Chapter IX: Part 9

Whatever might be the views of the duke in this affair, not many months had elapsed after the occurrence of this interchange of suspicious civility, before he found that the privileged walls of the palace of Milan could not protect a literary delinquent from the rage of scholastic vengeance; and that the interposition of his patronage could not deter Poggio from reiterating his attacks upon Francesco Filelfo. It has been already related, that this wandering professor, when he was compelled to fly from Florence, withdrew to Siena, where he arrived early in the year 1435. In this city he commenced a series of lectures on rhetoric, for which he was remunerated by the payment of an annual salary of three hundred and fifty gold crowns.[326] His literary labours were however disturbed by the apprehensions which he entertained of the machinations of his adversaries. But his fears for his personal safety did not restrain the intemperance of his pen. On the thirteenth of August, 1437, he transmitted to one of his friends, named Pietro Pierleoni, a new satire against Poggio and Cosmo de’ Medici. Soon after the publication of this satire, he visited the baths of Petriolæ, where he had not long resided before he received a letter from Siena, informing him that a man of a very suspicious appearance had been making minute inquiries into his present situation and habits of life. On the receipt of this letter Filelfo returned to Siena, where he soon recognized in the person in question, the ruffian who had formerly made an attack upon him in the streets of Florence. He immediately gave the necessary information to the captain of the city guard. This officer without loss of time apprehended the villain, from whom, according to the barbarous practice of the times, he endeavoured to extract a declaration of the object of his visit to Siena by the pains of the rack. By this uncertain mode of investigation, the prisoner was compelled to confess, that he came to that city for the purpose of assassinating Filelfo. The captain of the guard did not deem it necessary to inquire whether any person had suborned him to perpetrate so execrable a deed; but the ready conjecture of Filelfo fixed upon the Medici an imputation, which a direct interrogatory ably introduced on a new distension of his sinews, would have induced the wretched Filippo to confirm by a judicial declaration. An acknowledgment of guilt having been thus extorted from the culprit, the captain of the guard proceeded to condemn him to pay a fine of five hundred pounds of silver. Filelfo, not satisfied with this penalty, appealed to the governor of the city, who proceeding upon his recorded confession, punished the offender by cutting off his right hand. Nothing indeed but the earnest request of Filelfo would have prevented the chief magistrate from dooming the wretch to the punishment of death. Filelfo was not, however, prompted by any emotions of compassion to desire that the life of the assassin might be prolonged. “I interfered to prevent his execution,” said he, in a letter to Æneas Sylvius, “because I wished that he should live mutilated and disgraced, rather than that he should be freed by a speedy death from the anguish of a suffering mind. For as it is the duty of a man of a magnanimous spirit to forgive slight offences, so justice and prudence require us to inflict vengeance on a common enemy of the human race.”[327] Filelfo was so much alarmed by the appearance of the Tuscan bravo, that he did not deem himself secure in the precincts of Siena. He accordingly returned from thence to Bologna.[328] After a short residence in that place, in the month of May, 1439, he repaired to Milan, to which city he was attracted by the munificence of the duke.[329] Encouraged by the protection of this powerful patron, he exulted in his security, and proudly bade defiance to his enemies. Mistaking the emotions of wrath for the inspiration of the muse, he poured forth torrent after torrent of abusive verses. Ringing over and over again the changes of virulent scurrility, he renewed his attack upon the person and reputation of Poggio. The vengeance of Poggio was not long dormant. He moved to the combat with the cumbrous artillery of a long invective, in which he continued his invidious strictures on the life and conversation of his adversary. Adverting in the beginning of this composition to the scandalous imputations which had been aimed at him by Filelfo, he thus compared his own history with that of his antagonist. “Of myself I shall only say, that in consequence of these crimes which you impute to me, I have lived with honour and dignity in the service of seven successive pontiffs, from whom I have experienced the most satisfactory proofs of their kind regard; whilst you, adorned as you represent yourself to be with virtues, have been wandering about like a Scythian flying from city to city; oppressed with poverty, continually reduced to the necessity of suing for foreign aid, never able to retain a fixed habitation for any length of time; but, like a harpy, spreading such a foul contagion wherever you come, that they who afforded you an asylum were soon compelled to banish you.”[330]—Upbraiding his antagonist with the obscurity of his origin, Poggio affirmed that he was the offspring of an adulterous intercourse between a parish priest and the wife of a rustic, whose hands, he said, were so rough with continual labour, that he was accustomed to use them instead of a curry comb in dressing his horses.[331] Tracing the course of Filelfo’s early life, he noticed his residence in Padua, and his visit to Venice and Constantinople, from all which places he affirmed that he was driven by the infamy of his vices. Narrating his transactions after his return to Italy, he charged him with fraudulently retaining certain books, in payment for which he had received sums of money from Leonardo Giustiniano and Guarino Veronese. He also enumerated many more instances of his alleged dishonesty. Amongst other imputations of this nature, he asserted, that Filelfo, being once admitted into Leonardo Aretino’s library, took advantage of the absence of his host to steal a box of gold rings. He reminded him of the precipitancy of his flight from Florence, and affirmed that he left Siena in disgrace, and fled to Milan in circumstances of the utmost distress. Having exhausted all the topics of obloquy which suggested themselves to his fertile imagination, Poggio concluded his invective with the following peroration. “Since you are conscious that these things are true, I wonder that you do not withdraw from the light, and fly from the aspect of men into some distant solitudes, where the villany of Filelfo is unknown. But your mind, delighting in wickedness and blinded by passion, your obscene manners, your abandoned life, your secret vices, hurry you headlong to your fate, drive you onward by the instigation of the furies, prevent you from profiting by wholesome counsel, and render you insensible of the distinction between right and wrong. As Hercules traversed the world to benefit mankind by his labours, so you have visited every country and climate to disgust them by your vices. Whither would you betake yourself should you be deprived of the countenance of your present patron? You have now wandered like a common mendicant through every district of Italy. What will you do if your present resources fail you? Whose assistance will you implore? To whose protection will you commend yourself? I know what you will do. You will enlist into some army; and, such is your ambition, you will have the vanity to aspire to the chief command. But you will make your exit at the gallows—an exit well befitting a man of your vicious character. For when your patron shall perceive that he does not obtain praise, but ignominy from your ridiculous writings his sentiments will be changed, and he will drag you from your obscene retreat, and inflict upon you the punishment due to your crimes.”[332]

