CHAPTER XIV.

STUDY OF ANTIQUITY. —RAPHAEL AND THE PLAN OF ANCIENT ROME. — ENCOURAGEMENT OF THE STUDY OF GREEK. —THE VATICAN LIBRARY AND THE ROMAN UNIVERSITY.

 

LEO’S classical tendencies must have benefited the science of antiquity. One of its chief representatives, Latino Giovenale Manetti, was soon known as Bembo’s friend. No less close were the relations which bound this noble patrician, who was also of some note as a poet, with Sadoleto, Sanga, Trissino, Castiglione, and especially with Cardinal Bibbiena. It is certain that at that time Manetti laid the foundation of his collection of statues which made his house in the Campo de' Fiori a resort for all sight-seers. This man, as learned as he was clever, was often employed by Leo X on diplomatic missions; in 1514 he was sent to Ferrara, in 1515 to northern Italy, in 1516 to Germany, and in 1517 to Venice. Several benefices, among others a canonry of St. Peter's, were the reward of his faithful services.

In 1521 Leo X. had the joy of seeing the appearance in print of the first collection of Roman topographical inscriptions. Jacopo Mazocchi, the indefatigable printer of the Roman University, who was himself a learned man, published it. The Pope, by whom Mazocchi was always gladly received, had by privilege protected the work against piracy on November 30, 1517. This collection, in which the previous works of the Veronese Fra Giocondo and Pietro Sabino were utilized, was compiled by the learned Canon, Francesco Albertini, the author of the little work dedicated to Julius II “on the marvels of ancient and modern Rome”. It embraces both ancient and early Christian inscriptions, and is, as can be easily understood, neither correct nor perfect ; nevertheless, it deserves high commendation, and rescued many fragments, since lost, introducing a new epoch in Roman epigraphy.

An interest in Egyptian antiquities was springing up, having been apparently awakened by the obelisks in Rome. Pierio Valeriano, who was also a poet, busied himself with the symbolism of the hieroglyphics, and published an important work on them. In 1521 Leo entrusted Valeriano, who was versed in Latin and Greek literature, with the education of his nephews Ippolito and Alessandro.

Andrea Fulvio, who, in an official document, is explicitly called “an antiquarian”, belongs also to the time of the Medici Pope. As early as 1513, he dedicated to Leo X a description of the antiquities of Rome, written in Latin hexameters. A description of the ancient city in prose was, by the special direction of the Pope, made from this ; it appeared in the time of Clement VII, and formed an important step in the knowledge of antiquity. In 1517 Fulvio brought out a book on numismatics, the excellent wood-cuts of which were protected against imitation by a special Papal privilege. Full of gratitude, the learned antiquary eulogized the Medici Pope in a Latin poem, as the ornament of the Roman See, and dedicated to him an eclogue on the Nativity of Christ.

The extensive learning of Fulvio was as highly appreciated by Raphael as it was by the Pope. The great painter repaid the services which Fulvio rendered him by his antiquarian studies, by standing his friend as an architectural expert. Fulvio was not the only one whose knowledge was utilized by Raphael, who was so indefatigable in learning everything he could on every kind of subject. He had, for instance, had Vitruvius translated into Italian by the aged Mario Fabio Calvo of Ravenna. Raphael visited the remains of ancient Rome with these two companions, being often joined by Baldassare Castiglione, the cultured diplomatist who always took such a lively interest in everything that was going on in Rome at that time. In this little circle a project was started into which Leo X threw himself with zest. This was nothing less than the making of a great archaeological plan of ancient Rome with explanatory text, worked out from existing remains, new excavations, and the testimony of ancient writers. This was the origin of the letter on the antiquities of Rome, addressed to Leo X, and ascribed first to Castiglione, later to Raphael, and by others to Fulvio or Fra Giocondo. No doubt the correct view to take is that this highly-interesting document embodies the ideas of Raphael, put into shape by the experienced pen of Castiglione.

