Chapter IX: The Italian Renaissance in England (2)

The tone of Gloucester's letter is distinctly arrogant, but he was undoubtedly right when he conceived that it was a matter of reward which had risen up between him and his correspondent. On receiving the completed translation of the _Republic_ he had written to Candido, saying that he wished to reward him for his exertions, and had decided to settle on him a salary of one hundred ducats a year. Having made all the preliminary arrangements, it occurred to him that this might give offence to Candido's master, the Duke of Milan. In fear, therefore, of doing his friend more harm than good by this action, he had determined to postpone the idea till he had consulted Candido himself, whom he had asked to give his opinion.[1223] In a later letter Humphrey had written again to much the same effect, saying that he feared that Candido distrusted his honest realisation of the obligation he owed him. He urged him not to listen to empty rumours, and repeated the substance of what he had said before.[1224] It seems that Candido refused this offer, and in its place desired to be given what he called 'Petrarch's Villa'--possibly the house once owned by Petrarch at Gavignano near Milan. In making this request he was probably influenced by the fact that the scholar Filelfo had just received such a gift from Duke Filippo Maria, and by a desire to be equal with this great rival, who had so lately come to Milan. Be this as it may, Humphrey ignored his request, not vouchsafing an answer one way or the other. All this Candido stated in his answer to the Duke's complaint of silence, and he pointed to his disinterested services in the past, and to the way he had spent three long years in translating the _Republic_, merely to win his patron's friendship. It was not forgetfulness, but fear, caused by the Duke's ignoring his request, that had induced his long silence, and in refutation of Gloucester's suggestion of failing strength, he pointed to the fact that he was not yet forty years old, an age when Plato declared that a man was not past his prime. For himself, he was ready to continue to serve his old patron, and though busy at Rome of late, he had, during the time of silence, secured Columella's treatise on agriculture and all the works of Apuleius in an emended transcript, besides other works, but since exception to sending them by merchants had been taken, there was no means of despatching them to their destination. If a means of conveyance were to be suggested by Gloucester, he would gladly avail himself thereof. This letter of great dignity and of veiled reproach ended on a pathetic note. 'It is your silence, not the fear of no reward, that disturbs me, so I will not ask of you anything but friendship and kindness; my fidelity I will keep unshaken, and though my affairs are in no sound condition, I will pass that over. Nothing can be worse than to lose your favour.'[1225]

Thus ends one of the most interesting series of letters of the period, and we are left in the dark as to the ultimate decision of the matter. It seems probable, from the absence of any further letters, that Humphrey never replied to this, though the obvious loss of letters earlier in the correspondence makes this deduction inconclusive. If Candido's statements are true, the Duke appears in a very unfavourable light. Some payments, of course, must have been made by him, and it is possible that they were sufficiently large to wipe out any obligation he might owe to the man who had worked so well for him, but it is equally possible that the exceeding liberality, of which he makes boast, was mostly confined to words. Instability--that canker which lay at the root of the 'Good Duke's' character--had again asserted itself. He had disappointed Bruni of his hopes, he now did the same by Candido. Is this a true estimate of his relations with the Italian Humanists? We must remember that as a race these men were proverbially greedy, and that in both cases we have no definite statement of Humphrey's case. How far with respect to Candido was the danger of alienating Filippo Maria of Milan a reality? More perhaps than we might think, for a few months after Gloucester's death we find Candido petitioning for some recognition of his services from the governors of Milan, and he bases his claim on long and faithful service to the Visconti, to serve whom he had refused and contemned many valuable efforts made by both Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, and the King of Spain.[1226] When it served his purpose, therefore, Candido stated the case more in favour of his English patron than his last letter would lead us to believe possible.

We can form no exact estimate of the number of books sent over by Candido to Gloucester. We hear of the safe arrival of at least thirty-one,[1227] and there is mention of many more in the correspondence. For the most part they were books by Latin authors, and those not always of the Golden Age of Latin literature. However, they show a great advance on the studies of the Middle Ages, and display a wonderful breadth of interest. We have no evidence that it was for practical purposes that Humphrey evinced a peculiar interest in agriculture, but his known liking for astrology is represented, and his wish to possess the treatise of Vitruvius on Architecture shows that he had an intimate knowledge of the writings of the past. Of these books and their indication of the tastes of their owner more will be said later.