The exhibition of a few specimens of the virulence which distinguished the hostility of these learned gladiators is perhaps necessary to give a true idea of the character of the combatants, and of the times in which they lived. It may also be subservient to another useful purpose. The odious nature of vice, as well as the beauty of virtue, is most strikingly demonstrated by examples; and perhaps nothing will tend more to convince men of the folly of evil speaking, lying, and slandering, than the perusal of the invectives of Poggio, and the satires of Filelfo.

Poggio did not, however, waste the whole of the leisure time which he enjoyed in the retirement of his Tuscan villa, in the disgraceful occupation of bestowing a literary garb on the grossest abuse. At the commencement of the year 1440 he published his dialogue on Nobility, a work which greatly increased his reputation by the luminousness of its method, the elegance of its diction, and the learned references with which it was interspersed. In a short prefatory address, by which he dedicated this dialogue to Gerardo Landriani, bishop of Como, he observed, that it was a remarkable circumstance, that this subject, which opened so wide a field for discussion, had been in a manner neglected by the learned. He professed his conviction of his own inability to do justice to it, but expressed his hopes that his example might induce scholars of more brilliant talents to correct his errors, and to supply his deficiencies.

The interlocutors of this dialogue are Niccolo Niccoli and Lorenzo de’ Medici, the brother of Cosmo. The scene of the conversation is laid in the villa of Poggio, which these lovers of the fine arts had visited for the purpose of inspecting some ancient statues which had been lately conveyed thither from Rome. The sight of these statues arranged in the garden of Poggio’s rural retreat reminds Lorenzo of the manners of the ancient Romans, who, he observes, were accustomed to adorn the halls of their palaces with the effigies of their ancestors, the lustre of whose nobility they imagined reflected honour on themselves. This remark draws from Niccolo a declaration of his opinion, that in founding their fame on the glory of their progenitors, they were greatly deceived, as the seat of true nobility is the mind. Lorenzo, granting the position, that virtue is a source of nobility, affirms that this honour may also be acquired by the ornaments of wealth and dignity. In proof of his assertion, he enlarges on the meaning of the word _nobilis_, shewing, by various quotations from Latin authors, that it is used to signify in general the quality of being remarkable, without any reference to the cause of notoriety. He moreover observes, that the common opinion of men attaches the idea of nobility to eminence of station, splendour of birth, and other adventitious circumstances of a similar nature. Niccolo, replying to this observation, that if the opinion of the vulgar is to be regarded, their ideas are so various upon the subject, that no certain criterion can be derived from them, is desired to enumerate the characteristics of nobility which occur in different countries. In compliance with this request, he thus describes the nobles of his native land. “To begin with the Italians, who have disseminated amongst other nations the arts which adorn human life, what a difference there subsists between the nobility of Naples, of Venice, and of Rome. The Neapolitans, who pride themselves on their patrician dignity, seem to imagine, that nobility consists in the indulgence of idleness and sloth; for they enter into no active pursuits, but live in indolence upon the revenues of their estates. They deem it unbecoming a nobleman to attend to agriculture, or to take any cognizance of the state of his affairs. They spend their time in loitering in the halls of their palaces, or in equestrian exercises. However bad a man’s moral character may be, or however mean his talents, if he be descended from an ancient family, he a ranks amongst the nobility. As to merchandize, they regard it with contempt; and so ridiculous is their pride, that though they be reduced to the most abject state of poverty, they would rather starve than suffer any branch of their family to form a matrimonial alliance with the most opulent tradesman. Nay, so great is their dislike of traffic, that they deem it more honourable to support themselves by robbery, than to gain a livelihood by engaging in any species of commerce. I know a Neapolitan of a most illustrious family, who was regarded by his brother patricians in so degrading a light, because he had exposed to sale a quantity of wine, the produce of his estates, that he experienced the utmost difficulty in marrying his daughter, though he was able to bestow upon her a very large fortune.