The document is marked by the most ardent veneration for antiquity and its wonderful remains in Rome, the “Queen of the world”. Therefore, the “Goths and Vandals” and the “shameless barbarians” who, in their ignorance, have destroyed the witnesses of the greatness and power of the ancient Romans, so that nothing remains but the skeleton stripped of its flesh, are all condemned. If in this Raphael adheres to the unhistorical ideas which prevailed at the end of the Middle Ages, he is impartial enough to bear in mind the guilt of the Romans themselves, both during that period and at the time of the Renaissance. With noble candour he goes on to say : “How many Popes, Holy Father, possessing the same dignity as Your Holiness, but not the same knowledge, ability, and high-mindedness, whereby you bear within you the image of God—how many have demolished the ancient temples, statues, triumphal arches, and other magnificent buildings! How many have ordered the foundations to be dug for the sake of the puzzolano, quite regardless that the fall of the superstructure must follow! How many have reduced ancient pillars and marble ornaments to lime! The new Rome, which we now see standing in all its beauty and grandeur, adorned with palaces, churches, and other buildings, is built throughout with the lime obtained in this way from ancient marbles”. Full of grief, Raphael contemplates how, even since his own twelve years’ sojourn in the Eternal City, the ruins of the so-called Meta of Romulus in the Castle of St. Angelo, the arches at the entrance of the Baths of Diocletian, the Temple of Ceres in the Via Sacra, and, quite recently, a portion of the Forum of Nerva, as well as a number of the columns, friezes, and architraves, and the greater part of the basilicas in the Roman Forum, had been destroyed: “a barbarity which dishonours our age, and worse than which Hannibal could not have done”. Raphael therefore appeals to the Pope to protect the remains of “the great mother of fame and the greatness of Italy”, so that the witnesses of the dignity and genius of those “sublime minds, the very thought of which stirs up those yet alive to higher things, may not be spoiled and destroyed by the evil-minded and ignorant”.

With characteristic boldness Raphael makes an intellectual survey of the development of architecture in antiquity, the Middle Ages, and during the Renaissance. To him the antique is the one model to which no one has since attained; he holds German Gothic architecture as so much rubbish in comparison. There follows an explanation based on the observation and measurement of ancient buildings.

It was his intention to complete the plan of the city in fourteen sheets, each of which was to embrace one of the regions of the Emperor Augustus. In fixing the boundaries of these, Raphael had the assistance of Andrea Fulvio as well as Mario Fabio Calvo. Contemporaries ascribed the whole work to Raphael alone, and all friends of antiquity followed its progress with the greatest interest. The learned Celio Calcagnini, who in a Latin poem extolled the “inspired” excavating of ruined Rome, wrote to his friend Jakob Ziegler : “Raphael is at present occupied with an admirable work which will be the wonder of posterity. He is drawing plans of the city of Rome which reproduce almost in their entirety its ancient aspect, its former extent, and the exact details of each part. For this purpose he has caused excavations to be made in the hills and among deep-lying foundations, comparing the results obtained with the descriptions and measurements of ancient writers. This work has impressed Pope Leo and all classes of Romans with such admiration that the originator is looked upon as a more than mortal being, sent down from heaven to restore to the Eternal City her pristine glory”.Great, therefore, in proportion to their expectations, was the grief of the educated world when Raphael’s premature death interrupted his labours. In verses that attained celebrity Castiglione bewailed the envious fate that had snatched from their midst the resuscitator of the Rome of old. The noble Venetian, Marcantonio Michiel, emphasized, in a letter of April 15th, 1520, the loss sustained in an equal degree by painting as well as architecture: “What Ptolemy did for the world, Raphael has done for the ancient buildings of Rome, restoring their form, proportions, and ornaments so clearly that to look on his drawings is, seemingly, to gaze on the ancient city. He has already finished the first Region, reproducing not only the ground-plan and situation of the buildings according to measurements obtained by careful examination of their remains, but also their facade, from data afforded by a close study of Vitruvius, and of the rules of ancient architecture, along with a comparison of the early writers”.

While classical studies were thus pursued with ardour in Leonine Rome, philosophy and theology had to con tent themselves with a modest status. The dangerous trend of opinion which Pietro Pomponazzi had followed in the former domain of study had led to his condemnation in the Lateran Council. Pomponazzi’s keenest opponent, Agostino Nifo, received a call from Leo X. to the Roman University ; he was repeatedly marked out for honours and titles by the Pope. While Nifo was chiefly busied with the writings of Aristotle, Gianfrancesco Pico della Mirandola stepped forward as an opponent of the Stagirite and as an enthusiastic admirer of Plato. In other respects also these two men of learning stood poles asunder; Nifo supported lax ethical views; Pico was a man of stern morality. Leo X showed repeated marks of sympathy with Pico in the misfortune which he had to fight against; the latter, in grateful recognition, dedicated to the Pope his work on Divine Love. Special mention ought to be made here of Egidio Canisio of Viterbo, who was made a Cardinal by Leo X, as the composer of a work in which he sought to expound a philosophy of secular and ecclesiastical history before and after the Incarnation. The whole is a curious and often confused medley of historical narrative and philosophical, philological, moral, exegetical and allegorical commentaries; the latter treat of the prophecies of the Old Testament. Not only are the autobiographical passages valuable, but also the copious information concerning con temporary Popes. On many of them he passes judgment with a noble candour which contrasts strangely with the unstinted praise which he lavishes, like an accomplished courtier, on Leo X. This work also claims particular attention, as showing how deeply humanist ideas had affected the views even of ecclesiastics of rigid orthodoxy.

