Chapter XI: Part 11

The indignant manner in which Poggio commented on the cool reception which his version of the Cyropædia had experienced at the court of Naples evinced, that the influence of age had not abated his spirit. Indeed the unrestrained license of his speech about this time betrayed him into a contest with one of his fellow-labourers in the field of literature, in which he appears to have manifested not only the petulance, but also the prowess of youth. The antagonist whom he encountered on this occasion was George of Trebisond, a native of the isle of Candia, who adopted the designation of _Trapezuntius_, or of Trebisond, in reference to the residence of his ancestors. He was induced to quit the place of his nativity by the invitation of Francesco Barbaro, who on his arrival in Italy procured him the honour of being enrolled amongst the citizens of Venice.[394] Having made a competent progress in the knowledge of the Latin tongue, he went to Padua, and afterwards to Vicenza, in which latter city he was employed in the capacity of public tutor.[395] His residence in Vicenza was however not of long duration. Finding himself harrassed by the intrigues of Guarino Veronese, who regarded him with sentiments of determined hostility, he gave up his professorship, and repaired to Rome, in which city he arrived in the year 1430.[396] His Venetian friends having recommended him to the protection of Eugenius IV., that pontiff conferred upon him the office of apostolic secretary. He continued to hold this office under Nicolas V., who employed him in translating the works of various Greek authors. When, however, Nicolas had assembled at his court the most accomplished scholars of the time, who were able to detect the errors of literary pretenders by the touchstone of enlightened criticism, the reputation of George of Trebisond began rapidly to decline.[397] This circumstance probably had an unhappy effect upon his temper, and by rendering him apt to take offence, prepared the way for his quarrel with Poggio. This quarrel he certainly took up on very slight grounds; namely, an opinion expressed by Poggio in a letter to a friend, that he had without just reason charged Guarino Veronese with attacking him in an anonymous epistle. This remark drew from the Trapezuntian an angry written remonstrance, to which Poggio replied with exemplary forbearance. Here the matter might have rested, had not a dispute arisen between the two secretaries about a sum of money which fell to them in common. The discussions to which this affair gave rise were carried on by Poggio with a praise-worthy frankness and generosity of spirit; whilst his antagonist, in the bitterness of his feeling, tried to overwhelm him by an accusation of practising against his life, which he embodied in a letter to their common master. By this proceeding George found the mind of the pontiff so much alienated from him, that he thought it expedient to quit the Roman court. He accordingly retired to Naples, where he was honourably received by king Alfonso. But in the year 1453, the good offices of Filelfo restored him to the favour of Nicolas V., who reinstated him in his ancient situation in the Roman chancery.[398]

George of Trebisond was not the only member of the court of Nicolas V. whom Poggio regarded with sentiments of enmity. Tommaso da Rieti, a man of infamous character, who by his interposition had been refused admittance into the Roman chancery, and whom, under the designation of _Eques Reatinus_, he had stigmatized in the letter to Lionello d’Este, which is quoted in the ninth chapter of this work, having provoked him to hostility, he composed an invective against him, a copy of which is still extant in the Laurentian Library.[399]

In the year 1450, the celebration of the Jubilee attracted to Rome a prodigious concourse of people. As the plague was at this time raging in various parts of Italy, the multitude of devotees who were assembled to assist at the splendid solemnities of this festive season rendered the pontifical capital a focus of infection.[400] As soon therefore as Nicolas had finished the customary religious exercises, he fled from the impending danger to Fabriano, a town situated in the Marca d’Ancona. Poggio availed himself of this opportunity to visit his native place, where he dedicated his leisure to the prosecution of his studies, and to the enjoyment of social intercourse with his surviving Tuscan friends.

It was during this season of relaxation from the duties of his office, that he published what may be called the first edition of his _Liber Facetiarum_, or Collection of Jocose Tales.[401] In the preface to this curious miscellany he intimates, that he had engaged in a work of such levity, with a view of exercising himself in Latin composition.[402] The recording of these witticisms revived in his recollection the occurrence of days of pleasure which were past, never to return. From the postscript to the _Liber Facetiarum_ we learn, that during the pontificate of Martin V. the officers of the Roman chancery were accustomed to assemble in a kind of common hall. In this apartment, which from the nature of the conversation of its frequenters, who were much more studious of wit than of truth, acquired the name of _Bugiale_;[403] they discussed the news of the day, and amused themselves by the communication of entertaining anecdotes. On these occasions they indulged themselves in the utmost latitude of satiric remark, dealing out their sarcasms with such impartiality, that they did not spare even the pontiff himself. The leading orators of the Bugiale were Razello of Bologna, Antonio Lusco,[404] Cincio, and Poggio; and the pointed jests and humorous stories which occurred in the course of the unrestrained conversations, in which these mirthful scribes bore a principal part, furnished the greater portion of the materials for the _Liber Facetiarum_.[405]

