he morality of a people stands in the closest connection with its
consciousness of God, that is to say, with its firmer or weaker faith
in the divine government of the world, whether this faith looks on the
world as destined to happiness or to misery and speedy destruction. The
infidelity then prevalent in Italy is notorious, and whoever takes the
trouble to look about for proofs, will find them by the hundred. Our
present task, here as elsewhere, is to separate and discriminate;
refraining from an absolute and final verdict.
The belief in God at earlier times had its source and chief support in
Christianity and the outward symbol of Christianity, the Church. When
the Church became corrupt, men ought to have drawn a distinction, and
kept their religion in spite of all. But this is more easily said than
done. It is not every people which is calm enough, or dull enough, to
tolerate a lasting contradiction between a principle and its outward
expression. But history does not record a heavier responsibility than
that which rests upon the decaying Church. She set up as absolute
truth, and by the most violent means, a doctrine which she had
distorted to serve her own aggrandizement. Safe in the sense of her
inviolability, she abandoned herself to the most scandalous profligacy,
and, in order to maintain herself in this state, she levelled mortal
blows against the conscience and the intellect of nations, and drove
multitudes of the noblest spirits, whom she had inwardly estranged,
into the arms of unbelief and despair.
Here we are met by the question: Why did not Italy, intellectually so
great, react more energetically against the hierarchy; why did she not
accomplish a reformation like that which occurred in Germany, and
accomplish it at an earlier date?
A plausible answer has been Italian mind, we are told, never of the
hierarchy, while the origin given to this question. The went further
than the denial and the vigor of the German Reformation was due to its
positive religious doctrines, most of all to the doctrines of
justification by faith and of the inefficacy of good works.
It is certain that these doctrines only worked upon Italy through
Germany, and this not till the power of Spain was sufficiently great to
root them out without difficulty, partly by itself and partly by means
of the Papacy, and its instruments.105 Nevertheless, in the earlier
religious movements of Italy, from the Mystics of the thirteenth
century down to Savonarola, there was a large amount of positive
religious doctrine which, like the very definite Christianity of the
Huguenots, failed to achieve success only because circumstances were
against it. Mighty events like the Reformation elude, as respects their
details, their outbreak and their development, the deductions of the
philosophers, however clearly the necessity of them as a whole may be
demonstrated. The movements of the human spirit, its sudden flashes,
its expansions and its pauses, must for ever remain a mystery to our
eyes, since we can but know this or that of the forces at work in it,
never all of them together.
The feeling of the upper and middle classes in Italy with regard to the
Church at the time when the Renaissance culminated, was compounded of
deep and contemptuous aversion, of acquiescence in the outward
ecclesiastical customs which entered into daily life, and of a sense of
dependence on sacraments and ceremonies. The great personal influence
of religious preachers may be added as a fact characteristic of Italy.
That hostility to the hierarchy, which displays itself more especially
from the time of Dante onwards in Italian literature and history, has
been fully treated by several writers. We have already said something
of the attitude of public opinion with regard to the Papacy. Those who
wish for the strongest evidence which the best authorities offer us,
can find it in the famous passages of Machiavelli's 'Discorsi,' and in
the unmutilated edition of Guicciardini. Outside the Roman Curia, some
respect seems to have been felt for the best men among the bishops, and
for many of the parochial clergy. On the other hand, the mere holders
of benefices, the canons and the monks were held in almost universal
suspicion, and were often the objects of the most scandalous
aspersions, extending to the whole of their order.
It has been said that the monks were made the scapegoats for the whole
clergy, for the reason that none but they could be ridiculed without
danger. But this is certainly incorrect. They are introduced so
frequently in the novels and comedies, because these forms of
literature need fixed and well-known types where the imagination of the
reader can easily fill up an outline. Besides which, the novelists do
not as a fact spare the secular clergy. In the third place, we have
abundant proof in the rest of Italian literature that men could speak
boldly enough about the Papacy and the Court of Rome. In works of
imagination we cannot expect to find criticism of this kind. Fourthly,
the monks, when attacked, were sometimes able to take a terrible
vengeance.