The Neapolitan Ambrogio Fiandino, of the Augustinian Order, who was appointed suffragan Bishop of Mantua by Leo in 1517, forms a link between philosophy and theology ; Fiandino also wrote several books against Luther. The first work which appeared against Luther in Italy came from the Order which also in Germany produced so many opponents of the Wittenberg reformer. It was by Silvestro Prierias, Leo's Master of the Sacred Palace ; of his activity we have already spoken. To these names may be added, among Luther's earliest antagonists in Italy, those of the Dominicans, Ambrogio Catarino and Tommaso Rhadino, professors at the University of Rome, and also the Venetian Christoforo Marcello. The pre-eminence in theology must undoubtedly be accorded to Cardinal Cajetan among the celebrities of the Court of Leo X. Almost all the writings of this remarkable man, who was called by Clement VII the “light of the Church”, were composed in Rome. Cajetan’s reputation rests chiefly on his classical commentary on the Summa of St. Thomas Aquinas, and on his learned treatise on the authority of Popes and Councils, which had already been composed under Julius II. He was also the author of many occasional pamphlets, in which he defended, with great moderation and sound judgment, the ancient teaching of the Church against the Lutheran innovations. Along with Cajetan, Alberto Pio di Carpi may also be mentioned as a distinguished theologian in his day. Carpi, like many other learned men who were also strong churchmen, was an opponent of Erasmus of Rotterdam, the most celebrated and the most noteworthy scholar of his age.

Erasmus, during his sojourn in Rome in 1509, was on a familiar footing with the Cardinals and also a frequent visitor at the palace of Giovanni de' Medici. On intimate terms they could hardly have ever been, which explains why, on the elevation of Leo to the Papacy, no invitation was given to Erasmus to accompany him to Rome. Erasmus, however, himself allowed full two years to pass before he renewed his relations with Leo. Then he certainly gave way to the coarsest flattery and most abject servility. From London, on the 28th of April, 1515, he addressed a long and inflated letter to the Pope. He begins by making excuses for his boldness in approaching a man who is now as highly exalted over his fellow-men as they are over the brute creation. “Oh ! that it were granted to me to prostrate myself at your blessed feet, and to impress my kisses on them”. After this preamble Erasmus indulges in the loudest strains of praise of the whole house of Medici, and of the Pope, their most illustrious member, who has equal claims to be considered the patron of peace. As a special favour he begs permission to dedicate his edition of St. Jerome to the Sovereign Pontiff.

Such a tribute of homage from the most celebrated humanist of the day must have been a cause of the most pleasurable satisfaction to the Medici Pope. He accepted the dedication of the St. Jerome and also that of the Greek New Testament; at the same time he introduced Erasmus to Henry VIII of England. Still, a summons to the Papal Court, which Erasmus, who was then longing to revisit Rome, might have expected, did not come. On the other hand, Leo X complied with another request which the notable scholar had tendered through the English Nuncio, Andreas Ammonius. Erasmus had dispensed himself from his monastic vows and had fallen under ex­communication; further, owing to his illegitimate birth, he was disqualified for Church preferment. These were diffi­cult circumstances in which Papal favour would be helpful; therefore, Erasmus pledged his word that, for the future, he would never publish a sheet which did not set forth the praise of the good and great Pope Leo.

What importance was attached in Rome to the gratifica­tion of the wishes of the first literary celebrity of the day may be seen in the delicate and considerate way in which his petitions were granted. At the end of January, 1517, three dispensations were issued, two of which were so worded that no one could infer that Erasmus’s birth was in any way tainted, or why he had incurred ecclesiastical censure. Erasmus promised, in his letter of thanks, to be bound “hand and foot” henceforward to promote the glory of the Pope who had brought back the “golden age” of piety and learning.

The subsequent relations between the greatest scholar and the greatest patron of learning of the age remained unimpaired. They were not altered even when rumours were rife in Rome pointedly accusing Erasmus of being the instigator and encourager of the Lutheran errors. That his conduct in this respect was open to attack was felt even by Erasmus himself. He therefore made haste to clear himself from any sort of suspicion by the strongest assurances of loyalty ; with great adroitness he struck a note in his apologetic writings which was sure to find an echo in the mind of Leo X. He represented his opponents as the enemies of learning ; they only attacked him because he made the cause of learning his own. “From their birth these men have hated the Muses and the Graces; they wage an endless war against studies which they are incapable of understanding ; likewise they cry, Religion—of which they consider themselves naturally to be the pillars—is in danger”. But through all Erasmus is determined in his writings to keep clear of error; he asserts with emphasis: “However insignificant my talents may be, they are dedicated once and for all to Christ ; to His glory alone are they devoted, and to the service of the Roman Church and its head ; especially to the service of Your Holiness, to whom I am under endless obligation”.