This work is highly interesting on account of the anecdotes which it contains of several eminent men, who flourished during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. In the course of its perusal, we find that many an humorous tale, which the modern jester narrates as the account of circumstances that occurred under his own observation, were of the number of those which caused the walls of the _Bugiale_ to re-echo with laughter. Like all collections of the kind, the _Liber Facetiarum_ contains, amongst a number of pieces of merit, some stories, in which we look in vain for the pungency of wit. When, however, we are inclined to condemn Poggio as guilty of the crime of chronicling a dull joke, we should remember, that _bons mots_ frequently borrow their interest from aptness of introduction, and an humorous mode of delivery; and that though the spirit of a witticism, which enlivened the conversation of a Lusco or a Cincio, may evaporate when it is committed to paper, yet at the time when it was recorded by Poggio, it sported in his recollection with all the hilarity of its concomitant circumstances. But too many of the _Facetiæ_ are liable to a more serious objection than that of dulness. It is a striking proof of the licentiousness of the times, that an apostolic secretary, who enjoyed the friendship and esteem of the pontiff, should have published a number of stories which outrage the laws of decency, and put modesty to the blush; and that the dignitaries of the Roman hierarchy should have tolerated a book, various passages of which tend not merely to expose the ignorance and hypocrisy of individuals of the clerical profession, but to throw ridicule on the most sacred ceremonies of the Catholic church. Recanati indeed endeavours to defend the fame of Poggio, by suggesting the idea, that many of the most licentious stories were added to his collection by posterior writers; and he supports this opinion by asserting, that he has seen two manuscript copies of the _Facetiæ_, in which many of the obnoxious passages in question are not to be found.[406] The validity of this defence is, however, rendered extremely questionable by the consideration of a fact, of which Recanati was probably ignorant, namely, that Lorenzo Valla, in the fourth book of his _Antidotus in Poggium_, which was published about the year 1452, not only impeaches the _Facetiæ_ of blasphemy and indecency; but recites, by way of holding that work up to reprobation, the most scandalous stories which are now to be found in the whole collection.[407]

It has been ascertained by Monsieur le Grand, that a few of the stories which occur in the _Facetiæ_ are to be found in the _Fabliaux_, or tales which were circulated in various parts of Europe by the Provençal bards of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, whose sportive effusions of fancy furnished a rich fund of materials for the poets and novelists of Italy and of England.[408]

The _Liber Facetiarum_, soon after its publication, acquired a considerable degree of popularity, and was eagerly read, not only in the native country of its author, but also in France, in Spain, in Germany, and in Britain.[409] This is by no means a surprising circumstance. Wit and humour possess almost irresistible charms. The idle and the dissipated are pleased with a sally of hilarity, which gives a stimulus to their fancy; and they who are habituated to study, or who are fatigued by the more weighty concerns of life, are happy to enjoy an opportunity of occasional relaxation. As a vehicle of sentiment, a book may be considered as the representative of its author; and in a world of anxiety and trouble, he who is endued with the happy talent of causing the wrinkle of care to give place to the pleasing convulsion of mirth, will find few circles of society in which he is not a welcome guest.

In the _Facetiæ_ Poggio aimed a most mischievous thrust at his old antagonist, Filelfo, by making him the hero of a tale, the ridiculous oddity of which disturbs the steady countenance of gravity itself, and causes the strictest severity for a moment to smile at the indelicacy which it condemns.[410] The war between these redoubted champions was carried on till the year 1453, when they were reconciled by the interposition of their common friend, Pietro Tommasi.[411]