PIERO DEL MONTE

Humphrey was acquainted with other Italian scholars less famous than Bruni and Candido. Among these was Piero del Monte, a learned Venetian, who had been a pupil of Guarino, and had studied at the Universities of Paris and Brescia. Appointed apostolic protonotary to Eugenius IV., he was sent to England as papal collector about 1434, being recommended to Cardinal Beaufort, who does not seem to have taken any interest in his scholarly visitor.[1228] Unlike Poggio, however, Piero became acquainted with Humphrey, of whom he conceived a very high opinion. On his return to Italy at the end of his mission, he dedicated to the Duke a moral treatise, which was the solitary product of his pen, if indeed a work, in which Guarino, Francesco Barbaro, and Andrea Giuliano were all collaborators,[1229] can legitimately be put down to any one man's authorship. The title runs 'Petrus de Monte ad illustrissimum principem Ducem Gloucestrie de virtutum et viciorum inter se differentia,' and the dedicatory epistle is full of Gloucester's praises. In this case we have no reason to suspect the genuineness of the laudatory remarks, for the writer was not one of the regular Italian translators and authors who looked to secure further employment by means of the fulsomeness of their dedications. Piero had a secure position and a fixed salary, and was compelled to bow down to no prince to eke out a precarious livelihood.

The very first words of the dedication strike the right note of genuine friendship, when Humphrey's position as a prince among men by reason of birth is set aside, and his true title to respect is based on his scholarly interests. 'You have no real pleasure,' writes Piero, 'apart from the reading of books.' Still more stress is laid on the Duke's energy, which enabled him to take an active part in the affairs of state, as well as to be a man of letters--a very unusual combination, so says the author. In this respect he is compared to Julius Cæsar, who waged war and wrote his _Commentaries_ at the same time; to Augustus, and to Theodosius, who fought and judged by day, and wrote books by night, for, unlike his compatriots, he did not spend his leisure in hunting or pleasure, but preferred to ponder over books in some library.[1230] This versatile activity which characterised Humphrey was part of the Renaissance spirit which brightened his imagination. The men of the new birth were vigorous and enthusiastic in the days of their mental youth, no obstacle daunted them, no branch of life's interests seemed unworthy of their attention. It is the astounding versatility of these men of the Renaissance which causes our wonder, even more than their enlightened originality, and it was the same inspiration which enabled men like Leonardo da Vinci to be painters, poets, musicians, inventors, and scientists all in one, that also enabled the English Duke to combine an active military career and vast political ambitions with an enthusiastic study of the ancient classics.

The latter half of Piero's dedication again lays stress on Humphrey's many interests, his delight, 'not only in one art and science, which might be considered sufficient, but in nearly all of them.' We also get an interesting sketch of Humphrey as he appeared to a man who had spent much time in his society. His power of discussing literary matters, we are told, was great, and the tenacity of his memory for all he both read and heard was astounding, and so accurate that he could quote chapter and verse in support of his statements. His kindness to Piero had been very great, and it was in memory of the happy days spent in his company that the present work was hesitatingly, yet hopefully, dedicated to him.[1231]

After Piero had returned to Italy he seems to have kept up a correspondence with his friend in England, at least so we gather from the one letter which survives. Indeed, Humphrey had commissioned him to procure something for him in Italy, books for his library probably, though Piero, it seems, forgot what he had been asked to do. However, on his own initiative he got some manuscripts copied for the Duke, though we have no evidence that they were ever despatched.[1232] It is to be deplored that this correspondence has not been preserved even to the imperfect extent that the letters which passed between Humphrey and Candido have survived. In the latter case the connection was between master and servant, between employer and employed, who had no personal knowledge of each other. In the case of Piero del Monte the relationship was of a different order. Two scholars with similar tastes and aspirations had struck up a friendship based on a strong intellectual sympathy, and the mercenary motives, which obtruded themselves where Candido was concerned, were here absent. We can listen to the praise of Del Monte without any nauseating suspicion of the reality of the sentiments expressed.

