hy, it may be asked, were not these reproaches, whether true or false,
heard sooner? As a matter of fact, they were heard at a very early
period, but the effect they produced was insignificant, for the plain
reason that men were far too dependent on the scholars for their
knowledge of antiquity--that the scholars were personally the
possessors and diffusers of ancient culture. But the spread of printed
editions of the classics, and of large and well-arranged handbooks and
dictionaries, went far to free the people from the necessity of
personal intercourse with the humanists, and, as soon as they could be
but partly dispensed with, the change in popular feeling became
manifest. It was a change under which the good and bad suffered
indiscriminately.
The first to make these charges were certainly the humanists
themselves. Of all men who ever formed a class, they had the least
sense of their common interests, and least respected what there was of
this sense. All means were held lawful, if one of them saw a chance of
supplanting another. From literary discussion they passed with
astonishing suddenness to the fiercest and the most groundless
vituperation. Not satisfied with refuting, they sought to annihilate an
opponent. Something of this must be put to the account of their
position and circumstances; we have seen how fiercely the age, whose
loudest spokesmen they were, was borne to and fro by the passion for
glory and the passion for satire. Their position, too, in practical
life was one that they had continually to fight for. In such a temper
they wrote and spoke and described one another. Pog- gio's works alone
contain dirt enough to create a prejudice against the whole class--and
these 'Opera Poggii' were just those most often printed, on the north
as well as on the south side of the Alps. We must take care not to
rejoice too soon, when we meet among these men a figure which seems
immaculate; on further inquiry there is always a danger of meeting with
some foul charge, which, even if it is incredible, still discolors the
picture. The mass of indecent Latin poems in circulation, and such
things as ribaldry on the subject of one's own family, as in Pontano's
dialogue 'Antonius,' did the rest to discredit the class. The sixteenth
century was not only familiar with all these ugly symptoms, but had
also grown tired of the type of the humanist. These men had to pay both
for the misdeeds they had done, and for the excess of honour which had
hitherto fallen to their lot. Their evil fate willed it that the
greatest poet of the nation, Ariosto, wrote of them in a tone of calm
and sovereign contempt.
Of the reproaches which combined to excite so much hatred, many were
only too well founded. Yet a clear and unmistakable tendency to
strictness in matters of religion and morality was alive in many of the
philologists, and it is a proof of small knowledge of the period, if
the whole class is condemned. Yet many, and among them the loudest
speakers, were guilty.
Three facts explain and perhaps diminish their guilt: the overflowing
excess of fervour and fortune, when the luck was on their side; the
uncertainty of the future, in which luxury or misery depended on the
caprice of a patron or the malice of an enemy; and finally, the
misleading influence of antiquity. This undermined their morality,
without giving them its own instead; and in religious matters, since
they could never think of accepting the positive belief in the old
gods, it affected them only on the negative and sceptical side. Just
because they conceived of antiquity dogmatically--that is, took it as
the model or all thought and action--its influence was here pernicious.
But that an age existed which idolized the ancient world and its
products with an exclusive devotion was not the fault of individuals.
It was the work of an historical providence, and if the culture of the
ages which have followed, and of the ages to come, rests upon the fact
that it was so, and that all the ends of life but this one were then
deliberately put aside.
The career of the humanists was, as a rule, of such a kind hat only the
strongest characters could pass through it unscathed. The first danger
came, in some cases, from the parents, rho sought to turn a precocious
child into a miracle of learning, with an eye to his future position in
that class which then was supreme. Youthful prodigies, however, seldom
rise above a certain level; or, if they do, are forced to achieve their
further progress and development at the cost of the bitterest trials.