During Poggio’s temporary residence at Terranuova, he was one day visited by Benedetto Aretino, a civilian of distinguished reputation; by Niccolo di Foligni, a physician of considerable eminence;[412] and by Carlo Aretino, the chancellor of the Florentine republic. These guests Poggio hospitably entertained in his villa; and from the conversation which occurred after their repast, he collected materials for a work which he dedicated, in the year 1451, under the title of _Historia disceptativa convivialis_, to the cardinal Prospero Colonna. This work consists of three parts, the subject of the first of which is not a little whimsical, namely—Whether the master of a feast ought to thank his guests for the honour of their company, or whether the guests should express their gratitude to their host for his hospitality. The discussion of this singular question does not afford any thing very interesting. The second part contains the detail of a dispute which took place between Niccolo di Foligni and Benedetto Aretino, on the comparative dignity of their respective professions. Niccolo, pleading on behalf of the healing art, observes, that if antiquity can confer honour, the practice of medicine existed in times so remote, that its first professors are enrolled amongst the number of the Gods. He also maintains, that the medical profession must needs be more honourable than the profession of law, since the doctrines of medicine are built upon the principles of science, whilst the maxims of law depend upon caprice; and that of course physicians are obliged to qualify themselves for the discharge of their duty by diligent researches into the fixed and established course of nature; whilst those who are esteemed learned in the law confine their researches to their professional books. With regard to the civil law in particular, he reminds Benedetto, that there are few states which are regulated by its dictates; whereas the inhabitants of almost all the nations in the world pay homage to the professors of the healing art, by having recourse to their assistance. Niccolo having finished his arguments, Benedetto undertakes the defence of legal studies, and asserts the high antiquity of laws, which he maintains must have existed before the practice of medicine, since medicine could not have been reduced to a science before the assemblage of men in civil communities, which are held together by the bonds of law. He also maintains the dignity of laws, as being the conclusions of reason, and the support of society. Niccolo, in reply, denies that the civil law is the result of the conclusions of reason, and vilifies it as a crude collection of regulations, adopted to suit the exigencies of the moment, without any reference to natural law, which civilians do not study—as a mass of opinions and not a collection of truths. Impeaching the general character of the professors of law, he accuses them of an inordinate thirst for gain, which leads them to nourish strife, to prolong discord by the tediousness of legal proceedings, and to pride themselves on their success in patronizing a bad cause. Benedetto, roused by these pointed reflections, observes, that it ill becomes a physician to treat with severity the characters of the professors of law; “for,” says he, “what is more notorious than the folly of many of your brethren, who kill more than they cure, and build their art upon experiments made at the risk of their wretched patients? The errors of lawyers are of trivial consequence, in comparison with those of physicians. Our unskilfulness empties the purses of our clients, but your mistakes endanger the lives of those who employ you. We cause somebody to be the gainer, whilst you both rob a man of his life, and defraud his surviving relations of the amount of your fees. Whilst we may possibly occasion the loss of a legacy, or an inheritance, you disturb the peace of nations by slaying kings and princes. And let me ask, what dignity is there in your profession? You are called in to visit a patient—you examine his natural discharges, wrinkle your brows, and assume a countenance of uncommon gravity, in order to persuade the bye-standers, that he is in a very critical situation. Then you feel his pulse, in order to ascertain the powers of nature. After this you hold a consultation, and write your prescription, in the composition of which you are not guided by any fixed rules, as is plain from the different receipts which are in the same case recommended by different practitioners. If your potion happen by chance to be followed by good symptoms, you extol the cure as a marvellous effect of art; but if it does any mischief, all the blame is laid on the poor patient. I will relate to you a curious circumstance which happened to one Angelo, a bishop of Arezzo. This ecclesiastic being afflicted by a very dangerous disorder, was told by his physicians, that if he would not take the potions which they prescribed, he would run the risk of losing his life. He for some time positively refused to take their nauseous draughts, but was at length persuaded by his friends to conform to the instructions of his doctors. The physicians then sent him a number of phials, all of which he emptied into a certain utensil, which was deposited under his bed. In the morning the physicians paid him another visit, and finding him almost free from his fever, intimated to him, that they hoped he was convinced of his folly in having so long refused to follow their prescriptions. To this remark he replied—the effect of your medicines is indeed marvellous, for by merely putting them under my bed I have recovered my health. If I had swallowed them, no doubt I should have become immortal.”[413] After the narration of this anecdote, Benedetto proceeds to enlarge upon the utility of laws, which he maintains to have been the foundation of the dignity of states and empires. This position is denied by Niccolo, who asserts, that the dominions of monarchs and republics have constantly been extended by power, which is so incompatible with law, that the powerful and mighty universally despise all legal obligations, which are binding only on the poor and humble.

In the third part of the _Historia disceptativa convivialis_ Poggio discusses the question, whether the Latin language was universally spoken by the Romans, or whether the learned made use of a language different from that of the vulgar. Poggio maintains, in opposition to the opinion of his deceased friend, Leonardo Aretino,[414] and others, that the language used by the well-educated Romans was the vernacular language of their country, and that it differed from that of the lower classes in no other respect, than as the language of the well-educated in every country is more elegant and polished than that of the inferior orders of the community. In defence of his opinion, he quotes a considerable number of curious passages from the Roman historians and rhetoricians, which clearly prove his point, and evince his profound acquaintance with Latin literature.

The discussion of the comparative dignity of the professions of medicine and civil law naturally led to satirical remarks on the part of the respective interlocutors, on the abuse of those two branches of science; and the perusal of this dialogue will serve to shew that its author was fully competent to expose the pompous ignorances of empirics, and to display the detriment which arises to society from those most mischievous of knaves, the unprincipled practitioners of the law. It must also be allowed, that the enumeration which Benedetto Aretino and Niccolo di Foglini set forth of the merits of their respective professions, forcibly inculcates the benefits which accrue to mankind from the study of medicine and of jurisprudence, and the true principles upon which those studies ought to be conducted.[415] The following letter, which Poggio addressed to his friend Benedetto, in the year 1436, demonstrates, that the result of his serious meditations had convinced him that legal practice was not only compatible with moral rectitude, but was most likely to be productive of gain when regulated by the dictates of integrity.

“I have been highly gratified, my dear Benedetto, by your kind letter; and I cannot but admire the versatility of your genius, who have united to the most profound knowledge of the civil law, an elegance and grace of expression, which entitles you, in my opinion, to as high a rank in the school of rhetoric, as you hold among the professors of the science of jurisprudence. It is indeed a proof of an extraordinary capacity, and of a wonderful proficiency in letters, to have successfully cultivated two departments of knowledge, the cultivation of each of which is attended with no small degree of difficulty. The acquisition of the knowledge of the civil law is a work of immense labour, on account of the discordance of sentiments which occurs amongst those who have treated upon this subject, but still more on account of the almost endless volumes written by commentators, which distract the minds of their readers by the difference of opinions which they contain, and weary them by the prolixity of their style. Far from imbibing the neatness and elegance of the old lawyers, these commentators, by their perplexity and minute distinctions, shut up the road to truth. The difficulty of attaining the graces of eloquence is evinced by the fact, that in all ages truly eloquent writers are very few in number. When therefore I see you endowed with both these accomplishments, I congratulate you on your having bestowed your labour on pursuits which will confer upon you both honour and emolument. For your knowledge of the law will bestow upon you riches, which are the necessary support of human life; and the study of polite letters will be highly ornamental to you, and will tend to improve and display to the best advantage your legal talents.