“To this absurdity the customs of the Venetians afford a striking contrast. In their state the nobility compose a kind of faction distinct from the body of the people, and are all engaged in merchandize. All those who have discharged public offices, and all the members of the senate, are graced with the honours of nobility. And so vain are they of this distinction, that the foolish and needy son of a foolish and needy father, looks down with disdain upon a plebeian, whatever may be his learning or his worth. The ranks of the Venetian nobility are sometimes recruited in an extraordinary manner. For he who has done any signal service to the state, however culpable may have been the means of which he has made use to promote this end, is immediately enrolled in the list of the patricians.

“The Roman nobles are taught to regard merchandize as a sordid pursuit, and they employ themselves in the cultivation of their lands, and in the breeding of cattle. So far are they from thinking it beneath their dignity to convert their agricultural knowledge into a source of gain, that property thus acquired will raise ignoble families to the honour of noble birth.

“The Florentines seem to have more correct notions of nobility than any of the above-mentioned communities. For amongst us those are accounted noble who are descended from ancient families, and whose ancestors have held distinguished places in the administration of public affairs; but their nobility is by no means dependant upon the nature of their occupation. For some of them engage in merchandize; others live upon the income of their property, and amuse themselves with the rural diversions of hawking and hunting. The Genoese who live on the coast are all indiscriminately engaged in commerce, and their nobility depends upon their origin. The Lombard nobles reside in fortresses built upon the mountains, and, by their predatory excursions, strike terror into the traveller. The nobility of the Terra Firma of Venice live on the revenue of their estates, and spend their time in rural sports. Amongst them, nobility depends upon high descent, and independence of property. Why should I mention other nations whose customs differ but little from our own? The Germans esteem those noble who inherit a patrimony sufficient for their maintenance; and they bestow this title on those formidable plunderers who retire from towns and cities to the security of their castles. Throughout the whole of France the privilege of nobility is held by one uniform tenure. The Gallic lords live in the country, and think it a disgrace for a man of exalted birth to reside in a town. They despise merchants as a vile and abject race of beings. Prodigality and carelessness with regard to futurity they esteem a certain indication of a noble spirit. The nobility of France is continually increased by the accession either of the wealthy, or of the retainers of the great barons. For the sons of merchants and tradesmen who have inherited large fortunes from their fathers, by purchasing an estate and living in the country on its produce, compose an inferior order of nobility, and transmit to their sons all the honours of the aristocracy: and those who have lived in the service of the great barons, by receiving from their liege lords a grant of land, attain to the rank of nobility. The customs of the English are in this respect very similar to those of the French. In Spain nobility is attached to the descendants of ancient houses who are possessed of competent property, whether they reside in cities or in the country.”