For an ambitious youth, the fame and the brilliant position of the
humanists were a perilous temptation; it seemed to him that he too
'through inborn pride could no longer regard the low and common things
of life.' He was thus led to plunge into a life of excitement and
vicissitude, in which exhausting studies, tutorships, secretaryships,
professorships, offices in princely households, mortal enmities and
perils, luxury and beggary, boundless admiration and boundless
contempt, followed confusedly one upon the other, and in which the most
solid worth and learning were often pushed aside by superficial
impudence. But the worst of all was, that the position of the humanist
was almost incompatible with a fixed home, since it either made
frequent changes of dwelling necessary for a livelihood, or so affected
the mind of the individual that he could never be happy for long in one
place. He grew tired of the people, and had no peace among the enmities
which he excited, while the people themselves in their turn demanded
something new. Much as this life reminds us of the Greek sophists of
the Empire, as described to us by Philostratus, yet the position of the
sophists was more favourable. They often had money, or could more
easily do without it than the humanists, and as professional teachers
of rhetoric, rather than men of learning, their life was freer and
simpler. But the scholar of the Renaissance was forced to combine great
learning with the power of resisting the influence of ever-changing
pursuits and situations. Add to this the deadening effect of licentious
excess, and--since do what he might, the worst was believed of him--a
total indifference to the moral laws recognized by others. Such men can
hardly be conceived to exist without an inordinate pride. They needed
it, if only to keep their heads above water, and were confirmed in it
by the admiration which alternated with hatred in the treatment they
received from the world. They are the most striking examples and
victims of an unbridled subjectivity.
The attacks and the satirical pictures began, as we have said, at an
early period. For all strongly marked individuality, for every kind of
distinction, a corrective was at hand in the national taste for
ridicule. And in this case the men themselves offered abundant and
terrible materials which satire had but to make use of. In the
fifteenth century, Battista Mantovano, in discoursing of the seven
monsters, includes the humanists, with any others, under the head
'Superbia.' He describes how, fancying themselves children of Apollo,
they walk along with affected solemnity and with sullen, malicious
looks, now gazing t their own shadow, now brooding over the popular
praise they hunted after, like cranes in search of food. But in the
sixteenth century the indictment was presented in full. Besides
Ariosto, their own historian Gyraldus gives evidence of this, whose
treatise, written under Leo X, was probably revised about the year
1540. Warning examples from ancient and modern times the moral disorder
and the wretched existence of the scholars meet us in astonishing
abundance, and along with these, accusations of the most serious nature
are brought formally against them. Among these are anger, vanity,
obstinacy, self-adoration, dissolute private life, immorality of all
descriptions, heresy, theism; further, the habit of speaking without
conviction, a sinister influence on government, pedantry of speech,
thanklessness towards teachers, and abject flattery of the great, who
st give the scholar a taste of their favours and then leave m to
starve. The description is closed by a reference to the den age, when
no such thing as science existed on the earth. these charges, that of
heresy soon became the most dangers, and Gyraldus himself, when he
afterwards republished a perfectly harmless youthful work, was
compelled to take refuge neath the mantle of Duke Ercole II of Ferrara,
since men had the upper hand who held that people had better spend
their time on Christian themes than on mythological researches.
justifies himself on the ground that the latter, on the contrary, were
at such a time almost the only harmless branches of study, as they deal
with subjects of a perfectly neutral character.
But if it is the duty of the historian to seek for evidence in which
moral judgement is tempered by human sympathy, he 11 find no authority
comparable in value to the work so often quoted of Pierio Valeriano,
'On the Infelicity of the Scholar.' It was written under the gloomy
impressions left by the sack of Rome, which seems to the writer, not
only the direct cause of untold misery to the men of learning, but, as
it were, the fulfilment of an evil destiny which had long pursued them.