“I would wish you to avoid the common error of too many legal practitioners, who, for the sake of money, wrest the law to the purposes of injustice. It has, indeed, always happened, that the bad have been more in number than the good, and the old proverb justly says, that excellence is of rare occurrence. Almost all law students, when they enter upon their profession, are stimulated by a love of gain; and by making gain the object of their unremitted pursuit, they acquire a habit of appreciating the merits of a cause, not according to the rules of equity, but according to the probability of profit. When there is no prospect of emolument, justice is disregarded, and the richer client is considered as having the better cause. As many tradesmen imagine, that they can make no profit without telling falsehoods in commendation of their commodities, so the generality of men learned in the law think they shall never prosper in the world if they scruple to subvert justice by perjury, and equity by sophisms. Acting on these principles, they do not endeavour to investigate the true nature of a cause, but at all hazards try to promote the views of the party who engages their services by a fee. But I am persuaded that you, who are by your excellent disposition instigated no less by a love of virtue than by a passion for literature, will act upon different principles, and will esteem nothing lawful which is dishonourable. I would not, however, tie you down by the strictness of that philosophy which, making happiness to consist in virtue alone, inculcates a contempt for worldly emoluments; for those who enter upon civil life will find the want of many comforts. Indeed there have been more lovers than despisers of riches amongst philosophers themselves; and the advice of those who exhort us quietly to submit to poverty is rather to be praised than followed; for it is truly melancholy to depend upon the assistance of others. But you have no reason to fear that by being honest you will become poor. On the contrary, by acting up to the principles of integrity, you will surpass others in wealth as well as in dignity. It will in the end be found much more profitable to have the reputation of honesty and justice, than that of skilfulness and craft. Virtue is valued even by the vicious, and extorts commendation from those who are unwilling to obey her precepts. It is impossible, in the nature of things, that he who has established a reputation for uprightness should not excel others in honour, in authority, and in emoluments. I would wish you, therefore, in the first place, to persevere in the practice of virtue, then to apply yourself with all diligence to the study of the law, and lastly, to add to these accomplishments the graces of polite learning. If you adopt this plan, you will not be doomed to struggle against the inconveniences of an humble station, but you will rise through the intermediate degrees of dignity to the highest stations of honour.”[416]

CHAP. XI.

_Death of Carlo Aretino—Poggio is chosen chancellor of the Florentine republic, and one of the Priori degli arti—War between the Florentines and the king of Naples—Peace of Lodi—Death of Nicolas V.—Quarrel between Poggio and Lorenzo Valla—Poggio’s dialogue de Miseriâ humanæ conditionis—Murder of Angelotto, cardinal of St. Mark—Poggio’s translation of Lucian’s Ass—His history of Florence—His death—His character—Brief account of his children._

CHAP. XI.

On the twenty-fourth of April, 1453, a vacancy was occasioned in the chancellorship of the Tuscan republic, by the death of Carlo Aretino.[417] In this conjuncture the long established literary reputation of Poggio, and the predominant interest of the house of Medici, concurred, without any canvassing or intriguing on his part, in directing to him the choice of his fellow-citizens, and he was elected to the office which had been in succession so ably filled by two of his most intimate friends. The prospect of the distinguished honours which awaited him in his native province did not, however, so entirely occupy his mind, as to render him insensible of the sacrifice which he made in quitting the Roman chancery, in which he had held situations of confidence and dignity for the space of fifty-one years. His heart was depressed with sorrow when he bade farewell to the pontiff, from whose kindness he had uniformly experienced the most friendly indulgence. Amongst the associates of his literary and official labours, there were moreover some chosen companions of his hours of relaxation, whose pleasing converse he could not forego without yielding to the emotions of grief. But in Florence also he had been from his early years accustomed to enjoy the pleasures of friendship; and the sentiments of patriotism concurred with the voice of ambition in prompting him to obey the call of his country. In addition to these motives, he was prompted to accept this lucrative employment by a sense of the duty which he owed to his family, for whose welfare, as he himself says, he deemed himself bound to sacrifice his own ease and liberty. He therefore quitted the city of Rome in the month of June, 1453; and having removed his family to the Tuscan capital, where he was received with a welcome which he compares to that experienced by Cicero on his return from exile, he applied himself with his wonted diligence to the duties of his new office.[418]

He had not long resided In Florence before he received an additional testimony of the esteem of his fellow-citizens, in being elected into the number of the _Priori degli arti_, or presidents of the trading companies, the establishment of which was happily calculated to secure the preservation of good order, and to defend from infringement the political privileges of the people.[419]