Having thus noticed the different ideas of nobility which are entertained in the European states, Niccolo proceeds slightly to animadvert upon the notions of the Asiatics upon this subject; and from this induction of particulars, he draws the general inference, that nobility, in the vulgar acceptation of the term, cannot be traced to any fixed principles. On Lorenzo’s intimating that the title of noble should be granted to all those who are esteemed so by the institutions of their country, Niccolo refuses his assent to this proposition, and proceeds to argue the matter at large with much sound reasoning, proving that nobility does not depend upon externals. Lorenzo in reply to Niccolo adduces the definition of nobility proposed by Aristotle, who asserts in his dialogue on Politics, that the virtuous descendants of virtuous and wealthy ancestors are noble. This definition is examined by Niccolo, who maintains that it is faulty, because a virtuous man does not lose his nobility, should he happen to be deprived of his wealth. In opposition to the opinion of the Stagyrite, he quotes the opinion of Plato and the Stoics, who assert, that true nobility consists in virtue. Lorenzo acknowledges that virtue is requisite to true nobility; but still contends that to complete the idea of this distinction, to virtue must be added those external advantages which render a man conspicuous. Niccolo grants that these are desirable adjuncts; but at the same time adheres to his original position, that purity of moral principle is an indispensable characteristic of genuine nobility, and concludes the conference by inviting the company to enjoy the coolness of the evening in walking along the banks of the river.[333]

Though this dialogue on nobility was received with great applause by the generality of learned men, the description which it contained of the Venetian nobles offended the patriotic pride of Gregorio Coriario, prothonotary of the apostolic see, who remonstrated with Poggio on the unfavourable light in which he had represented the patricians of his country, as a kind of faction distinct from the body of the people, and as being ready to confer the highest civil honours on those who had served their country, even by dishonourable means. In reply to the animadversions of Gregorio, Poggio expressed his wish that he had communicated his dialogue to him previously to its publication, declaring that he would with the utmost readiness have altered or expunged any objectionable passage which might have been pointed out to him. At the same time he endeavoured to palliate the offence which he had committed against the dignity of the Venetian aristocracy, by observing, that he had adopted the word _factio_ merely to express the idea of a class or party of men, in which innocent or indifferent sense it was used by the best Latin authors. As to the second cause of displeasure, he protested that he had made the obnoxious assertion in question upon what he conceived to be good authority, and that he was persuaded that the Venetians had sometimes conferred the honours of nobility upon men of equivocal character. “You ask me,” continued he, “to quote some instance of the occurrence of this circumstance. Believe me, if I recollected any I would rather acknowledge myself in an error, than defend my cause at the expense of any one’s good name. I wish my lucubrations to be favourably received by the public. On this account it is much more my interest to praise than to condemn. I therefore beg that you will freely correct my mistakes, and do not fear exciting my displeasure. I esteem myself greatly indebted to you for that kindness which prompts you to be watchful over my honour, and zealous to prevent me from giving unnecessary offence. Nor must I forget to express the sense which I feel of the modesty and urbanity which render your letter the clear expression of the mildness and gentleness of your manners. _Florence, April 8th, 1440._”[334]

By introducing Lorenzo de’ Medici as an interlocutor in this dialogue, Poggio no doubt intended to preserve to distant times the memory of the familiar terms on which he had lived with one of the most illustrious citizens of Florence.