It is nevertheless true that the monks were the most unpopular class of
all, and that they were reckoned a living proof of the worthlessness of
conventual life, of the whole ecclesiastical organization, of the
system of dogma, and of religion altogether, according as men pleased,
rightly or wrongly, to draw their conclusions. We may also assume that
Italy retained a clearer recollection of the origin of the two great
mendicant orders than other countries, and had not forgotten that they
were the chief agents in the reaction against what is called the heresy
of the thirteenth century, that is to say, against an unruly and
vigorous movement of the modern Italian spirit. And that spiritual
police which was permanently entrusted to the Dominicans certainly
never excited any other feeling than secret hatred and contempt.
After reading the 'Decameron' and the novels of Franco Sacchetti, we
might imagine that the vocabulary of abuse directed at the monks and
nuns was exhausted. But towards the time of the Reformation this abuse
became still fiercer. To say nothing of Aretino, who in the
'Ragionamenti' uses conventual life merely as a pretext for giving free
play to his own poisonous nature, we may quote one author as typical of
the rest--Masuccio, in the first ten of his fifty novels. They are
written in a tone of the deepest indignation, and with the purpose to
make this indignation general; and are dedicated to men in the highest
position, such as King Ferrante and Prince Alfonso of Naples. The
stories are many of them old, and some of them familiar to readers of
Boccaccio. But others reject, with a frightful realism, the actual
state of things at Naples. The way in which the priests befool and
plunder the people by means of spurious miracles, added to their own
scandalous lives, is enough to drive any thoughtful observer to
despair. We read of the Minorite friars who travelled to collect alms:
'They cheat, steal, and fornicate, and when they are at the end of
their resources, they set up as saints and work miracles, one
displaying the cloak of St. Vincent, another the handwriting of St.
Bernardino, a third the bridle of Capistrano's donkey.' Others 'bring
with them confederates who pretend to be blind or afflicted with some
mortal disease, and after touching the hem of the monk's cowl, or the
relics which he carries, are healed before the eyes of the multitude.
All then shout "Misericordia," the bells are rung, and the miracle is
recorded in a solemn protocol.' Or else the monk in the pulpit is
denounced as a liar by another who stands below among the audience; the
accuser is immediately possessed by the devil, and then healed by the
preacher. The whole thing was a prearranged comedy, in which, however,
the principal with his assistant made so much money that he was able to
buy a bishopric from a Cardinal, on which the two confederates lived
comfortably to the end of their days. Masuccio makes no great
distinction between Franciscans and Dominicans, finding the one worth
as much as the other. 'And yet the foolish people lets itself be drawn
into their hatreds and divisions, and quarrels about them in public
places, and calls itself "franceschino" or "domenichino." ' The nuns
are the exclusive property of the monks. Those of the former who have
anything to do with the laity, are prosecuted and put in prison, while
others are wedded in due form to the monks, with the accompaniments of
mass, a marriage-contract, and a liberal indulgence in food and wine.
'I myself,' says the author, 'have been there not once, but several
times, and seen it all with my own eyes. The nuns afterwards bring
forth pretty little monks or else use means to hinder that result. And
if anyone charges me with falsehood, let him search the nunneries well,
and he will find there as many little bores as in Bethlehem at Herod's
time.' These things, and the like, are among the secrets of monastic
life. The monks are by no means too strict with one another in the
confessional, and impose a Paternoster in cases where they would refuse
all absolution to a layman as if he were a heretic. 'Therefore may the
earth open and swallow up the wretches alive, with those who protect
them.' In another place Masuccio, speaking of the fact that the
influence of the monks depends chiefly on the dread of another world,
utters the following remarkable wish: 'The best punishment for them
would be for God to abolish Purgatory; they would then receive no more
alms, and would be forced to go back to their spades.'
If men were free to write, in the time of Ferrante, and to him, in this
strain, the reason is perhaps to be found in the fact that the king
himself had been incensed by a false miracle which had been palmed off
on him. An attempt had been made to urge him to a persecution of the
Jews, like that carried out in Spain and imitated by the Popes, by
producing a tablet with an inscription bearing the name of St.
Cataldus, said to have been buried at Taranto, and afterwards dug up
again. When he discovered the fraud, the monks defied him. He had also
managed to detect and expose a pretended instance of fasting, as his
father, Alfonso, had done before him. The Court, certainly, was no
accomplice in maintaining these blind superstitions.