LAPO DA CASTIGLIONCHIO

Yet another Italian scholar do we find sending books from Italy to Humphrey in the person of Lapo da Castiglionchio, a pupil of Filelfo, and a great translator of Lucian, Xenophon, Isocrates, Demosthenes, and Plutarch. His abilities were recognised by his contemporaries as of the highest order, and for his work of translation he possessed the essential equipment of an excellent Latin style; but a premature death cut short what promised to be a brilliant career. Lapo was one of those numerous poor scholars, who were compelled to appeal to powerful and wealthy patrons for the means of subsistence, and he numbered among these Eugenius IV., Cosimo de' Medici, and the Cardinals Vitelleschi, Cesarini and Orsini, ultimately becoming secretary to the papal court.[1233] It was through Zano that he came to think of Gloucester as a possible patron, and in both the dedications, which he inscribed to the Duke, he made mention of the Bishop. Of the _Lives_ of Plutarch translated by Lapo, at least one, the _Life of Artaxerxes_, was dedicated 'Ad Illustrissimum Principem Enfridum, Gloucestrie Ducem et Pembrochie Comitem,'[1234] and his original treatise, _Comparatio Studiorum et Rei militaris_, is addressed to the same person. The question discussed in this second work is one of great difficulty, so says the author in his dedicatory preface, and fittingly inscribed to one who is renowned not only in England, but also in France, Germany, Spain, 'Besia,'[1235] and Italy, as a famous soldier, and who at the same time surpasses all other contemporary princes in 'learning, eloquence, and the humane studies.' With all humility the attempt to compare these two spheres of human activity is therefore submitted to his criticism. Together with this treatise Lapo sent 'three orations of Socrates,' one of which instructed youth in the way of virtue, whilst the other two dealt with the relations of prince and subject, all of which the translator thought would be useful to one who had the charge of a youthful king, and was busied with the government of a great kingdom.[1236]

The _Life of Artaxerxes_ was translated for the Duke at a later date than this, and together with it Lapo sent other translations from the Greek of Plutarch, including the Lives of Theseus, Romulus, Solon, Publicola, Pericles, Fabius Maximus, Themistocles, Camillus, and Aratus. The dedication is too highly coloured to be taken seriously, and the list of virtues possessed by the Duke, according to the conversation of Zano as recorded by the author, only speaks to the writer's ingenuity. Yet there are some signs of real feeling beneath this fulsome flattery, and the praise accorded the Duke for his interest in all study, especially that of the humanities, rings true. It tells how Humphrey devoted to the acquisition of learning much time that others spent in feasting and pleasure, and how therein he resembled some of the most celebrated men of the past, both Greeks and Romans. This alone would account for Lapo's decision that, though the men of the present compared very poorly with those of the past, an exception must be made in the case of the 'illustrious Duke of Gloucester.'[1237] The sifting of the chaff from the wheat in this dedication is not so hard a task as it might at first seem. Zano had evidently spoken in no measured terms of the greatness of his princely friend, and the literary leanings of this patron had appealed to the inflammable imaginations of the Italian scholars. Lapo was speaking with knowledge when he alluded to the Duke's love of learning, of hearsay only when he embarked on a personal and political eulogy, and whilst we may accept as genuine his admiration of Gloucester's scholarship, we must ignore his statements as to his patron's other virtues. Further evidence as to the relations between Lapo and Humphrey we do not possess, though doubtless, did we but know it, a correspondence passed between them. Castiglionchio at any rate was not the least of that band of Italian scholars who acknowledged this English patron.

The list of those men who worked for Duke Humphrey in Italy ends with the name of Antonio Pasini of Todi, well known for his Latin translations of Plutarch, which were much sought after, and were frequently reproduced by the early Italian printers, there being at least seven complete editions of them between 1470 and 1558. His translation of the _Life of Marius_ was dedicated to the Duke, and in his preface we find that he, like so many of his fellow-scholars, had been induced to work for him by the way Zano had spoken of his patronage of learning. It seems, too, that it was due to Zano that Humphrey possessed so great a military reputation in Italy, which is alluded to by nearly all his Italian scholar friends. Still more is said in a somewhat fulsome strain about the kindness and generosity of the Duke, and the usual eulogy of his literary tastes is naturally emphasised.[1238] This somewhat trite and commonplace effusion is the least interesting of all the dedications to Gloucester still extant: there is a servility and a lack of genuine feeling which shines through the flattering words. Of all the Italians, Pasini wrote most obviously for lucre and not for love.