Lorenzo did not long survive the publication of this testimony of esteem. On the twenty-third of September, 1440, he paid the great debt of nature. In him Poggio was at once deprived of a father, a brother, and a friend—of one who was always ready to sympathize in his cares, and to assist him in his distresses.[335] Whilst Lorenzo lived he was free from anxiety with regard to pecuniary affairs, as in his liberality he constantly found the most copious resources in the hour of need. By the death of this generous benefactor, he was deeply affected; and as soon as his grief would permit him to collect his scattered thoughts, he hastened to celebrate the virtues of his deceased friend, in an eulogium on his character, which he addressed to Carlo Aretino. From this effusion of affectionate esteem, we learn that Lorenzo was endued with the elegance of taste, the liberality of spirit, and the urbanity of manners, which for so long a period distinguished all the branches of his renowned family. His kinsmen no doubt deemed his memory highly honoured by the respectful attendance of Eugenius IV. at his funeral obsequies.[336] But they were probably little aware, that the duteous zeal of an humble secretary would be more conducive to the diffusion and the permanence of his fame, than the splendour of a pontifical procession, or the grandeur of monumental memorials.

CHAP. IX.

_War between the Florentines and the duke of Milan—Treachery and death of Vitelleschi—The duke of Milan makes peace with the Florentines—Death of Niccolo d’Este—Character of his successor, Lionello—Correspondence between Lionello and Poggio—Remarks on the price of books—Eugenius endeavours to drive Sforza from the Marca d’Ancona—He quits Florence—Death of Nicolao Albergato, cardinal of Santa Croce—Poggio’s funeral eulogium on the cardinal—Memoirs of Tommaso da Sarzana—Poggio dedicates to Tommaso his dialogue On the Unhappiness of princes—Analysis of that dialogue—Death of Leonardo Aretino—Funeral honours paid to Leonardo—Gianozzo Manetti’s oration on that occasion—Poggio’s eulogium on Leonardo—Character of Leonardo—Account of Leonardo’s successor, Carlo Marsuppini—Death of cardinal Julian—Poggio’s eulogium on the cardinal._

CHAP. IX.

It has been already observed, that from the tenor of Poggio’s answer to the complimentary letter of the duke of Milan, he appears not to have given implicit credit to that prince’s professions of friendship for the Florentine republic, and that he evidently expected that the restless ambition of Filippo would again kindle the flames of war. Events justified his prognostications. In the year 1439, the administrators of the Tuscan government were so much alarmed by the success of Piccinino, who had invaded the Venetian territories at the head of the Milanese army, that they renewed their alliance with their ancient friends, to whose assistance they sent a considerable body of troops, under the command of Francesco Sforza. The duke of Milan, with the view of compelling the Tuscans to withdraw their forces from Lombardy, directed Piccinino to make an incursion into the territories of Florence. Piccinino accordingly marched through Romagna, and made himself master of several places in the district of Casentino. The duke of Milan expected to have derived considerable assistance in the invasion of the Tuscan territories from Vitelleschi, with whom he had for some time carried on a secret correspondence, and who had, through hatred of the Florentines, engaged to support Piccinino with a powerful body of troops. But the secrecy with which this intrigue had been conducted did not elude the vigilance of the administrators of the Tuscan government. They fortunately intercepted certain letters addressed by the duke to Vitelleschi, which revealed the particulars of the conspiracy. These letters they communicated to the pontiff, who gave immediate orders for the arrest of the perfidious patriarch. As Vitelleschi was then at Rome, the execution of this commission was entrusted to Antonio Rido, the commandant of the castle of St. Angelo. According to the instructions of Eugenius, Vitelleschi was suddenly surrounded by a troop of horse, as he was passing the bridge of St. Angelo, on his way to join the forces which he had destined for the assistance of Piccinino. He was no sooner aware of his danger, than he boldly drew his sword, and endeavoured to cut his way through the soldiers who were sent to secure him. In the conflict he was wounded in the neck, and growing faint with loss of blood, he was overpowered and carried as a prisoner into the castle. On the twentieth day of his confinement he died, as some say of his wounds, according to the report of others, of poison. By whatever means he came to his end, so atrocious were the cruelties which he had committed during the days of his power, that his death occasioned universal joy, and was regarded by thousands as a signal instance of divine retribution.[337]