We have been quoting from an author who wrote in earnest, and who by no
means stands alone in his judgement. All the Italian literature of that
time is full of ridicule and invective aimed at the begging friars. It
can hardly be doubted that the Renaissance would soon have destroyed
these two Orders, had it not been for the German Reformation and the
Counter-Reformation which intervened. Their saints and popular
preachers could hardly have saved them. It would only have been
necessary to come to an understanding at a favourable moment with a
Pope like Leo X, who despised the Mendicant Orders. If the spirit of
the age found them ridiculous or repulsive? they could no longer be
anything but an embarrassment to the Church. And who can say what fate
was in store for the Papacy itself, if the Reformation had not saved
it?
The influence which the Father Inquisitor of a Dominican monastery was
able habitually to exercise in the city where it was situated, was in
the latter part of the fifteenth century just considerable enough to
hamper and irritate cultivated people, but not strong enough to extort
any lasting fear or obedience. It was no longer possible to punish men
for their thoughts, as it once was, and those whose tongues wagged most
impudently against the clergy could easily keep clear of heretical
doctrine. Except when some powerful party had an end to serve, as in
the case of Savonarola, or when there was a question of the use of
magical arts, as was often the case in the cities of North Italy, we
seldom read at this time of men being burnt at the stake. The
Inquisitors were in some instances satisfied with the most superficial
retraction, in others it even happened that the victim was saved out of
their hands on the way to the place of execution. In Bologna (1452) the
priest Niccolo da Verona had been publicly degraded on a wooden
scaffold in front of San Domenico as a wizard and profaner of the
sacraments, and was about to be led away to the stake, when he was set
free by a gang of armed men, sent by Achille Malvezzi, a noted friend
of heretics and violator of nuns. The legate, Cardinal Bessarion, was
only able to catch and hang one of the party; Malvezzi lived on in
peace.
It deserves to be noticed that the higher monastic orders-- e.g.
Benedictines, with their many branches--were, notwithstanding their
great wealth and easy lives, far less disliked than the mendicant
friars. For ten novels which treat of 'frati' hardly one can be found
in which a 'monaco' is the subject and the victim. It was no small
advantage to these orders that they were founded earlier, and not as an
instrument of police, and that they did not interfere with private
life. They contained men of learning, wit, and piety, but the average
has been described by a member of it, Firenzuola, who says: 'These
well-fed gentlemen with the capacious cowls do not pass their time in
barefooted journeys and in sermons, but sit in elegant slippers with
their hands crossed over their paunches, in charming cells wainscoted
with cyprus-wood. And when they are obliged to quit the house, they
ride comfortably, as if for their amusement, on mules and sleek, quiet
horses. They do not overstrain their minds with the study of many
books, for fear lest knowledge might put the pride of Lucifer in the
place of monkish simplicity.'
Those who are familiar with the literature of the time, will see that
we have only brought forward what is absolutely necessary for the
understanding of the subject. That the reputation attaching to the
monks and the secular clergy must have shattered the faith of
multitudes in all that is sacred is, of course, obvious.
And some of the judgements which we read are terrible; we will quote
one of them in conclusion, which has been published only lately and is
but little known. The historian Guicciardini who was for many years in
the service of the Medicean Popes, says (1529) in his 'Aphorisms': 'No
man is more disgusted than I am with the ambition, the avarice and the
profligacy of the priests, not only because each of these vices is
hateful in itself, but because each and all of them are most unbecoming
in those who declare themselves to be men in special relations with
God, and also because they are vices so opposed to one another, that
they can only co-exist in very singular natures. Nevertheless, my
position at the Court of several Popes forced me to desire their
greatness for the sake of my own interest. But, had it not been for
this, I should have loved Martin Luther as myself, not in order to free
myself from the laws which Christianity, as generally understood and
explained, lays upon us, but in order to see this swarm of scoundrels
(questa caterva di scelerati) put back into their proper place, so that
they may be forced to live either without vices or without power.'
The same Guicciardini is of opinion that we are in the dark as to all
that is supernatural, that philosophers and theologians have nothing
but nonsense to tell us about it, that miracles occur in every religion
and prove the truth of none in particular, and that all of them may be
explained as unknown phenomena of nature. The faith which moves
mountains, then common among the followers of Savonarola, is mentioned
by Guicciardini as a curious fact, but without any bitter remark.
