarded, and the richer client is
considered as having the better cause. As many tradesmen imagine, that
they can make no profit without telling falsehoods in commendation of
their commodities, so the generality of men learned in the law think they
shall never prosper in the world if they scruple to subvert justice by
perjury, and equity by sophisms. Acting on these principles, they do not
endeavour to investigate the true nature of a cause, but at all hazards
try to promote the views of the party who engages their services by a
fee. But I am persuaded that you, who are by your excellent disposition
instigated no less by a love of virtue than by a passion for literature,
will act upon different principles, and will esteem nothing lawful which
is dishonourable. I would not, however, tie you down by the strictness
of that philosophy which, making happiness to consist in virtue alone,
inculcates a contempt for worldly emoluments; for those who enter upon
civil life will find the want of many comforts. Indeed there have been
more lovers than despisers of riches amongst philosophers themselves;
and the advice of those who exhort us quietly to submit to poverty is
rather to be praised than followed; for it is truly melancholy to depend
upon the assistance of others. But you have no reason to fear that by
being honest you will become poor. On the contrary, by acting up to the
principles of integrity, you will surpass others in wealth as well as
in dignity. It will in the end be found much more profitable to have the
reputation of honesty and justice, than that of skilfulness and craft.
Virtue is valued even by the vicious, and extorts commendation from those
who are unwilling to obey her precepts. It is impossible, in the nature
of things, that he who has established a reputation for uprightness
should not excel others in honour, in authority, and in emoluments.
I would wish you, therefore, in the first place, to persevere in the
practice of virtue, then to apply yourself with all diligence to the
study of the law, and lastly, to add to these accomplishments the graces
of polite learning. If you adopt this plan, you will not be doomed to
struggle against the inconveniences of an humble station, but you will
rise through the intermediate degrees of dignity to the highest stations
of honour.”[416]