Piccinino being by this event deprived of all hope of assistance was obliged to depend upon his own exertions. In these circumstances he was not dispirited. The successes which he had experienced in the commencement of the campaign led him to entertain sanguine hopes of crushing the Tuscan republic. But his confidence prepared the way for his discomfiture and disgrace. His rash reliance on the valour and discipline of his troops tempting him to engage the Florentine army under very disadvantageous circumstances, he experienced a total defeat on the twenty-ninth of June, 1440.[338] Nor did better success attend the arms of the duke of Milan in Lombardy. His forces were put to the rout by Francesco Sforza, on the banks of the river Oglio. Disheartened by these losses, Filippo was disposed to an accommodation; and by the mediation of Sforza, peace was again concluded between that prince and his allied enemies in the autumn of the year 1441.[339]

In the preceding year, Niccolo d’Este, marquis of Ferrara, had assiduously endeavoured to bring about this desirable event; and though his mediation was unsuccessful, his friendly interposition served to confirm the honourable character which he had so long sustained—that of the promoter of peace. In such estimation did the duke of Milan hold this virtuous prince, that he invited him to his capital, and entrusted him with the government of his extensive dominions. This mark of confidence was universally regarded as a prelude to the nomination of Niccolo to the ducal throne of Milan; but the hopes which the friends of virtue entertained of witnessing the happy effects resulting from his advancement were destroyed by his death, which took place on the 26th of December, 1441.

The sorrow experienced by the subjects of Niccolo, in consequence of this event, was considerably alleviated by their observation of the extraordinary good qualities of Lionello, his successor. In the contemplation of the purity of morals, the solidity of judgment, and the benevolence of heart, which adorned the character of this exemplary youth, they forgot the illegitimacy of his birth; and when, prompted by an enthusiastic respect for his virtues, they joyfully hailed him as their sovereign, their choice was approved by the suffrages of all the scholars of Italy. Lionello was indeed the favourite theme of the applause of the learned. He not only encouraged the ardour, but participated in the studies of the cultivators of the liberal arts. Under the auspices of Guarino Veronese, he had acquired a profound knowledge of classical literature, which enabled him accurately to appreciate the merits of the candidates for literary fame. The promotion of Lionello to the sovereignty of Ferrara was highly gratifying to the feelings of Poggio. Several years previously to this event, he had been induced by the fame of the elegance of taste which distinguished Lionello’s juvenile compositions, to address to him a letter, in which he highly commended his love of literature, and strenuously exhorted him diligently to pursue those studies which he had so happily begun.[340] The request which he made to this illustrious student to prosecute an inquiry after the lost decads of Livy has been already noticed. The homage which Poggio paid to the talents of Lionello gave rise to an epistolary intercourse, the refraining fragments of which afford a striking specimen of the unreserved friendship and liberal familiarity which a community of studies sometimes produces between persons who occupy very distant stations in the ranks of society. The freedom with which Lionello permitted his learned correspondent to communicate to him his opinions, is conspicuous in a letter addressed by Poggio to Guarino Veronese, requesting him to inform their patron of the surprize and concern which he had experienced on receiving the intelligence of his having bestowed some distinguished honours on an unworthy candidate.[341] Of the character of this candidate Poggio gave his sentiments in the following letter to Lionello himself, which is interesting on account of the information which it contains with respect to the value of books at this period.

“A few days ago there occurred in the chamber of his holiness a discourse on the subject of Jerome’s epistles. Happening to be present on this occasion, I observed, that I had in my possession two very handsome volumes of those epistles; on which one of the company remarked, that he had offered me eighty florins for them, but could not obtain them at that price. To this I replied, that the cardinal of St. Xystus had often importuned me to let him have the volumes in question, for which he would willingly pay me one hundred florins, and think himself obliged by the bargain; and that I should in all probability have sold the books at that price, had I not been prevented by Niccolo Niccoli, who with his accustomed moroseness declared, that by so doing, I should give an a indication of a sordid and abject mind. On this our friend Aurispa said, that you very earnestly wished to add these epistles to your collection, and desired me to sell them to you, assuring me that you would cheerfully pay any price which I should fix upon them. With some reluctance I complied with his request, and I write to inform you, that I am willing to part with the books for the price which has been already offered for them, namely, one hundred ducats. It remains for you therefore to determine whether you will purchase them at that price. It is a matter of indifference to me what your determination may be; for I do not part with the volumes with a view of raising money, but merely through a desire of obliging you. This however I will say, that no person in Italy possesses in the same compass a larger or a more correct collection of epistles than those which are contained in these two volumes.