Notwithstanding this hostile public opinion, the clergy and the monks
had the great advantage that the people were used to them, and that
their existence was interwoven with the everyday existence of all. This
is the advantage which every old and powerful institution possesses.
Everybody had some cowled or frocked relative, some prospect of
assistance or future gain from the treasure of the Church; and in the
centre of Italy stood the Court of Rome, where men sometimes became
rich in a moment. Yet it must never be forgotten that all this did not
hinder people from writing and speaking freely. The authors of the most
scandalous satires were themselves mostly monks or beneficed priests.
Poggio, who wrote the Facetiae, was a clergyman; Francesco Berni, the
satirist, held a canonry; Teofilo Folengo, the author of the Orlandino,
was a Benedictine, certainly by no means a faithful one; Matteo
Bandello, who held up his own order to ridicule, was a Dominican, and
nephew of a general of this order. Were they encouraged to write by the
sense that they ran no risks. Or did they feel an inward need to clear
themselves personally from the infamy which attached to their order? Or
were they moved by that selfish pessimism which takes for its maxim,
'it will last our time'. Perhaps all of these motives were more or less
at work. In the case of Folengo, the unmistakable influence of
Lutheranism must be added.
The sense of dependence on rites and sacraments, which we have already
touched upon in speaking of the Papacy, is not surprising among that
part of the people which still believed in the Church. Among those who
were more emancipated, it testifies to the strength of youthful
impressions, and to the magical force of traditional symbols. The
universal desire of dying men for priestly absolution shows that the
last remnant of the dread of hell had not, even in the case of one like
Vitellozzo, been altogether extinguished. It would hardly be possible
to find a more instructive instance than this. The doctrine taught by
the Church of the 'character indelibilis' of the priesthood,
independently of the personality of the priest, had so far borne fruit
that it was possible to loathe the individual and still desire his
spiritual gifts. It is true, nevertheless, that there were defiant
natures like Galeotto of Mirandola, who died unabsolved in 1499) after
living for sixteen years under the ban of the Church. All this time the
city lay under an interdict on his account, so that no mass was
celebrated and no Christian burial took place.
A splendid contrast to all this is offered by the power exercised over
the nation by its great Preachers of Repentance. Other countries of
Europe were from time to time moved by the words of saintly monks, but
only superficially, in comparison with the periodical upheaval of the
Italian conscience. The only man, in fact, who produced a similar
effect in Germany during the fifteenth century, was an Italian, born in
the Abruzzi, named Giovanni Capistrano. Those natures which bear within
them this religious vocation and this commanding earnestness, wore then
in Northern countries an intuitive and mystical aspect. In the South
they were practical and expansive, and shared in the national gift of
oratorical skill. The North produced an 'Imitation of Christ,' which
worked silently, at first only within the walls of the monastery, but
worked for the ages; the South produced men who made on their fellows
an immediate and mighty but passing impression.
This impression consisted chiefly in the awakening of the conscience.
The sermons were moral exhortations free from abstract notions and full
of practical application, rendered more impressive by the saintly and
ascetic character of the preacher, and by the miracles which, even
against his will, the inflamed imagination of the people attributed to
him. The most powerful argument used was not the threat of Hell and
Purgatory, but rather the living results of the 'maledizione,' the
temporal ruin wrought on the individual by the curse which clings to
wrong-doing. The grieving of Christ and the Saints has its consequences
in this life. And only thus could men, sunk in passion and guilt, be
brought to repentance and amendment--which was the chief object of
these sermons.
Among these preachers were Bernardino da Siena, Alberto da Sarzana,
Jacopo della Marca, Giovanni Capistrano, Roberto da Lecce and others j
and finally, Girolamo Savonarola. No prejudice of the day was stronger
than that against the mendicant friar, and this they overcame. They
were criticized and ridiculed by a scornful humanism; but when they
raised their voices, no one gave heed to the humanists. The thing was
no novelty, and the scoffing Florentines had already in the fourteenth
century learned to caricature it whenever it appeared in the pulpit.
But no sooner did Savonarola come forward than he carried the people so
triumphantly with him, that soon all their beloved art and culture
melted away ill the furnace which he lighted. Even the grossest
profanation done to the cause by hypocritical monks, who got up an
effect in the audience by means of confederates, could not bring the
thing itself into discredit. Men kept on laughing at the ordinary
monkish sermons, with their spurious miracles and manufactured relics;
but did not cease to honour the great and genuine preachers. These are
a true speciality of the fifteenth century.