ALFONSO OF NAPLES

Besides the professional Italian Humanists Humphrey numbered at least one of the princes of Italy amongst his friends and correspondents, for in the Vatican Library there is preserved a copy of a letter written by him to Alfonso, King of Aragon and Naples. This prince, though of Spanish origin, had asserted his right to the crown of Naples, and had become more Italian than the Italians themselves, just as a later Spanish importation in the Chair of St. Peter was to be. He was one of the most devoted patrons of the Renaissance in Italy, converting his court into an assembly of scholars, and even when on a campaign refusing to be separated from his beloved books. To this typical prince of the Italian Renaissance Humphrey wrote as a man of like sympathies, dating his letter from Greenwich on July 12, 1445. The tone of this letter would lead us to believe that the two princes had already corresponded, and that some agent or follower of the King of Naples had lately visited the Duke, who strangely enough praises his correspondent in very similar terms to those used by Lapo da Castiglionchio of himself, alluding to the great reputation which Alfonso possessed both as a soldier and as a scholar. Chancing to be reading a French translation of Livy when Philip Boyl arrived,[1239] he happened on a passage that dealt with learning, which convinced him that the book would form an ideal present for Alfonso, and he accordingly sent it to him as a token of his great esteem.[1240] No present could be more acceptable to the King of Naples, who, it is said, treated one of the bones of Livy, sent to him by the Republic of Venice, as a mediæval churchman would have treated the relic of a saint. Strangely enough, another great prince of the new learning presented a copy of Livy to Alfonso, for this was the present with which Cosimo de' Medici made a friend of a former opponent.[1241] The copy which Humphrey sent was probably that one which Bedford had presented to him, and which is now in the Bibliothèque de Sainte Geneviève at Paris; for when Charles VIII. of France invaded Naples, Alfonso's fine library was dispersed, and it is therefore possible that this item found its way back to the land of its origin by this circuitous route.

ANTONIO DI BECCARIA

Humphrey was not content merely to correspond with the Italian Humanists; he brought several of them over to England to assist him in the study of the books he procured from their fellow-countrymen. So well known was this custom of his, that Æneas Sylvius, when writing to Sigismund of Austria, alluded to it in laudatory terms.[1242] No more striking evidence of the great reputation which the Duke of Gloucester possessed in Italy is to be found, than the way that this distinguished scholar, who, as far as we know, was personally unknown to him, on more than one occasion alluded to his literary qualities. Of the foreigners whom we find in connection with Humphrey from time to time some mention must be made of Vincent Clement, who represented him for some time at the papal court. A Spaniard by birth, but an Italian by education, Vincent was a man of considerable scholarly interests, a friend of Gloucester's chancellor Beckington, and at one time favoured by Henry VI., who recommended him to Oxford as a suitable recipient of academic honours.[1243] A certain Maufurney, of French origin, acted as Humphrey's private secretary for a considerable time, and in that capacity received the honour of naturalisation in 1426.[1244] Also among the Duke's secretaries we find Antonio di Beccaria, a native of Verona, who had studied under that prince of Renaissance schoolmasters, Vittorino da Feltre. He was one of Filelfo's many friends, and devoted his attention to writing erotic verse and to the translation of Greek authors, amongst whom mention may be made of Dionysius Periegetes, whose geographical poem appeared in a Latin translation under the title of 'De Situ Orbis.'[1245] For the Duke of Gloucester Beccaria translated several of the less well-known treatises of St. Athanasius, which are contained in two volumes now bound as one, and preserved in the British Museum.[1246] At the end of each an inscription by Humphrey records that they were translated for him by Antonio, his secretary, but some words in the opening preamble of the second volume lead us to believe that this latter work was finished after the translator had returned to his native land.[1247] Yet another of Antonio's translations of Athanasius--in this case the famous tract against the Arian heresy--was dedicated to Humphrey,[1248] who, however, did not employ this secretary for theological purposes alone.