“Your friend, the knight of Rieti, when he came to this town some time ago to gratify his love of ostentation (for he wished his folly to be known to every body) told a certain citizen of Ferrara, that you had shewn him the letter which I wrote concerning him to Guarino. I do not think that this is the fact; but I wish you would inform me whether in this matter he adheres to his usual practice of lying. On his departure hence he told some persons that he was going to visit his uncle; to others he asserted, that you had nominated him your ambassador at Florence. He would think himself undone were he to utter any thing but falsehood. He must needs be full of truth; for no truth ever passes through his lips.”[342]

Lionello transmitted to Poggio the hundred ducats, at which he appreciated his copy of the epistles of Jerome. He intimated to him, however, that some of the learned men of Ferrara thought the price an extravagant one; and he desired that it might be understood, that in acceding to the terms proposed by his correspondent, he intended to make him a present of the excess above the real value of the book. In reply to these observations, Poggio maintained the correctness of his estimation, in opposition to the judgment of the Ferrarese connoisseurs, which he treated with great contempt; and humorously observed, that he thankfully accepted the gift mentioned by Lionello, not on account of its intrinsic value, but as an earnest of future munificence; “for,” said he, “it is the custom of worthy princes, such as you are, to persevere in what they have well begun.”[343]

If the ducat be estimated at ten shillings English money, the epistles of Jerome were purchased by Lionello at the expense of fifty pounds sterling.[344] From the history of Filelfo it appeals, that at this time the salary of a public professor of literature rarely exceeded four hundred ducats; so that the price of a couple of volumes absorbed one-fourth of the sum which was deemed an adequate annual recompence for the services of a man of consummate learning. The exhibition of these facts will demonstrate the difficulties which obstructed the paths of learning in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. It will also tend to make the modern scholar sensible of the tribute of gratitude which he owes to the inventor of the typographic art.

It was not without considerable reluctance that Eugenius had yielded to Francesco Sforza the dominion of the Marca d’Ancona; and he had long waited with impatience for the occurrence of some favourable opportunity to wrest from that chieftain the territory which he had so unwillingly conceded to him. In the year 1442, he flattered himself that he should be enabled to accomplish this object of his earnest desire. Regnier of Anjou being then closely besieged in the city of Naples by Alfonso of Arragon, had solicited the assistance of Sforza, who dispatched a body of troops to make a diversion in his favour. Eugenius taking advantage of this conjuncture, formally deprived Sforza of the office of Gonfaloniere of the holy see, which he bestowed on his rival Piccinino. In obedience to the orders of his new sovereign, Piccinino immediately invaded the Marca, and made himself master of the city of Todi. This incursion compelled Sforza to withdraw from Naples the forces which he had destined to the relief of Regnier, who after the loss of his capital was compelled to quit Italy, and to retire into Provence.[345] Eugenius seeing Alfonso thus firmly established on the Neapolitan throne, not only agreed to terms of pacification with him, but endeavoured to procure his assistance in depriving their common enemy of the dominion of the Marca. The Florentines, who had constantly entertained very friendly dispositions towards Sforza, openly interposed to counteract the measures which Eugenius had adopted to expel their favourite general from the territories of the church. This political difference gave rise to a coolness between Eugenius and the administrators of the Tuscan government, in consequence of which the pontiff determined to quit the city of Florence, and to repair to Rome. He accordingly set out on his journey on the seventh of March, 1443, and on the ensuing day he arrived at Siena, in which city he continued to reside till the month of September.[346]