On his arrival in Florence, Poggio found his countrymen involved in the embarrassments and distresses incident to a state of war. Soon after Francesco Sforza had made himself master of the city of Milan, he had been attacked by the united forces of the Venetians and the king of Naples. The Florentines being invited to join in the alliance against him, had, at the instance of Cosmo de’ Medici, not only refused to take any share in the confederacy, but had sent a body of troops to his assistance. Irritated by this conduct, the Venetians and the Neapolitan king expelled from their respective dominions all the Tuscans who happened to reside there for the purposes of commerce. This insult was the forerunner of hostilities, which were commenced in the year 1451 by the king of Naples, who sent his son Ferdinando, at the head of an army of twelve thousand men, to invade the Tuscan territories. The Neapolitan forces made themselves masters of a few unimportant towns, but they were prevented by the vigilance of their adversaries from gaining any signal or permanent advantage. The war was for some time carried on in a languid manner, till the Florentines and the duke of Milan having procured the assistance of Charles VII., king of France, the Venetians, after sustaining great reverses of fortune, were inclined to an accommodation; and without the concurrence of the king of Naples, they entered into a negotiation with their enemies, which was happily terminated at Lodi on the ninth of April, 1454, by the signature of a treaty of peace. Alfonso was greatly irritated by the defection of his allies, and for some time obstinately persisted in refusing to listen to pacific overtures. But on the twenty-sixth of January, 1455, he was persuaded to accede to the treaty of Lodi by the earnest solicitation of Nicolas V.[420]

The intelligence of this happy event diffused a beam of cheerfulness over the latter days of that benevolent pontiff, who had for a long space of time struggled with a complication of painful disorders. In the midst of his sufferings, however, he did not remit his endeavours to promote the welfare of Christendom. He was busily employed in making preparations to send succour to the Greeks, who were sinking beneath the power of the Turks, when he terminated his career of glory on the 24th of March, 1455.[421]

Nicolas V. was one of the brightest ornaments of the pontifical throne. In the exercise of authority over the ecclesiastical dominions he exhibited a happy union of the virtues of gentleness and firmness. Purely disinterested in his views, he did not lavish upon his relatives the wealth which the prudent administration of his finances poured into his coffers; but appropriated the revenues of the church to the promotion of its dignity. The gorgeous solemnity which graced his performance of religious rites evinced his attention to decorum and the grandeur of his taste. In the superb edifices which were erected under his auspices, the admiring spectator beheld the revival of ancient magnificence. As the founder of the Vatican library he claims the homage of the lovers of classic literature. His court was the resort of the learned, who found in him a discriminating patron, and a generous benefactor. It was the subject of general regret, that the brief term of his pontificate prevented the maturing of the mighty plans which he had conceived for the encouragement of the liberal arts. When his lifeless remains were consigned to the grave, the friends of peace lamented the premature fate of a pontiff, who had assiduously laboured to secure the tranquillity of Italy; and they who were sensible of the charms of enlightened piety regretted the loss of a true father of the faithful, who had dedicated his splendid talents to the promotion of the temporal as well as the spiritual welfare of the Christian community.

Had Poggio by his intercourse with Nicolas V. imbibed a portion of the meekness of spirit which influenced the conduct of that amiable patron of literature, he would have provided for his present comfort and for his future fame. But he unfortunately indulged, to the latest period of his life, that bitterness of resentment, and that intemperance of language, which disgraced his strictures on Francesco Filelfo. When he quitted the Roman chancery he did not depart in peace with all his colleagues. At the time of his removal to Florence he was engaged in the violence of literary hostility against the celebrated Lorenzo Valla. In Lorenzo he had to contend with a champion of no inferior fame—a champion whose dexterity in controversy had been increased by frequent exercise. This zealous disputant was the son of a doctor of civil law, and was born at Rome towards the end of the fourteenth century.[422] He was educated in his native city, and when he had attained the age of twenty-four years he offered himself as a candidate for the office of apostolic secretary, which, as he himself asserts, he was prevented from obtaining by the intrigues of Poggio.[423] Quitting Rome in consequence of his disappointment, he repaired to Piacenza for the purpose of receiving an inheritance which had devolved to him on the recent death of his grandfather and his uncle.[424] From Piacenza he removed to Pavia, in the university of which city he for some time read lectures on rhetoric.[425] The history of the transactions in which he was engaged immediately after his removal from Pavia is involved in considerable obscurity. But it is clearly ascertained, that about the year 1435 he was honoured by the patronage of Alfonso, king of Naples, whom he appears to have accompanied in his warlike expeditions. Soon after the translation of the pontifical court from Florence to Rome in the year 1443, Valla returned to his native city. His residence in Rome was not, however, of long continuance. About the time of the dissolution of the council of Florence, he had written a treatise to prove the erroneousness of the commonly received opinion, that the city of Rome had been presented to the sovereign pontiffs by the emperor Constantine.[426] The officious malice of some fiery zealots having apprized Eugenius IV. of the nature and object of this treatise, the wrath of that pontiff was kindled against its author, who, being obliged to fly from the rage of religious bigotry, took refuge in Naples, where he was kindly received by his royal protector.