The Order--generally that of St. Francis, and more particularly the
so-called Observantines--sent them out according as they were wanted. This
was commonly the case when there was some important public or private
feud in a city, or some alarming outbreak of violence, immorality, or
disease. When once the reputation of a preacher was made, the cities
were all anxious to hear him even without any special occasion. He went
wherever his superiors sent him. A special form of this work was the
preaching of a Crusade against the Turks; but here we have to speak
more particularly of the exhortations to repentance.
The order of these, when they were treated methodically, seems to have
followed the customary list of the deadly sins. The more pressing,
however, the occasion is, the more directly does the preacher make for
his main point. He begins perhaps in one of the great churches of the
Order, or in the cathedral. Soon the largest piazza is too small for
the crowds which throng from every side to hear him, and he himself can
hardly move without risking his life. The sermon is commonly followed
by a great procession; but the first magistrates of the city, who take
him in their midst, can hardly save him from the multitude of women who
throng to kiss his hands and feet, and cut off fragments from his cowl.
The most immediate consequences which follow from the preacher's
denunciations of usury, luxury, and scandalous fashions, are the
opening of the gaols--which meant no more than the discharge of the
poorest debtors--and the burning of various instruments of luxury and
amusement, whether innocent or not. Among these are dice, cards, games
of all kinds, written incantations, masks, musical instruments,
song-books, false hair, and so forth. All these would then be gracefully
arranged on a scaffold ('talamo'), a figure of the devil fastened to
the top, and then the whole set on fire.
Then came the turn of the more hardened consciences. Men who had long
never been near the confessional, now acknowledged their sins.
Ill-gotten gains were restored, and insults which might have borne fruit in
blood retracted. Orators like Bernardino of Siena entered diligently
into all the details of the daily life of men, and the moral laws which
are involved in it. Few theologians nowadays would feel tempted to give
a morning sermon 'on contracts, restitutions, the public debt (monte),
and the portioning of daughters,' like that which he once delivered in
the Cathedral at Florence. Imprudent speakers easily fell into the
mistake of attacking particular classes, professions, or offices, with
such energy that the enraged hearers proceeded to violence against
those whom the preacher had denounced. A sermon which Bernardino once
preached in Rome (1424) had another consequence besides a bonfire of
vanities on the Capitol: 'After this,' we read, 'the witch Finicella
was burnt, because by her diabolical arts she had killed many children
and bewitched many other persons; and all Rome went to see the sight.'
But the most important aim of the preacher was, as has been already
said, to reconcile enemies and persuade them to give up thoughts of
vengeance. Probably this end was seldom attained till towards the close
of a course of sermons, when the tide of penitence flooded the city,
and when the air resounded with the cry of the whole people:
'Misericordia! ' Then followed those solemn embracings and treaties of
peace, which even previous bloodshed on both sides could not hinder.
Banished men were recalled to the city to take part in these sacred
transactions. It appears that these 'Paci' were on the whole faithfully
observed, even after the mood which prompted them was over; and then
the memory of the monk was blessed from generation to generation. But
there were sometimes terrible crises like those in the families Della
Valle and Croce in Rome (1482) where even the great Roberto da Lecce
raised his voice in vain. Shortly before Holy Week he had preached to
immense crowds in the square before the Minerva. But on the night
before Maundy Thursday a terrible combat took place in front of the
Palazzo della Valle, near the Ghetto. In the morning Pope Sixtus gave
orders for its destruction, and then performed the customary ceremonies
of the day. On Good Friday Roberto preached again with a crucifix in
his hand; but he and his hearers could do nothing but weep.
Violent natures, which had fallen into contradictions with themselves,
often resolved to enter a convent, under the impression made by these
men. Among such were not only brigands and criminals of every sort, but
soldiers without employment. This resolve was stimulated by their
admiration of the holy man, and by the desire to copy at least his
outward position.
The concluding sermon is a general benediction, summed up in the words:
'la pace sia con voi!' Throngs of hearers accompany the preacher to the
next city, and there listen for a second time to the whole course of
sermons.