The Renaissance scholar had wide interests, and from Athanasius Antonio turned at the bidding of his master to the translation into Latin of one of Boccaccio's works. This was one of the poet's minor poems, probably little read at the present day, though not without its importance in the fifteenth century. The 'Corbaccio' or 'Laberinto d'Amore' is a bitter tirade against women, and is described by the translator as 'Corvaccium adversum mulieres' with a commendable frankness, for which he apologises to the sex generally towards the end of his dedicatory letter. It was written originally for the purpose of humiliating a certain lady who had not welcomed Boccaccio's advances, and it may be possible that it was with somewhat similar feelings that Duke Humphrey bade his secretary translate the work, though Antonio is at some pains to emphasise that it was the literary form, not the sentiments, that appealed to his master.[1249] The existence and the origin of the translation, which have been hitherto unknown, throw considerable light on Gloucester's literary tastes, and we gather from the wording of the dedicatory epistle addressed to him, that he had a considerable knowledge of the Italian writings of this famous scholar, and been especially anxious for a translation of this particular poem. Though this is the only Italian work we know to have been translated for him, its existence suggests that it was not a unique example, and that, unlike most Renaissance scholars, the Duke took an interest in Italian literature, and refused to ignore the poetry of Boccaccio in favour of his scholarly works, as did Villani and Domenico of Arezzo when selecting that poet's niche in the temple of fame.

Antonio's dedication follows the worthy traditions of other Italian writers, and exalts Duke Humphrey in no measured terms, but it is almost entirely confined to a description of his literary tastes, and passes over his personal virtues and political triumphs. The translator knew England well, and was fully conscious of his patron's unique position in that country. He describes him as learned in the humane letters, and well versed in the literature of other countries besides his own. He touches on his knowledge of history past and present, his energy in procuring translation of the Greek classics, not sparing trouble or expense; his diligent study, which led him to waste no moment of his time; but the greatest stress is laid on the fact that in an age of darkness he shone forth as the one true light. Julius Cæsar and Augustus might deserve their meed of praise as students and patrons in times when to be unlearned was a disgrace, but to Humphrey fell the greater glory of having recalled scholarship and literature 'from death unto life' at a time of literary decadence and decay.[1250] Undoubtedly Antonio was fully justified in selecting this point of view as the most important aspect of his master's career, and it shows that the problem, whence came the inspiration which led the Duke to become a patron of letters and a friend of the new learning, was as inexplicable to his contemporaries as it is to us.

TITUS LIVIUS OF FERRARA

One of the best known of Gloucester's Italian followers in England was the man whose name, obviously partly borrowed from the famous Roman author, varies as it occurs in different places. On the title-page of his history it appears as 'Titus Livius Forojuliensis,'[1251] whilst in an official document of the year 1437 he is called 'Titus Livius de Fralovisiis de Ferraria.'[1252] He has been called in modern times 'Tito Livio of Forli'[1253] and 'Tito Livio of Friuli,'[1254] but we have his own statement as evidence that he was born at Ferrara.[1255] He is described as 'poet and orator' of Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, and himself tells us that poverty and love of travel drove him to leave his native place, and to come to England, where he applied to Humphrey for patronage and support. By him he was welcomed and honoured, and it was at the suggestion of his patron that he undertook to write the _Vita Henrici Quinti_, which still remains one of the most important authorities for the reign of that King.[1256] He must have been in Gloucester's service before 1437, for on March 7 of that year his patron secured his naturalisation by letters-patent.[1257] For long it was thought that this scholar who settled in England was totally unknown to the humanists of his native land,[1258] but it now appears that he was a correspondent of Pier Candido Decembrio. From a still extant letter of his to this translator we gather, that he was in communication with certain humanists in Italy, and that he had a complaint against some Italian prince, which probably was the original reason for his leaving Italy. He showed himself to be interested not only in literary studies, but also in physics and medicine, and was the subject of compliments on the part of the scientists of Tolsa. Like his master, he commissioned Candido to procure him books, mentioning as his chief desiderata the works of Celsus, the distinguished writer on rhetoric, agriculture, and medicine, whose treatise _De Medecina_ is the only product of his pen still extant, and of Galen, the Greek physician, who was patronised by Marcus Aurelius.[1259] Of his relations with Humphrey, beyond the bare facts already stated, we know nothing, but it is interesting to find among the followers of the 'Good Duke' the first Italian who contributed anything towards the study of English history--the precursor of the Italian Polydore Vergil, who came to England as a papal collector, and stayed to write the history of the English people.