During his residence in Naples, Valla delivered public lectures on eloquence, which were attended by crowded audiences. But the imprudence of his zeal in the correction of vulgar errors in matters of theological belief again involved him in dangers and difficulties. He appears to have possessed that superiority of intellect above his contemporaries, which, when united to a warm temper and a propensity to disputation, never fails to draw down upon the inquisitive the hatred of fanaticism. In the pride of superior knowledge, he provoked the indignation of the bishop of Majorca, by asserting that the pretended letter of Christ to Abgarus was a forgery.[427] In aggravation of this heresy, he had moreover derided the assertion of a preaching friar, who had inculcated upon his audience the commonly received notion, that the formulary of faith, generally known by the name of the apostles’ creed, was the joint composition of those first heralds of salvation.[428] The freedom with which he descanted upon these delicate topics of dispute exposed him to the utmost peril. His enemies publicly arraigned him before a spiritual tribunal, where he underwent a strict examination; and it is very probable, that had not Alfonso interposed the royal authority on his behalf, not even a recantation of his imputed errors would have saved him from the severe punishment which the atrocity of religious bigotry has allotted to those who deviate from the narrow line of orthodox faith.[429]

Theology was not the only subject of investigation which involved Valla in altercation and strife. Literary jealousy kindled the flame of hostility between him and Beccatelli, whom he attacked in a violent invective. With Bartolomeo Facio also he maintained a controversy, in the course of which he manifested the utmost bitterness of spirit.[430]

When Nicolas V. had ascended the papal throne, Valla received from that liberally-minded pontiff an invitation to fix his residence in Rome. He accordingly repaired to the pontifical court, where he was honourably received, and employed in translating the Greek authors into the Latin tongue.[431] Soon after his arrival in Rome, the following circumstance gave rise to the irreconcilable enmity which took place between him and Poggio. A Catalonian nobleman, a pupil of Valla, happened to be possessed of a copy of Poggio’s epistles. This book having fallen into Poggio’s hands, he observed on its margin several annotations, pointing out alleged barbarisms in his style. Fired with indignation at this attack upon his Latinity, and precipitately concluding that the author of these criticisms could be no other than Valla himself, whose _Libri Elegantiarum Linguæ Latinæ_ had gained him the reputation of an acute grammarian, he had immediate recourse to his accustomed mode of revenge, and assailed the supposed delinquent in a fierce invective. In this work he accused Valla of the most offensive arrogance, which, as he asserted, was manifested in his animadversions on the style of the best classic authors. Poggio then proceeded to examine and to defend the passages which had been noted with reprobation in the young Catalonian’s copy of his epistles. Collecting courage as he proceeded, he arraigned at the bar of critical justice several forms of expression which occur in Valla’s _Elegantiæ_. Alluding to Valla’s transactions in the court of Naples, he impeached him of heresy both in religion and philosophy, and concluded his strictures by the sketch of a ridiculous triumphal procession, which, as he asserted, would well befit the vanity and folly of his antagonist.[432]

In the course of a little time after the publication of this invective, Valla addressed to Nicolas V. an answer to it, under the title of _Antidotus in Poggium_. In the introduction to this defence of himself, he asserted, that Poggio had been stimulated to attack him by envy of the favourable reception which his _Elegantiæ_ had received from the public. Adverting to the advanced age of his opponent, he addressed to him a long and grave admonition on the acerbity of his language. After a sufficient quantity of additional preliminary observations, Valla proceeded to rebut the charge which Poggio had brought against him. He asserted, that the critic who had given such offence to the irritable secretary was the above-mentioned Catalonian nobleman, who, taking umbrage at an expression derogatory to the taste of his countrymen, which occurred in one of Poggio’s epistles, had avenged himself by making some cursory strictures on his style.[433] By shewing that the criticisms in question by no means agreed with the principles inculcated in his _Elegantiæ_, and by other internal evidence, Valla proved almost to demonstration, that he himself had no part in the animadversions which had excited so much animosity. Having thus repelled the imputation of a wanton and insidious aggression, he proceeded to shew, that he had not abstained from criticising the works of Poggio on account of their freedom from faults, by entering upon a most minute and rigid examination of their phraseology; an examination in which he gave ample proof how acute is the eye of enmity, and how peculiarly well qualified a rival is to discover the errors of his competitor.

Had Valla in his _Antidotus_ restrained himself within the limits of self-defence, he would have gained the praise due to the exercise of the virtue of forbearance: had he proceeded no farther in offensive operations than to impugn the style of his opponent, he would have been justified in the opinion of mankind in general, as exercising the right of retaliation. But by attacking the moral character of Poggio,[434] he imprudently roused in the fiery bosom of his adversary the fierceness of implacable resentment, and provoked him to open wide the flood-gates of abuse. In a second invective Poggio maintained, that if it were true that the Catalonian youth wrote the remarks which were the subject of his complaint, he wrote them under the direction of Valla. Indignantly repelling the charge of envy, he remarked, that so notorious a fool as Valla, the object of contempt to all the learned men of Italy, could not possibly excite that passion. After noticing the imprudence of his antagonist in provoking an inquiry into his own moral character, he proceeded circumstantially to relate divers anecdotes, which tended to fix upon Valla the complicated guilt of forgery,[435] theft, ebriety, and every species of lewdness. Recurring to the charge of heresy, he referred to various passages in Valla’s writings, which contained sentiments contradictory to the orthodox faith. In fine, he arraigned the supposed infidel before an imaginary tribunal, which he represented as without mercy condemning him to the infernal regions.