Pierio is here led by a simple and, on the whole, just feeling. He does
not introduce a special power, which plagued the men of genius on
account of their genius, but he states facts, in which an unlucky
chance often wears the aspect of fatality. Not wishing to write a
tragedy or to refer events to the conflict of higher powers, he is
content to lay before us the scenes of everyday life. We are introduced
to men who, in times of trouble, lose first their incomes and then
their places; to others who, in trying to get two appointments, miss
both; to unsociable misers who carry about their money sewn into their
clothes, and die mad when they are robbed of it; to others, who accept
well-paid offices, and then sicken with a melancholy longing for their
lost freedom. We read how some died young of a plague or fever, and how
the writings which had cost them so much toil were burnt with their bed
and clothes; how others lived in terror of the murderous threats of
their colleagues; how one was slain by a covetous servant, and another
caught by highwaymen on a journey, and left to pine in a dungeon,
because unable to pay his ransom. Many died of unspoken grief from the
insults they received and the prizes of which they were defrauded. We
are told how a Venetian died because of the death of his son, a
youthful prodigy; and how mother and brothers followed, as if the lost
child drew them all after him. Many, especially Florentines, ended
their lives by suicide; others through the secret justice of a tyrant.
Who, after all, is happy?--and by what means? By blunting all feeling
for such misery? One of the speakers in the dialogue in which Pierio
clothed his argument, can give an answer to these questions-- the
illustrious Gasparo Contarini, at the mention of whose name we turn
with the expectation to hear at least something of the truest and
deepest which was then thought on such matters. As a type of the happy
scholar, he mentions Fra Urbano Valeriano of Belluno, who was for years
a teacher of Greek at Venice, who visited Greece and the East, and
towards the close of his life travelled, now through this country, now
through that, without ever mounting a horse; who never had a penny of
his own, rejected all honours and distinctions, and after a gay old
age, died in his eighty-fourth year, without, if we except a fall from
a ladder, having ever known an hour of sickness. And what was the
difference between such a man and the humanists? The latter had more
free will, more subjectivity, than they could turn to purposes of
happiness. The mendicant friar, who had lived from his boyhood in the
monastery, and never eaten or slept except by rule, ceased to feel the
com- pulsion under which he lived. Through the power of this habit he
led, amid all outward hardships, a life of inward peace, by which he
impressed his hearers far more than by his teaching. Looking at him,
they could believe that it depends on ourselves whether we bear up
against misfortune or surrender to it. 'Amid want and toil he was
happy, because he willed to be so, because he had contracted no evil
habits, was not capricious, inconstant, immoderate; but was always
contented with little or nothing.' If we heard Contarini himself,
religious motives would no doubt play a part in the argument--but the
practical philosopher in sandals speaks plainly enough. An allied
character, but placed in other circumstances, is that of Fabio Calvi of
Ravenna, the commentator of Hippocrates. He lived to a great age in
Rome, eating only pulse 'like the Pythagoreans,' and dwelt in a hovel
little better than the tub of Diogenes. Of the pension which Pope Leo
gave him, he spent enough to keep body and soul together, and gave the
rest away. He was not a healthy man, like Fra Urbano, nor is it likely
that, like him, he died with a smile on his lips. At the age of ninety,
in the sack of Rome, he was dragged away by the Spaniards, who hoped
for a ransom, and died of hunger in a hospital. But his name has passed
into the kingdom of the immortals, for Raphael loved the old man like a
father, and honoured him as a teacher, and came to him for advice in
all things. Perhaps they discoursed chiefly of the projected
restoration of ancient Rome, perhaps of still higher matters. Who can
tell what a share Fabio may have had in the conception of the School of
Athens, and in other great works of the master?