GLOUCESTER'S PHYSICIANS

The interest that Livius--to use the name by which we have quoted him as an authority for the reign of Henry V.--showed in medical lore was only a reflection of one of the branches of knowledge which attracted his patron, for throughout his life Humphrey studied both the theory and practice of medicine. Many medical works are to be found in the list of the books that he gave to Oxford, and the description of his own health, which is preserved in the _Dietarium de Sanitatis Custodia_, already cited, probably owes its immense detail to his proclivities in this direction; indeed, it is conceivable that this should be considered as a scientific treatise, more than as a faithful report of the Duke's health. The author of this dietary was one Gilbert Kymer, who seems to have held an important position in the household of the Duke of Gloucester--'Celsitudinis vestre clericum,' as he is called by the University of Oxford.[1260] It was this Kymer who was responsible for conveying to Oxford the gift of books made in 1439;[1261] and he it was whom the University petitioned to use his influence with the Duke at a time of internal trouble,[1262] and only a few months before Gloucester's death the same University re-elected this physician to be Chancellor, in order that he might suggest any steps which they might take to give pleasure to their friend and constant patron.[1263] Yet another physician was an inmate of Gloucester's house, for he took steps to bring over from Italy Giovanni dei Signorelli, a native of Ferrara, whom he attached to his household in this professional capacity, and whose naturalisation he secured in 1433.[1264]

With the name of this man ends the long list of Italian scholars and students with whom Humphrey came in contact. They are sufficiently numerous to give him the proud title of being the first Englishman to bring the Renaissance influence to this country by introducing the learning of Italy to his fellow-countrymen. His patronage of letters had given him a great reputation in the Italian peninsula, for apart from the flowery praises of those who sought his financial sympathy, the fact remains that he was well enough known to be cultivated by men who could find patrons in almost every town in Italy, and this at a time when communication with any one at such a distance was arduous and dangerous. Humphrey renounced the circumscribed limits of the old schoolmen, and appreciated the new learning and the new spirit thereby engendered, yet he was perhaps not wholly conscious of the great step he had taken. When he first brought Italian scholars and Italian scholarship to his native land, he originated a movement which has not ceased to have its influence even in the twentieth century, though many may be as unconscious of the true origin of this movement, as was he of its far-reaching effects.

FOOTNOTES:

[1163] Macray, _Annals of the Bodleian_, 4, 5.

[1164] We find payments made for covering the King's books in velvet
and satin; Rymer, IV. ii. 155.

[1165] Stow, 344. He tells us that he had himself seen copies of
these translations.

[1166] Tyler, _Henry of Monmouth_, i. 394-400, where the poem is
printed.

[1167] Ashmole MS., 59, f. 135.

[1168] Tyler, _Henry of Monmouth_, 331.

[1169] Hoccleve's _Works_, iii. 75.

[1170] _Ipodigma Neustriæ_, 1-5.

[1171] Rymer, IV. iv. 105.

[1172] Voigt, ii. 254-256.

[1173] _Vatican Transcripts_, v. 34-42, copied from Bibl. Vat. MS.,
5221.

[1174] Vespasiano, 547, 548. Cf. Voigt, ii. 255.

[1175] Delisle, _Sir Kenelm Digby_, Paris, 1892, p. 11; Delisle,
_Cabinet des Manuscrits_, i. 52, 53.

[1176] Bibliothèque de Sainte Geneviève, MS. français, 777.

[1177] See Bale, 583, and the testimony of several Italian
humanists.

[1178] Monstrelet, 265.

[1179] Æn. Sylv., _Opera_, 548, _Epistola_ lxiv.

[1180] For this date see Voigt, ii. 256. For Poggio's visit to
England see Shepherd's _Life of Poggio_, 136.

[1181] Bibliothèque Nationale, MS. latin, 8537, f. 300.

[1182] _Archivio Lombardo_, vol. x. Anno xx. p. 62.

[1183] _Engl. Hist. Review_, xix. 519. Letter of Candidus to
Gloucester.