As his accusers, with Aleander at their head, were far from being silenced, Erasmus turned once more to the Pope himself. Dishonest men, he writes to the latter on the 13th of September, 1520, in their enmity towards the beauty of learning, seek to calumniate him as the champion of Reuchlin and Luther. Nothing is more untrue ; he has no acquaintance with Luther ; he has not even read his writings, with the exception of some ten or twelve pages, on which he bestowed only a casual glance. He admits that this scanty perusal gave him the impression that Luther had it in him to become a Biblical interpreter after the manner of the ancients ; but as soon as he became aware of the uneasiness which he was causing, he felt such aversion that he persuaded the printer Froben, with threats, to discontinue the issue of such works. Moreover, he had earnestly begged his friends to exhort Luther to observe moderation and the interests of the peace of the Church. “Two years before, when Luther first wrote to me, I reminded him in affectionate terms of what I wished him to avoid ; would that he had listened to that advice ! I apprehend that this letter was conveyed to Your Holiness, with the result that I have forfeited your esteem, although, really, it ought rather to have secured to me the Papal approval”. Finally, Erasmus defended himself against the objection that he had not yet written anything against Luther. In the first place, he had not had time to make a thorough study of Luther’s writings, neither had he the necessary qualifications ; further, he had no wish to anticipate the theological faculties who were occupied with the matter ; lastly, he admitted the principal cause of his silence : his fear lest he should draw down upon himself an ever­ increasing weight of odium.

This letter seems to have had the desired effect, at least as regards Leo X. The latter, replying on the 16th of January, 1521, said that doubts had arisen in his mind concerning the opinions of Erasmus, not only from what he had been told by very shrewd and well-informed men, but from some of his own writings. All such impressions had been obliterated by this letter, and he had no longer any hesitation regarding his loyalty to the See of Peter and the teaching of the Church. He wished that all might be as firmly convinced of that teaching as Erasmus was. At the same time he enjoined upon him to use his talents and learning in combating the Lutheran doctrine.

From the letters of Cardinal Medici to Aleander, in the autumn of 1521, it is clear that the former, notwithstanding all reports prejudicial to Erasmus, remained of the opinion that the latter ought to be treated with the utmost consideration and leniency. In this respect the furthest limits were reached and, perhaps, overstepped. Moreover, at an even later date Adrian VI himself had riot lost hope of winning, as an apologist of the Church against the Reformers, the greatest Latinist of the day and the most accomplished penman in Christendom. Even if the praises given by Erasmus to the services rendered by Leo X to learning were exaggerated, they were yet in one respect, to some extent, justified—namely, as regards the study of Greek. In this instance the protection which the Pope in part extended to the Venetian press of Aldus Manutius (born 1450, died 1515) is remarkable. Aldus was no ordinary publisher; he was at the same time a man of learning and also a staunch adherent of his religion. He expressly undertook, in the preface to his edition of Lucretius, to reject from it everything that was contrary to the tenets of theology. His reverence for the Holy See was evidenced in another way, since, in his issue of the works of Petrarch, he omitted all the passionate sonnets levelled against Rome. The editions published by Aldus Manutius, for which with business-like ability he knew how to open up entirely new markets, were generally prized for their accuracy and elegance. The business of the firm, which soon became world-renowned, had, for that age, an unwontedly universal character ; he deserves special credit for his successful efforts to supply the want of Greek books. Soon after Leo's accession, the edition of Plato, prepared by Marcus Musurus. began to appear from his press. The first part of this remarkable publication was adorned, together with a fine Greek poem by Musurus, by the spirited dedication of Aldus, to which attention has already been called. The Pope was delighted ; nothing more appropriate could have been offered to the son of Lorenzo de' Medici. He expressed his thanks in a testimonial dated the 28th of November, 1513. In it he commends the unwearied diligence with which for years Aldus had bestowed labour and money on the publication of works of learning; in consideration of which he confers upon him for fifteen years the exclusive privilege of printing and publishing all Latin and Greek works which have already been or shall hereafter be issued by him, in the beautiful cursive type of his invention ; all copyists and imitators are threatened with heavy fines and ecclesiastical censures. On the other hand, Manutius is ordered to sell his editions at a reasonable and not extravagant price.

In order to promote Greek studies in Rome, Leo X called thither in the first year of his reign the celebrated Giano Lascaris f and his scholar Marcus Musurus. To the former, whose relations with Lorenzo the Magnificent had already been of the closest, was sent a letter composed by Sadoleto in terms of affection and intimacy. The letter to Musurus was written by Bembo, who informs him that the Pope earnestly longs to revive the well-nigh extinct knowledge of the language and literature of Greece, and generally to encourage the sciences as far as lies in his power. He is invited to bring ten or more young men of good abilities from Greece to Rome, in order that the Italians may learn the Greek language correctly from them. Further information concerning the proposed training college of science would be supplied by Lascaris.