The enormous influence exercised by these preachers made it important,
both for the clergy and for the government, at least not to have them
as opponents; one means to this end was to permit only monks or priests
who had received at all events the lesser consecration, to enter the
pulpit, so that the Order or Corporation to which they belonged was, to
some extent, responsible for them. But it was not easy to make the rule
absolute, since the Church and pulpit had long been used as a means of
publicity in many ways, judicial, educational, and others, and since
even sermons were sometimes delivered by humanists and other laymen.
There existed, too, in Italy, a dubious class of persons who were
neither monks nor priests, and who yet had renounced the world--that is
to say, the numerous class of hermits who appeared from time to time in
the pulpit on their own authority, and often carried the people with
them. A case of this kind occurred at Milan in 1516 after the second
French conquest, certainly at a time when public order was much
disturbed. A Tuscan hermit, Hieronymus of Siena, possibly an adherent
of Savonarola, maintained his place for months together in the pulpit
of the Cathedral, denounced the hierarchy with great violence, caused a
new chandelier and a new altar to be set up in the church, worked
miracles, and only abandoned the field after a long and desperate
struggle. During the decades in which the fate of Italy was decided,
the spirit of prophecy was unusually active, and nowhere where it
displayed itself was it confined to any one particular class. We know
with what a tone of true prophetic defiance the hermits came forward
before the sack of Rome. In default of any eloquence of their own,
these men made use of messengers with symbols of one kind or another,
like the ascetic near Siena (1496) who sent a 'little hermit,' that is
a pupil, into the terrified city with a skull upon a pole to which was
attached a paper with a threatening text from the Bible.
Nor did the monks themselves scruple to attack princes, governments,
the clergy, or even their own order. A direct exhortation to overthrow
a despotic house, like that uttered by Jacopo Bussolaro at Pavia in the
fourteenth century, hardly occurs again in the following period: but
there is no want of courageous reproofs, addressed even to the Pope in
his own chapel, and of naive political advice given in the presence of
rulers who by no means held themselves in need of it. In the Piazza del
Castello at Milan, a blind preacher from the Incoronata--consequently
an Augustinian--ventured in 1494 to exhort Lodovico il Moro from the
pulpit: 'My lord, beware of showing the French the way, else you will
repent it.' There were further prophetic monks who, without exactly
preaching political sermons, drew such appalling pictures of the future
that the hearers almost lost their senses. After the election of Leo X,
in the year 1513 a whole association of these men, twelve Franciscan
monks in all, journeyed through the various districts of Italy, of
which one or other was assigned to each preacher. The one who appeared
in Florence, fra Francesco da Montepulcian, struck terror into the
whole people. The alarm was not diminished by the exaggerated reports
of his prophecies which reached those who were too far off to hear him.
After one of his sermons he suddenly died 'of pain in the chest.' The
people thronged in such numbers to kiss the feet of the corpse that it
had to be secretly buried in the night. But the newly awakened spirit
of prophecy, which seized upon even women and peasants, could not be
controlled without great difficulty. 'In order to restore to the people
their cheerful humour, the Medici--Giuliano, Leo's brother, and
Lorenzo--gave on St. John's Day, 1514, those splendid festivals,
tournaments, processions, and hunting-parties, which were attended by
many distinguished persons from Rome, and among them, though disguised,
no less than six cardinals.'
But the greatest of the prophets and apostles had already been burnt in
Florence in the year 1498--Fra Girolamo Savonarola of Ferrara. We must
content ourselves with saying a few words respecting him.
The instrument by means of which he transformed and ruled the city of
Florence (1494-8) was his eloquence. Of this the meagre reports that
are left to us, which were taken down mostly on the spot, give us
evidently a very imperfect notion. It was not that he possessed any
striking outward advantages, for voice, accent, and rhetorical skill
constituted precisely his weakest side; and those who required the
preacher to be a stylist, went to his rival Fra Mariano da Genazzano.
The eloquence of Savonarola was the expression of a lofty and
commanding personality, the like of which was not seen again till the
time of Luther. He himself held his own influence to be the result of a
divine illumination, and could therefore, without presumption, assign a
very high place to the office of the preacher, who, in the great
hierarchy of spirits, occupies, according to him, the next place below
the angels.