[1184] Leonardi Bruni, _Epistolæ_, vol. ii. lib. VIII. No. 6.

[1185] Bodley MS., 2143 (Auct. F., v. 27), f. 1. The dedication is
printed in _Chandler Catalogue_ of the editions of Aristotle,
41-44.

[1186] This dedication can be seen in Bodley MS., Laud. Lat., 60. No
mention is made of Gloucester.

[1187] Vespasiano, 437. Gloucester is mixed up with John Tiptoft,
Earl of Worcester, by Vespasiano, who ought to have known
better, as he was the latter's friend.

[1188] _Eng. Hist. Review_, xix. 512-513. A summary of the letter is
given in _Bibliographia_, i. 325, 326.

[1189] _Cod. Riccardiano_, 827, f. 55.

[1190] _Ibid._, ff. 55vo, 56vo.

[1191] _Ibid._, f. 57vo.

[1192] _Cod. Riccardiano_, 827, f. 58.

[1193] Voigt, ii. 259, says that Gloucester's relations with Candido
dated back from the time when he translated the _Vita Henrici
Quinti_ of Livius into Italian. As this was done in 1463,
after Gloucester's death, it cannot exactly be said to have
originated his connection with the translator. See _Tabulæ
Codicum Palatina Vindobonensi_, ii. 106.

[1194] _Eng. Hist. Review_, xix. 513, 514; _Bibliographia_, i. 326.

[1195] _Cod. Riccardiano_, 827, ff. 59, 60.

[1196] _Ibid._, f. 13vo.

[1197] _Cod. Riccardiano_, 827, f. 31vo.

[1198] Durham MS., C. iv. 3, ff. 6, 7. Since securing a transcript
of this letter I find that it has been printed by Dr. W. L.
Newman, in _Eng. Hist. Review_, xx. 496-498, together with a
discussion of the rest of the correspondence between
Gloucester and Candido. Cf. Sassi, _Historia
Literaria-Typographica_, p. ccc.

[1199] Leonardi Bruni, _Epistolæ_, vol. ii. lib. VIII. No. 6, pp.
119-122.

[1200] _Cod. Riccardiano_, 827, f. 61vo.

[1201] _Eng. Hist. Review_, xix. 514; _Bibliographia_, i. 326.

[1202] _Eng. Hist. Review_, xix. 514, 515; _Bibliographia_, i. 327.
Two of these dedications--those to the sixth and tenth
book--are in Durham MS., C. iv. 3.

[1203] _Eng. Hist. Review_, xix. 515.

[1204] _Cod. Riccardiano_, 827, f. 60vo.

[1205] _Eng. Hist. Review_, xix. 525.

[1206] _Eng. Hist. Review_, xix. 515, 516. Dated March 23, 1439
(1440, New Style), in Durham MS., C. iv. 3. This is not a
literal translation of the letter.

[1207] _Eng. Hist. Review_, xix. 516. Letter of Candido to
Gloucester.

[1208] Of these the two volumes of the two Plinies and the Varro
were in Gloucester's last gift of books to Oxford; _Epist.
Acad._, 235, 236.

[1209] _Eng. Hist. Review_, xix. 517. Letter of Gloucester to
Candido.

[1210] _Eng. Hist. Review_, xix. 517, 518. Letter of Candido to
Gloucester.

[1211] _Ibid._, xix. 518-520. Letter of Gloucester to Candido.

[1212] _Ibid._, xix. 519. Letter of Candido to Gloucester. The same
merchants had brought Bruni's translation of the _Politics_
to Gloucester; Leonardi Bruni, _Epistolæ_, vol. ii. liber
VIII. No. 6.

[1213] _Eng. Hist. Review_, xix. 520. Letter of Gloucester to
Candido.

[1214] _Cod. Riccardiano_, 827, f. 82vo.

[1215] _Eng. Hist. Review_, xix. 524. Letter of Candido to
Gloucester.

[1216] _Ibid._, xix. 519. Letter of Candido to Gloucester.

[1217] Probably the third-century grammarian, Censorius, who wrote a
still extant work, _De Die Natali_, is here meant.

[1218] _Eng. Hist. Review_, xix. 524. Letter of Gloucester to
Candido.