The new Greek College was opened in the house of the  Colocci on the Quirinal; Lascaris was Rector. He and Musurus, who came to Rome in 1516, taught Greek; Latin was assigned to Benedetto Lampridio of Cremona, who also posed as a poet. A printing press was attached to the College, which received the name of the Medicean Academy, for the purpose of meeting the want of Greek books, then sensibly felt. Leo X also founded a similar college in Florence, of which the Rector was Arsenio Apostolios.

Lascaris stood high in favour with Leo X ;  already, in February, 1514, he was named for the nunciature in Venice; in October, 1515, he was entrusted with a weighty diplomatic mission to the King of France, who was sojourning in Upper Italy; he was also, at a later date, admitted to the conferences on the Turkish war. In 1518 the great hellenist undertook a journey to France to give Francis I the assistance of his counsels in that monarch’s endeavours to encourage the study of Greek. Lascaris continued to live in Rome after the death of Leo, and died there about 1535. Over his grave in S. Agata alla Suburra may be read the pathetic epitaph : “Here rests Lascaris, among strangers, yet joyfully; for as a Greek he durst not hope for a single spot of free earth in his own fatherland”.

The expectation of Musurus that, on the foundation of the Greek College, a second Athens would arise on Latin soil, was never fulfilled. The disappearance of this institution from history, it is with probability conjectured, was owing to the scarcity of money, by reason of which means were wanting to carry out the enterprise thus begun ; the jealousy of the Roman men of learning may also have had a prejudicial influence ; a harder blow was the death of Musurus, which took place in autumn 1517, a year after his appointment by Leo to the Achbishopric of Monembasia (Napoli di Malvasia). His successor in this dignity was Manilio Rallo, another hellenist favoured by Leo. Already, in the summer of 1514, Leo had nominated his own Greek teacher, Varino Favorino of Camerino, Bishop and Vice-Governor of Nocera. As such he took part in the Lateran Council. Favorino’s principal work, from the press of Zaccaria Calliergi, which made its appearance at last in 1523, was his famous Greek Lexicon. Before this, in 1517, he had dedicated to the Pope his Latin translation of a collection of Greek apothegms from various authors, by Giovanni Stobeo. In the same year the Scholia on Homer were issued from the printing press belonging to the Greek College ; from the same came also a new edition of Porphyry, and, for the first time, Commentaries on Sophocles. The copyright of these and other works produced by the same house was protected by Papal privileges which threatened with excommunication any contravention. The eagerness with which Leo supported the study of Oriental languages was also re markable ; his exertions in this direction were connected with the Lateran Council.

Brought up among books, Leo X, while Cardinal, had displayed great activity as a collector of manuscripts and printed works. He took a special delight in illuminated codices, a branch of art in which the Renaissance excelled. He shrank from no sacrifice in order to recover the valuable library of his family which the Florentines had confiscated in 1494, and the monks of San Marco had bought. This he succeeded in doing in 1508. The library was now removed to Rome, and henceforward became the chief ornament of his palace at S. Eustachio (now the Palazzo Madama). The charge of this precious collection, which was freely laid open to all men of learning, was entrusted to Varino Favorino.  One of the first administrative acts of Leo X was connected with his own library and that of the Vatican. The two collections were kept separate, the precise regulations bequeathed by Sixtus IV for the maintenance and use of the literary treasures of the Vatican were re-enforced, and a new librarian was appointed.

Tommaso Inghirami, who had been nominated, in the first place, by Julius II, continued as Prefect of the Vatican Library, of which the arrangements were not altered. On account of his classical eloquence he was called the Cicero of his age, and played an important part at the Papal Court. The nickname of Fedra adhered to him, for, while yet a youth, he had taken the role of Phaedra in a performance of the Hippolytus of Seneca, and during an accident to the stage machinery had improvised a set of Latin verses with great skill. He had now become a portly prelate; he is thus represented with startling fidelity to nature, in his red robes, pen in hand, and sunk in thought, in the celebrated picture in the Pitti Gallery, which has been attributed to Raphael.

As Inghirami lost his life through an accident on the 5th of September, 15164 Leo X, in grateful remembrance of the loyalty shown him during the time of his exile, bestowed this important and honourable post on the Bolognese humanist, Filippo Beroaldo, who, to distinguish him from his namesake and uncle, is spoken of as the younger. Beroaldo, who had been Cardinal Giovanni de' Medici's secretary, had already been distinguished by many marks of Papal favour. He was now not only custodian-in- chief of the treasures in the Pope’s library, but also of the State Archives preserved in the Castle of St. Angelo.

Beroaldo, highly gifted though he was, led an irregular and restless life and died early. He was succeeded in September, 1518, by the Pope's fellow-countryman, Zanobi Acciaiuoli. This learned Dominican, versed in the culture of humanism, devoted himself to his task with ardour. He not only drew up a new inventory of the library , but also of the Archives of St. Angelo.