This man, whose nature seemed made of fire, worked another and greater
miracle than any of his oratorical triumphs. His own Dominican
monastery of San Marco, and then all the Dominican monasteries of
Tuscany, became like-minded with himself, and undertook voluntarily the
work of inward reform. When we reflect what the monasteries then were,
and what measureless difficulty attends the least change where monks
are concerned, we are doubly astonished at so complete a revolution.
While the reform was still in progress large numbers of Savonarola's
followers entered the Order, and thereby greatly facilitated his plans.
Sons of the first houses in Florence entered San Marco as novices.
This reform of the Order in a particular province was the first step to
a national Church, in which, had the reformer himself lived longer, it
must infallibly have ended. Savonarola, indeed, desired the
regeneration of the whole Church) and near the end of his career sent
pressing exhortations to the great potentates urging them to call
together a Council. But in Tuscany his Order and party were the only
organs of his spirit--the salt of the earth--while the neighbouring
provinces remained in their old condition. Fancy and asceticism tended
more and more to produce in him a state of mind to which Florence
appeared as the scene of the kingdom of God upon earth.
The prophecies, whose partial fulfilment conferred on Savonarola a
supernatural credit, were the means by which the ever active Italian
imagination seized control of the soundest and most cautious natures.
At first the Franciscans of the Osservanza, trusting in the reputation
which had been bequeathed to them by St. Bernardino of Siena, fancied
that they could compete with the great Dominican. They put one of their
own men into the Cathedral pulpit, and outbid the Jeremiads of
Savonarola by still more terrible warnings, till Piero de' Medici, who
then still ruled over Florence, forced them both to be silent. Soon
after, when Charles XII came to Italy and the Medici were expelled, as
Savonarola had clearly foretold, he alone was believed in.
It must be frankly confessed that he never judged his own premonitions
and visions critically, as he did those of others. In the funeral
oration on Pico della Mirandola, he deals somewhat harshly with his
dead friend. Since Pico, notwithstanding an inner voice which came from
God, would not enter the Order, he had himself prayed to God to chasten
him for his disobedience. He certainly had not desired his death, and
alms and prayers had obtained the favour that Pico's soul was safe in
Purgatory. With regard to a comforting vision which Pico had upon his
sickbed, in which the Virgin appeared and promised him that he should
not die, Savonarola confessed that he had long regarded it as a deceit
of the I)evil, till it was revealed to him that the Madonna meant the
second and eternal death. If these things and the like are proofs of
presumption, it must be admitted that this great soul at all events
paid a bitter penalty for his fault. In his last days Savonarola seems
to have recognized the vanity of his visions and prophecies. And yet
enough inward peace was left to him to enable him to meet death like a
Christian. His partisans held to his doctrine and predictions for
thirty years longer.
He only undertook the reorganization of the State for the reason that
otherwise his enemies would have got the government into their own
hands. It is unfair to judge him by the semi-democratic constitution of
the beginning of the year 1495, which was neither better nor worse than
other Florentine constitutions.
He was at bottom the most unsuitable man who could be found for such a
work. His idea was a theocracy, in which all men were to bow in blessed
humility before the Unseen, and all conflicts of passion wert not even
to be able to arise. His whole mind is written in that inscription on
the Palazzo della Signoria, the substance of which was his maxim as
early as 1495, and which was solemnly renewed by his partisans in 1527:
'Jesus Christus Rex populi Florentini S.P.Q. decreto creatus.' He stood
in no more relation to mundane affairs and their actual conditions than
any other inhabitant of a monastery. Man, according to him, has only to
attend to those things which make directly for his salvation.
This temper comes out clearly in his opinions on ancient literature:
'The only good thing which we owe to Plato and Aristotle, is that they
brought forward many arguments which we can use against the heretics.
Yet they and other philosophers are now in Hell. An old woman knows
more about the Faith than Plato. It would be good for religion if many
books that seem useful were destroyed. When there were not so many
books and not so many arguments ("ragioni naturali") and disputes,
religion grew more quickly than it has done since.' He wished to limit
the classical instruction of the schools to Homer, Virgil and Cicero,
and to supply the rest from Jerome and Augustine. Not only Ovid and
Catullus, but Terence and Tibullus, were to be banished. This may be no
more than the expressions of a nervous morality, but elsewhere in a
special work he admits that science as a whole is harmful. He holds
that only a few people should have to do with it, in order that the
tradition of human knowledge may not perish, and particularly that
there may be no want of intellectual athletes to confute the sophisms
of the heretics. For all others, grammar, morals, and religious
teaching ('litterae sacrae') suffice. Culture and education would thus
return wholly into the charge of the monks, and as, in his opinion, the
'most learned and the most pious' are to rule over the States and
empires, these rulers would also be monks. Whether he really foresaw
this conclusion, we need not inquire.