In reply to this second attack, Valla renewed and maintained his protestation, that he had not been the aggressor in the present contest. In contradiction to Poggio’s assertion, that he was an object of dislike to the scholars of Italy, he quoted several complimentary epistles which he had on various occasions received from men distinguished by their learning. He also exposed the disingenuousness of his adversary, who had branded him with the imputation of heresy, on the ground of certain sentiments, which did indeed occur in his works, but which he had advanced, not in his own character, but in that of an Epicurean philosopher, whom he had introduced as an interlocutor in a dialogue. As to the scandalous stories which Poggio had related to the disparagement of his good name, he solemnly asserted, that the greater part of them had not the least foundation in truth, and that the remainder were gross and wilful misrepresentations of facts;[436] and in the true spirit of retaliation, he narrated concerning Poggio a number of anecdotes equally scandalous, and in all probability equally false, as those of the circulation of which he himself complained. On the publication of this second part of the _Antidotus_, Poggio, returning to the charge, annoyed his foe in a third invective, in which, pursuing the idea of Valla’s having been condemned to the infernal regions, he accounted for his appearance on earth, by informing his readers, that on the culprit’s arrival in hell, a council of demons was summoned to decide upon his case; and that in consideration of the essential wickedness of his character, they had permitted him, after solemnly swearing allegiance to Satan, to return to earth for the purpose of gratifying his malevolent dispositions, by effecting the perdition of others.[437]

Before Valla had seen this narration of his transactions in the kingdom of darkness, he was provoked, by the account which he had received of its tenor, to prosecute his criticisms on Poggio’s phraseology. These criticisms stimulated Poggio to renew hostilities in a fourth and a fifth invective. The former of these compositions has not yet been committed to the press. The latter abounds in those flowers of eloquence, of which specimens perhaps more than sufficiently ample have been already presented to the reader.

The heat of altercation between Poggio and Valla was inflamed by the interference of Niccolo Perotti, a pupil of the latter, who attacked Poggio with great virulence. Poggio was not tardy in replying to this new antagonist. If we may judge of the nature of his invective against Perotti, by a short extract from it, which occurs in Bandini’s catalogue of the manuscripts of the Laurentian library, it was not at all inferior in acrimony to his other compositions of a similar nature.[438] A friendly and sensible letter of admonition, which Francesco Filelfo addressed to the belligerent parties, exhorting them to consult for their own dignity, by ceasing to persecute each other with obloquy, is a memorable instance how much easier it is to give wholesome advice than to set a good example.[439]

The foregoing traits of the history of literature prove, that we must receive with some grains of allowance the doctrine of the amiable Ovid, when he asserts that,

—“Ingenuas didicisse fideliter artes
Emollit mores nec sinit esse feros.”

It is indeed a most lamentable truth, that few quarrels are more violent or implacable than those which are excited by the jealousy of literary rivalship, and that the bitterest vituperative language on record occurs in the controversial writings of distinguished scholars. Several causes concur in producing this unhappy effect. It is of the very essence of extraordinary talents to advance to extremes. In men whose ardent minds glow with the temperature of genius, whether the flame be kindled by the scintillation of love or of enmity, it burns with impetuous fury. The existence of many scholars, and the happiness of the great majority of the cultivators of literature, depend upon the estimation in which they are held by the public. Any assertion or insinuation, therefore, derogatory to their talents or acquirements, they consider as a dangerous infringement upon their dearest interests, which the strong principle of self-preservation urges them to resent. The objects upon which we employ a considerable portion of our time and labour acquire in our estimation an undue degree of importance. Hence it happens, that too many scholars, imagining that all valuable knowledge centers in some single subject of study to which they have exclusively devoted their attention, indulge the spirit of pride, and arrogantly claim from the public a degree of deference, which is by no means due to the most successful cultivator of any single department of science or of literature. And in the literary, as well as in the commercial world, undue demands are resentfully resisted; and amongst scholars, as amongst men of the world, pride produces discord. Learned men are also too frequently surrounded by officious friends, whose ignorant enthusiasm of attachment betrays them into a kind of idolatry, which is productive of the most mischievous consequences to its object. They who are accustomed to meet with a blind and ready acquiescence in their opinions, in the obsequious circle of their partizans, become impatient of contradiction, and give way to the impulse of anger, when any one presumes to put their dogmas to the test of unreserved examination. The flame of resentment is fanned by the foolish partiality by which it was originally kindled; and the noblest energies of some mighty mind are perverted to the maintenance of strife, and the infliction of pain. The operation of these causes produces many striking proofs, that learning and wisdom are by no means identical, and that the interpreter of the sublimest morals may become the miserable victim of the meanest passions which rankle in the human breast.

In the inaugural oration which Poggio addressed to Nicolas V. he intimated, that it was his earnest desire to dedicate his declining years to literary pursuits. This was not a mere profession. Availing himself of the considerate kindness of the heads of the Florentine republic, who, in consideration of the respect due to his advanced age and to his literary acquirements, excused him from any other task than a general superintendence of the business of his office, he continued to prosecute his studies with his accustomed ardour.[440] The first fruits of his lucubrations after his final settlement in the Tuscan capital appeared in a dialogue, _De Miseriâ humanæ conditionis_, or, on the wretchedness incident to humanity, which he dedicated to Sigismundo Malatesta, Lord of Rimini, and commander in chief of the Florentine forces. In this dialogue, Poggio proposed to relate the substance of a conversation which took place between the accomplished Matteo Palmerio,[441] Cosmo de’ Medici, and himself, in consequence of the serious reflections which occurred to some of Cosmo’s guests, on the intelligence of the capture of Constantinople by the Turks. Almost every species of distress which awaits the sons of men passes in review in the course of this work. Here the dark side of human life is industriously displayed, and the serious lessons of humility and self-discipline are inculcated in a feeling and forcible manner. But even in this grave disquisition, Poggio could not refrain from exercising his wonted severity upon the ascetics and cœnobites, who had so often smarted under the merciless lashes of his satire.[442]