Acciaiuoli dying very soon, the learned Aleander took his place on July 27th, 1519, on the recommendation of Cardinal Medici ; he filled his conspicuous position to the satisfaction of all scholars both in Italy and abroad. The custodians of the library appointed by Julius II, Lorenzo Parmenio and Romulo Mammacino, retained their offices.

With regard to the loan of manuscripts, Leo X was obliged to curtail the liberality of former days, as had indeed become necessary even under Julius II, this being the only way of preventing serious losses. In important cases, however, exceptions were permitted. In order that Cardinal Ximenes might be helped in the completion of his famous Complutensian Polyglot, the Pope gave orders that the requisite Greek manuscripts should be sent from the Vatican Library to Spain, even if they had to be secured with chains of iron.

Leo X was no less zealous than his predecessors in adding to the treasures of books and manuscripts in the Papal collection. It recalls the days of Nicholas V, when we consider how the Pope had his emissaries in all quarters, from Scandinavia to the East, in search of the monuments of literature. Among many others entrusted with these behests were Agostino Beazzano, Angelo Arcimboldi, Fausto Sabeo, Johann Heitmers, and Francesco de Rosis. In a letter to the last named, Leo explains directly that he considers it one of his most urgent duties to increase the number of copies of ancient authors in order that, under his pontificate, latinity may flourish once more.

The Pope’s personal interest in these literary missions is clearly shown in the letters to ecclesiastical and secular princes in Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Goth land, with which Johann Heitmers, the ecclesiastic of Liege, was furnished on the occasion of his mission in 1517. “From the beginning of our pontificate”, it here runs, “we have, by the help of God, and for His honour and glory, spared neither pains nor money to discover valuable treasures of ancient literature, for the profit as well as the honour of virtuous and especially of learned men”. Heitmers was either to borrow such works, under guarantees from the Apostolic Chamber, for purposes of copying, or, as the Pope greatly preferred, to purchase the originals. In Heitmers’ letters of introduction, Leo laid the greatest stress on his intention so to advance the reviving know ledge of ancient literature, that the most remarkable productions of antiquity should be preserved and their number increased, both in the present time and for the time to come ; at the same time he emphasized his plans for making the newly-acquired classics of Greece and Rome generally accessible by means of printing. With this end in view a general investigation was to be made of the libraries of Germany and Scandinavia. Privileges and special favours would be held out to the owners ; those who opposed the scheme were threatened with the greater excommunication. Heitmers had also authority to appoint assistant commissioners. The first point of capital importance was to find a perfect copy of the History of Livy, a search which Nicholas V had promoted with eagerness. Heitmers had boasted of his knowledge of the existence of such a manuscript, and Leo had promised him a large reward for the discovery. Fresh hope of a successful issue of his mission was encouraged by the circumstance that Leo X had come into possession of a manuscript of the first six books of the Annals of Tacitus, which had already been printed and published in 1515 by Filippo Beroaldo. This manuscript of Tacitus belonged originally to the monastery of Corvey, whence it was abstracted. In his passion for promoting classical studies, Leo had so few scruples with regard to this method of procuring his spoils, that in one of the letters entrusted to Heitmers, he speaks quite openly of the abstraction of the manuscript, which had passed through many hands, and had, at length, come into his possession, and adds for the Abbot’s consolation : “We have sent a copy of the revised and printed books in a beautiful binding to the Abbot and his monks, that they may it place in their library as a substitute for the one taken from it. But in order that they may understand that this purloining has done them far more good than harm, we have granted them for their Church a plenary indulgence”.

At the end of Beroaldo’s edition of Tacitus we see the Pope's arms, and under them the words : “In the name of Leo X great rewards are promised to those who send him ancient writings which have not yet been made known”. The edition also contains a Papal privilege against unauthorized impressions of the work. In this Leo justifies, in eloquent language, the warmth with which he pursues the advancement of heathen literature : “Since God called us to the high dignity of the Pontificate we have devoted ourselves to the government and extension of the Church, and, among other objects, we have conceived it to be our duty to foster especially literature and the fine arts : for, from our earliest youth we have been thoroughly convinced that, next to the knowledge and true worship of the Creator, nothing is better or more useful for mankind than such studies, which are not only an adornment and a standard of human life, but are also of service in every circumstance ; in misfortune they console us, in prosperity they confer joy and honour, and without them man would be robbed of all social grace and culture. The security and the extension of these studies seem to demand two conditions: on the one hand, they require a sufficient number of learned and scholarly men, and, on the other, an unlimited supply of first-rate books. With regard to the first, we hope, through God's help, to have already made it evident that it is our warmest desire and firm determination to honour and reward their deserts, which has indeed ever been our greatest joy. As regards the acquisition of books, we give God thanks that in the present instance we have a further opportunity of rendering useful service to our fellow-men”.