[1219] _Ibid._, xix. 522. Letter of Gloucester to Candido.

[1220] Sassi, _Historia Literaria-Typographia_, 293. Letter of
Candido to Nicomedus Tranchedinus.

[1221] _Eng. Hist. Review_, xix. 523. Letter of Gloucester to
Candido.

[1222] _Ibid._, xix. 523. Letter of Gloucester to Candido.

[1223] _Eng. Hist. Review_, xix. 524. Letter of Gloucester to
Candido.

[1224] _Ibid._, xix. 522, 523. Letter of Gloucester to Candido.

[1225] _Eng. Hist. Review_, xix. 520-522. Letter of Candido to
Gloucester.

[1226] _Archivio Lombardo_, vol. x. Anno xx. p. 432. Letter of
Candido to the governor of Milan.

[1227] _Ibid._, vol. x. Anno xx. p. 66; _Eng. Hist. Review_, xix.
523, 524.

[1228] Agostini, _Scrittori Veneziani_, i. 346-372; Voigt, ii. 259.

[1229] Voigt, ii. 39.

[1230] Bodley MS., 3618 (E. Museo, 119), f. 1.

[1231] Bodley MS., 3618 (E. Museo, 119), f. 2.

[1232] _Eng. Hist. Review_, x. 100, 101. Letter of Piero del Monte
to Gloucester.

[1233] _Cent Dix Lettres Grecques_, 25-28; Voigt, ii. 37, 176, 177.

[1234] _Cod. Laurentiano_, Plut., lxiii. 30, f. 1vo. Cf. _Cent Dix
Lettres Grecques_, 25.

[1235] This is undoubtedly 'Besia' in the MS. I cannot suggest an
interpretation.

[1236] Bodley MS., 3618 (E. Museo, 119), ff. 116-118.

[1237] _Cod. Laurentiano_, Plut., lxiii. 30, ff. 1vo., 2vo.

[1238] Magdalen MS., 37, ff. 1, 2.

[1239] I presume from the way this man is alluded to without comment
or explanation that he had come from Alfonso, or at least
that through him the two friends had become acquainted by
letter.

[1240] _Eng. Hist. Review_, x. 102, 103. Letter of Gloucester to
Alfonso V. of Aragon.

[1241] This MS. is said to be now in the library of Holkham Hall.
See Roscoe, _Life of Lorenzo de Medici_ (London, 1846), 64,
485.

[1242] Æn. Sylv., _Opera_, 602, _Epist._ cv.

[1243] _Beckington Correspondence_, i. 223, _et passim_.

[1244] _Rot. Parl._, iv. 314.

[1245] See Giuliani, _Della Letteratura Veronese_, 66; Warton, iii.
51; Voigt, ii. 258.

[1246] Royal MS., 5, F. ii.

[1247] 'Postquam, serenissime princeps, ex peregrinatione mea redii,
quam in visendo hac tua clarissima patria suscipam, etc.'
Royal MS., 5, F. ii. f. 92.

[1248] King's College, Cambridge, MS., 27, f. 3.

[1249] MS. in a private library, f. 1vo.

[1250] MS. in a private library, ff. 1, 2.

[1251] _Titi Livii Forojuliensis Vita Henrici Quinti_, ed. Th.
Hearne, Oxon., 1716.

[1252] Rymer, V. i. 37.

[1253] Einstein, 4.

[1254] Warton, iii. 51.

[1255] Livius, 2.

[1256] _Ibid._

[1257] Rymer, V. i. 37.

[1258] Voigt, ii. 258.

[1259] _Archivio Lombardo_, vol. x. Anno. xx. p. 428. Letter of
Livius to P. C. Decembrio.

[1260] _Epist. Acad._, 256.

[1261] _Ibid._, 177.

[1262] _Ibid._, 116.

[1263] _Ibid._, 256. Kymer had been Chancellor formerly for two
years (1431-1433); on this occasion he did not resign till
1453. Anthony Wood, _History of Oxford_, App. 44, 51.

[1264] _Rot. Parl._, iv. 473. A certain 'John Swanwych,' who is
described as a 'Clerk' of Gloucester, was also a Bachelor of
Physick. Rymer, IV. iv. 84.