We would gladly close this part of our essay with the picture of some
pleasing and winning character. Pomponius Laetus, of whom we shall
briefly speak, is known to us principally through the letter of his
pupil Sabellicus, in which an antique coloring is purposely given to
his character. Yet many of its features are clearly recognizable. He
was a bastard of the House of the Neapolitan Sanseverini, princes of
Salerno, whom he nevertheless refused to recognize, writing, in reply
to an invitation to live with them, the famous letter: 'Pomponius
Laetus cognatis et propinquis suis salutem. Quod petitis fieri non
potest. Valete.' t An insignificant little figure, with small, quick
eyes, and quaint dress, he lived, during the last decades of the
fifteenth century, as professor in the University of Rome, either in
his cottage in a garden on the Esquiline hill, or in his vineyard on
the Quirinal. In the one he bred his ducks and fowls; the other he
cultivated according to the strictest precepts of Cato, Varro, and
Columella. He spent his holidays in fishing or bird-catching in the
Campagna, or in feasting by some shady spring or on the banks of the
Tiber. Wealth and luxury he despised. Free himself from envy and
uncharitable speech, he would not suffer them in others. It was only
against the hierarchy that he gave his tongue free play, and passed,
till his latter years, for a scorner of religion altogether. He was
involved in the persecution of the humanists begun by Pope Paul II, and
surrendered to this pontiff by the Venetians; but no means could be
found to wring unworthy confessions from him. He was afterwards
befriended and supported by popes and prelates, and when his house was
plundered in the disturbances under Sixtus IV, more was collected for
him than he had lost. No teacher was more conscientious. Before
daybreak he was to be seen descending the Esquiline with his lantern,
and on reaching his lecture-room found it always filled to overflowing.
A stutter compelled him to speak with care, but his delivery was even
and effective. His few works give evidence of careful writing. No
scholar treated the text of ancient authors more soberly and
accurately. The remains of antiquity which surrounded him in Rome
touched him so deeply that he would stand before them as if entranced,
or would suddenly burst into tears at the sight of them. As he was
ready to lay aside his own studies in order to help others, he was much
loved and had many friends; and at his death, even Alexander VI sent
his courtiers to follow the corpse, which was carried by the most
distinguished of his pupils. The funeral service in the Aracceli was
attended by forty bishops and by all the foreign ambassadors.
It was Laetus who introduced and conducted the representations of
ancient, chiefly Plautine, plays in Rome. Every year, he celebrated the
anniversary of the foundation of the city by a festival, at which his
friends and pupils recited speeches and poems. Such meetings were the
origin of what acquired, and long retained, the name of the Roman
Academy. It was simply a free union of individuals, and was connected
with no fixed institution. Besides the occasions mentioned, it met at
the invitation of a patron, or to celebrate the memory of a deceased
member, as of Platina. At such times, a prelate belonging to the
academy would first say mass; Pomponio would then ascend the pulpit and
deliver a speech; someone else would then follow him and recite an
elegy. The customary banquet, with declamations and recitations,
concluded the festival, whether joyous or serious, and the
academicians, notably Platina himself, early acquired the reputation of
epicures. At other times, the guests performed farces in the old
Atellan style. As a free association of very varied elements, the
academy lasted in its original form down to the sack of Rome, and
included among its hosts Angelus Coloccius, Johannes Corycius and
others. Its precise value as an element in the intellectual life of the
people is as hard to estimate as that of any other social union of the
same kind; yet a man like Sadoleto reckoned it among the most precious
memories of his youth. A large number of other academies appeared and
passed away in many Italian cities, according to the number and
significance of the humanists living in them, and to the patronage
bestowed by the great and wealthy. Of these we may mention the Academy
of Naples, of which Jovianus Pontanus was the centre, and which sent
out a colony to Lecce, and that of Pordenone, which formed the court of
the Condottiere Alviano. The circle of Lodovico il Moro, and its
peculiar importance for that prince, has been already spoken of.
About the middle of the sixteenth century, these associations seem to
have undergone a complete change. The humanists, driven in other
spheres from their commanding position, and viewed askance by the men
of the Counter-reformation, lost the control of the academies: and
here, as elsewhere, Latin poetry was replaced by Italian. Before long
every town of the least importance had its academy, with some strange,
fantastic name, and its own endowment and subscriptions. Besides the
recitation of verses, the new institutions inherited from their
predecessors the regular banquets and the representation of plays,
sometimes acted by the members themselves, sometimes under their
direction by young amateurs, and sometimes by paid players. The fate of
the Italian stage, and afterwards of the opera, was long in the hands
of these associations.