Certainly no Pope had given stronger marks of his appreciation of the importance of the ancient classics. But while fully recognizing Leo’s enthusiasm for the authors of antiquity, it ought not to be passed over in silence that his interest in them was sometimes carried too far, as, for example, when he accepted the dedication of the first edition of a poem by Rutilius Namatianus, un concerned by the circumstance that this fervent worshipper of the gods described the teaching of the Christian Church as worse than the poison of Circe, in so far as the latter only transformed the bodies, but the former the minds of men. Nor was it without significance also that Reuchlin in 1517 ventured to dedicate his Kabbala to Leo X. Certainly, two years later, Hochstraten was able to publish his Destruction of the Kabbala, with a dedication to the same Pontiff. In fact, the number of writings dedicated to Leo was so great that a complete enumeration of them is impossible in the space at our disposal.

In spite of the Pope’s extraordinary efforts, the additions to the Vatican Library were not so large as might have been expected. From the inventories we find that the total number of volumes did not exceed 4070 as against 3650 under Sixtus IV. The golden age for the acquirement of new manuscripts was over ; the competition of the printers proved an obstacle. Moreover, the low state of the Papal finances must have acted detrimentally. Without doubt such was the case with respect to the Roman University ; Leo certainly showed no lack of zeal in his endeavours to prop up this institution. A new era seemed to open before it when, on the 5th of November, 1513, a Papal Constitution was published enjoining several wholesome reforms. The principal of these consisted in a re-enactment of the regulations of Eugenius IV ; important privileges and adequate revenues were to ensure the prosperity of the University. With regard to the professors, it was prescribed that they should devote themselves exclusively to their professional duties and deliver their lectures punctually ; in addition to the latter, they were from time to time to give oral instruction to their pupils on the subjects treated in their courses ; thus a sort of seminary was formed, perhaps the first of its kind known in the history of universities. On the 20th of September, 1514, Leo X sanctioned the erection of a private chapel in the University buildings and the foundation of a Provostship with two chaplains under the patronage of the Medici ; in the chapel, moreover, were to be held the academic ceremonies, such as the conferring of doctors' degrees, public disputations, and other functions. The teaching strength of the University was extended by invitations to scholars outside. The most distinguished among the teachers secured by the Pope were the philosopher Agostino Nifo, the doctor of medicine Christoforo Aretino, the jurist Girolamo Botticella, and the humanists Giampaolo Parisio and Basilic Calcondila, the first of whom was Professor of Rhetoric and the second of Greek. A special chair of Hebrew was also erected. If the professors whom he invited were otherwise under engagements, Leo endeavoured in “the public interest” to free them, since the Roman University, as far as possible, was to have the most illustrious staff of teachers.

A highly-interesting glimpse of the position of higher education at the beginning of Leo’s reign is afforded by an official register of professors belonging to the year 1514. The number of names does not fall short of eighty-eight. Almost all divisions were under more than one professor. Philosophy and Theology number seventeen, Canon Law eleven, Civil Law twenty, Medicine fifteen, Rhetoric eighteen, Greek three, Mathematics two, Astrology and Botany have one each. The salaries of the professors vary from 50 to 530 gold florins ; the highest, 530 and 500 gold florins, were paid to the doctors of medicine, Arcangelo of Siena and Scipione de' Lancelloti. The famous Paolo Giovio received, as Professor of Ethics, 130; the jurist, Mario Salomoni, 150; the philosopher, Agostino Nifo, 300; the master of perspective, Luca Paciolo di Borgo San Sepolcro, a Minorite, 120 gold florins. Of the humanists, Inghirami and the Greek professors each received 300 gold florins at the utmost ; Beroaldo and Raflfaello Brandolini Lippi had 250, Parisio 200, Camillo Porzio 150 gold florins. The total expenditure for professors' salaries amounted in 1514 to 14,490 gold florins. The Pope was not backward in making sacrifices for his darling scheme, and his hope that the Roman University might become the first in Italy does not seem to have been groundless. Nevertheless his great aim was not realized ; different circumstances worked together to bring this about. In the first place, death caused vacancies which could not be filled up ; soon after the compilation of the register just mentioned Calcondila and Botticella died, Inghirami followed in 1516 and Beroaldo in 1518. Even more serious than these losses was the rivalry of Pisa, whither Nifo, Christoforo Aretino, and the jurists Giambattista Ferreri and Pier Paolo Parisi betook themselves. The cause of their defection was probably, in the first place, the Pope's financial difficulties, which disastrously affected the position of the University, as they did, indeed, all his undertakings. Besides, many secured chairs by favour and not by merit, in consequence of the widespread encroachments of patronage ;others sought to oust rivals from their chairs by intrigue.