This dialogue contains a record of the miserable end of Angelotto, cardinal of St. Mark. This avaricious ecclesiastic was murdered by one of his own domestics, who was tempted to perpetrate this execrable deed by the hope of plundering his master’s hoarded treasures. When the assassin imagined that he had accomplished his purpose, he left the chamber, where the cardinal lay weltering in his blood, and called aloud for assistance. The relations and servants of Angelotto immediately crowded into the apartment accompanied by the murderer, who, affecting to be overwhelmed with grief, took his station at the window. He was, however, not a little startled on observing, that in his trepidation he had not completely effected his wicked intentions. The cardinal still breathed, and, though unable to speak, he pointed to the assassin. The villain endeavoured to divert the attention of the bye-standers from the true meaning of this sign, by exclaiming, “See! he intimates that the murderer came into the house through this window.” This ingenious interpretation of his dying master’s gestures did not, however, avert from him the punishment due to his crime. He was arrested and tried, and after having made a full confession of his guilt, he expiated his offence by the forfeit of his life.[443]

Soon after the publication of his dialogue _De Miseriâ humanæ conditionis_, Poggio transmitted to Cosmo de’ Medici a version of Lucian’s _Ass_, on which he had bestowed a few of his days of leisure. By the circulation of this version he wished to establish a point of literary history, which seems to have been till then unknown, namely, that Apuleius was indebted to Lucian for the stamina of his _Asinus Aureus_. It is a sufficient proof of the merit of Poggio’s translation of Lucian’s romance, that Bourdaloue has adopted it in his edition of the works of that entertaining author.

The last literary production which exercised the talents of Poggio was the History of Florence, a work for the composition of which he was peculiarly well qualified, not only by his skill in the Latin language, but also on account of the means of information which were afforded to him by the office which he held in the administration of the civil affairs of the Florentine republic. This history, which is divided into eight books, comprehends a most important and interesting portion of the annals of Tuscan independence, embracing the events in which the Florentines bore a share, from the period of the first war which they waged with Giovanni Visconti, in the year 1350, to the peace of Naples, which took place in 1455. It has been justly observed, that in his _Historia Florentina_, Poggio aims at higher praise than that of a mere chronicler of facts, and that he enlivens his narrative by the graces of oratory. In imitation of the ancient historians, he frequently explains the causes and the secret springs of actions, by the medium of deliberative speeches, which he imputes to the principal actors in the scenes which he describes. His statement of facts is clear and precise; in the delineation of character, which is an important and difficult part of the duty of the historian, he evinces penetration of judgment and skill in discrimination. Though the extent of territory to the history of which his narration is confined be circumscribed by very narrow limits, his work is by no means destitute of the interest which arises from the description of protracted sieges, bold achievements, and bloody encounters. He has been accused of suffering his partiality to his native country to betray him into occasional palliations of the injustice of his fellow-citizens, and into false imputations against their enemies. This accusation has been briefly couched in the following epigram, written by the celebrated Sannazaro.

“Dum patriam laudat, damnat dum Poggius hostem,
Nec malus est civis, nec bonus historicus.”

It may, however, be remarked, that supposing this accusation to be supported by unequivocal evidence, the advocate of Poggio might plead in his excuse the general frailty of human nature, which renders it almost impossible for a man to divest himself of an overweening affection for the land of his nativity. But it must be observed, that the impeachment in question is founded upon a very few passages in the History of Florence, and that it comes from a suspicious quarter—from the citizens of those states, the political conduct of which Poggio marks with disapprobation.

Poggio’s History of Florence was translated into Italian by his son, Jacopo. This version, being committed to the press, for a long space of time superseded the original, which was confined to the precincts of the Medicean library till the year 1715, at which period Giovanni Battista Recanati, a noble Venetian, published it in a splendid form, and enriched it with judicious notes, and with a life of Poggio, the accuracy of which causes the student of literary history to lament its brevity.[444]

The consideration of the great extent of the History of Florence places in a striking point of view the industry and courage of its author, who, in defiance of the infirmities of old age, possessed the energy of mind to meditate, and the diligence to execute, a work of such magnitude. Before, however, it had received the last polish, the earthly labours of Poggio were terminated by his death. This event occurred on the 30th of October, 1459. On the second of November ensuing his remains were interred with solemn magnificence in the church of Santa Croce, in Florence.

The respect which the administrators of the Tuscan government entertained for the virtues of Poggio, induced them readily to comply with the pious wishes of his sons,[445] who requested permission to deposit his portrait, painted by Antonio Pollaiuolo, in a public hall denominated the Proconsolo. His fellow-citizens also testified their grateful sense of the honour which his great accomplishments had reflected on his country, by erecting a statue to his memory, on the front of the church of Santa Maria del Fiore.[446]