A more childish method of reasoning cannot be imagined. The simple
reflection that the newborn antiquity and the boundless enlargement of
human thought and knowledge which was due to it, might give splendid
confirmation to a religion able to adapt itself thereto, seems never
even to have occurred to the good man. He wanted to forbid what he
could not deal with by any other means. In fact, he was anything but
liberal, and was ready, for example, to send the astrologers to the
same stake at which he afterwards himself died.
How mighty must have been the soul which dwelt side by side with this
narrow intellect! And what a flame must have glowed within him before
he could constrain the Florentines, possessed as they were by the
passion for knowledge and culture, to surrender themselves to a man who
could thus reason!
How much of their heart and their worldliness they were ready to
sacrifice for his sake is shown by those famous bonfires by the side of
which all the 'talami' of Bernardino da Siena and others were certainly
of small account.
All this could not, however, be effected without the agency of a
tyrannical police. He did not shrink from the most vexatious
interferences with the much-prized freedom of Italian private life,
using the espionage of servants on their masters as a means of carrying
out his moral reforms. That transformation of public and private life
which the Iron Calvin was but just able to effect at Geneva with the
aid of a permanent state of siege necessarily proved impossible at
Florence, and the attempt only served to drive the enemies of
Savonarola into a more implacable hostility. Among his most unpopular
measures may be mentioned those organized parties of boys, who forced
their way into the houses and laid violent hands on any objects which
seemed suitable for the bonfire. As it happened that they were
sometimes sent away with a beating, they were afterwards attended, in
order to keep up the figment of a pious 'rising generation,' by a
bodyguard of grown-up persons.
On the last day of the Carnival in the year 1497, and on the same day
the year after, the great 'Auto da Fe' took place on the Piazza della
Signoria. In the center of it rose a high pyramid of several tiers,
like the 'rogus' on which the Roman Emperors were commonly burned. On
the lowest tier were arranged false beards, masks, and carnival
disguises; above came volumes of the Latin and Italian poets, among
others Boccaccio, the 'Morgante' of Pulci, and Petrarch, partly in the
form of valuable printed parchments and illuminated manuscripts; then
women's ornaments and toilet articles, scents, mirrors, veils and false
hair; higher up, lutes, harps, chessboards, playing-cards; and finally,
on the two uppermost tiers, paintings only, especially of female
beauties, partly fancy pictures, bearing the classical names of
Lucretia, Cleopatra, or Faustina, partly portraits of the beautiful
Bencina, Lena Morella, Bina and Maria de' Lenzi. On the first occasion
a Venetian merchant who happened to be present offered the Signoria
22,000 gold florins for the objects on the pyramid; but the only answer
he received was that his portrait, too, was painted, and burned along
with the rest. When the pile was lighted, the Signoria appeared on the
balcony, and the air echoed with song, the sound of trumpets, and the
pealing of bells. The people then adjourned to the Piazza di San Marco,
where they danced round in three concentric circles. The innermost was
composed of monks of the monastery, alternating with boys, dressed as
angels; then came young laymen and ecclesiastics; and on the outside,
old men, citizens, and priests, the latter crowned with wreaths of
olive.
All the ridicule of his victorious enemies, who in truth bad no lack of
justification or of talent for ridicule, was unable to discredit the
memory of Savonarola. The more tragic the fortunes of Italy became, the
brighter grew the halo which in the recollection of the survivors
surrounded the figure of the great monk and prophet. Though his
predictions may not have been confirmed in detail, the great and
general calamity which he foretold was fulfilled with appalling truth.
Great, however, as the influence of all these preachers may have been,
and brilliantly as Savonarola justified the claim of the monks to this
office, nevertheless the order as a while could not escape the contempt
and condemnation of the people. Italy^ showed that she could give her
enthusiasm only to individuals.