At the time of Leo’s death things had come to such a pass that a Professor of Jurisprudence could write : “There is a crowd of professors who have been appointed without selection : the salaries are not sufficient to live upon, and, worst of all, are paid so irregularly that it costs more trouble to raise the money than to give a whole course of instruction”. Leo’s personal interest in the University, undeniably great as it was, could not avert the approaching downfall. It was, moreover, unfortunate that this state of things almost coincided with a decline of literary pursuits in the Roman Curia.

The fate of the University may be looked upon as typical of the literary age of which Leo X was the Maecenas; a fair beginning, awakening wide expectations, most of which were doomed to grievous disappointment. The critical observer encounters this picture more or less distinctly at every step. The causes why such com­paratively small results were obtained are to be found, on the one hand, in the calamitous state of the finances, and, on the other, in the often irresponsible way in which Leo X distributed his too open-handed patronage and support. At the first glance we are dazzled by Leo’s attitude towards knowledge and literature, so many famous names are linked with his memory, and the chorus of praise from his contemporaries is so overpowering. The verdict of posterity has, in the main, been most largely influenced by the famous biography of Giovio ; in it the able Medici Pope is depicted in strong contrast to the warlike Julius II, and the name of Leo is given as the watchword of the golden age which he inaugurated.

Henceforth he is its Maecenas, surrounded by a halo so brilliant that it has cast a glamour over the eyes even of the keen and bitter enemies of Rome. It is only after a closer review of details and a critical inquiry into actual facts that another picture is evolved, less flattering, but more in agreement with the truth. The splendour of the University, with its staff of eighty-eight professors, as well as that of the Greek College, loses somewhat of its lustre, and the mental and intellectual worth of the whole swarm of poets and poetasters shrivels up into its true significance. The support which Leo X. gave to men of letters and to scholars turns out, on nearer scrutiny, to have been only too often misapplied, and, moreover, to have been narrower in its scope than contemporary and later panegyrists have represented it to be. The direct results of the literary influence of Leo X were, despite the high-pitched encomiums of his admirers, practically insignificant. There is more legend than truth in the view, so often presented, in which he presides over an era of literary progress and productiveness. He has usurped the right to give his name to an epoch of which the foundations had been laid and the ways opened by his predecessors. He cannot be considered the leader of an age of which he was in every particular the offspring, swayed hither and thither by its most varying tendencies, by the noble and the ignoble, by the lofty and the base. The unique reputation which his partisans have conferred upon him must give way before the sober verdict of critical ex amination ; his actual services, which cannot be denied, fall far short of his renown.

The love of science and literature which inspired the son of Lorenzo the Magnificent often took the form of literary dilettantism. Like most of his contemporaries, he overvalued in a remarkable way the poets of that day, whose compositions were as often as not distinguished only by elegance of style. In his quick enthusiasm he was much too easily satisfied. It was sufficient for him if a letter, a speech, or a poem was gracefully turned ; he very often overlooked the contents for the form. In the distribution of his favours he had by no means a happy hand ; he lavished his rewards without method and without discrimination. He took equal pleasure in real poets, improvisatori, and the class of persons who cannot be included among the men of letters, but can only find a place among jesters and entertainers. He too often took everything merely as a pastime or theatrical representation ;  the patron of a Baraballo and a Fra Mariano was wanting in seriousness and force of character, as well as in taste and judgment.

The splendour of the Leonine age, so often and so much belauded, is in many respects more apparent than real. Like a brilliant display of fireworks, it leaves nothing more behind it than the recollection. Not only in the sphere of pure science do we look in vain for really great works ; even in that of polite literature the conventional tributes of praise must be largely discounted. There is nothing really of first-rate excellence except the poems of Vida and Sannazaro. Leo's importance is limited to this, that he was before all else a stimulating force ; in this respect he undoubtedly rendered manifold services. We must not depreciate the general impulse which he gave to artistic as also to literary and scientific life. It was his work to create in Rome an intellectual atmosphere, a “milieu” without which even Raphael would not have reached such ripe maturity. To him also it was due, to a great extent, that humanism spread its influence over such an appreciably large portion of Europe. This was of no small importance in the history of the development of Western civilization ; the Renaissance literature of Italy pointed out the way to the Romance nations, in which, by a felicitous combination of antique and national elements, they should produce works of classical perfection. Not less important was the advance made in the knowledge and appreciation of antiquity. All this was more or less affected by the favour and encouragement given by Leo X to the Renaissance of literature. Therefore, undoubtedly a certain share in the renown of the Papacy, as one of the foremost educators of the world, belongs to the son of Lorenzo the Magnificent. Much more must history greet his name with honour and gratitude when she reflects on the protection given to art by the first Pope of the House of Medici.

 

CHAPTER XV.

LEO X AS THE PATRON OF THE ARTS. —THE STANZE,

TAPESTRIES AND LOGGIE OF RAPHAEL,