Soon after the pontiff’s arrival in Siena, his court was deprived of an illustrious member, by the death of Nicolao Albergato, cardinal of Santa Croce.[347] In this event Poggio was deeply interested, as that eminent ecclesiastic, who was distinguished by his liberal patronage of learned men, had long honoured him with his affectionate esteem. In grateful respect for the memory of his deceased friend, Poggio undertook to record his virtues in a funeral eulogium. From this document it appears, that Nicolao Albergato was a native of Bologna, the descendant of an honourable family. At an early age he dedicated himself to the study of the civil law, in which he made a considerable proficiency. But when he had attained to years of maturity, his religious zeal induced him to bid farewell to the cares of the world, and to enter into the monastic fraternity of the Carthusians. So exemplary was his observance of the severe rules of this strict order, that, soon after his admission into it, he was appointed to the office of superior. The fame of his austerity, his prudence and discretion, having reached his native place, on the occurrence of a vacancy in the episcopal throne of Bologna, his fellow citizens unanimously invited him to preside over their spiritual affairs. It was not without considerable reluctance that he undertook this arduous office, by the discharge of the duties of which he, however, confirmed and increased his reputation. Exerting his utmost endeavours to restrain the licentiousness of the clergy, he studiously set his brethren an example of the most decorous correctness of manners, and of the utmost purity of moral conduct. His charity was diffusive, but discriminating. He assiduously sought for the children of distress, who were induced by the ingenuous emotions of shame to hide their poverty in uncomplaining retirement, and he secretly relieved their wants. His patriarchal virtues attracted the notice of Martin V., who without any solicitation on his part raised him to the dignity of cardinal. After his advancement to this high honour, he was employed by that pontiff and by his successor Eugenius IV. in various negotiations of the greatest importance, in the conduct of which he evinced a degree of skill in the transaction of business, which would have done honour to one who had been from his early youth versed in the active concerns of life. His latter years were years of pain, occasioned by the pangs of an excruciating disease, which he bore with the most exemplary patience, and from which he was relieved by the welcome hand of death, in the sixty-eighth year of his age.[348]

Had the cardinal of Santa Croce been rendered illustrious by no other circumstance, his patronage of Tommaso da Sarzana, who under the appellation of Nicolas V. became one of the brightest ornaments of the pontificate, would have been in itself sufficient to secure to him the praises of posterity. Tommaso was the son of Bartolomeo dei Parentucelli, a professor of arts and of medicine in the city of Pisa. His mother Andreola was a native of Sarzana. He had scarcely attained to the age of seven years, when he experienced an irreparable misfortune in the death of his father. In consequence of this event Andreola removed from Pisa to Sarzana, where she soon consoled herself for the loss of Bartolomeo, in the arms of a second husband. This new connexion was rendered unhappy by the illiberality of her spouse, who looked upon his step-son with a jealous eye, and embittered the days of the unoffending youth, by the harshness of his behaviour towards him. This unfortunate circumstance rendered Andreola very anxious concerning the future destination of her son, which, however, she flattered herself was at length fixed by supernatural interposition.—When Tommaso was about ten years of age he was seized by the plague, by which dreadful malady he was soon reduced to the last extremity. Exhausted with fatigue, occasioned by her unremitting attendance upon her favourite child, Andreola sunk into a disturbed slumber, during the continuance of which an angel seemed to appear before her, and to promise that the object of her care should recover from his disease, if she would promise to dedicate to the priesthood the life which, for this high purpose alone, the mercy of God would vouchsafe to spare. Waking from her dream, Andreola made a solemn vow that she would fulfil the direction of the heavenly messenger—and her child recovered. In pursuance of her sacred engagement, when Tommaso had attained the age of twelve years, she sent him to commence his studies at Bologna. The rigid moroseness of her husband, however, would not permit her to furnish the youthful student with any means of supporting himself. At this feeble age, therefore, the future pontiff was banished from an uncomfortable home, and sent forth into the wide world, with no resources but his genius, his virtues, and the generosity of the benevolent. These apparently inauspicious circumstances called into exertion an energy of mind which cannot be too highly applauded. For the space of six years Tommaso applied himself to his studies with astonishing diligence, and soon made considerable progress in various departments of knowledge. When he had attained his eighteenth year, his literary reputation induced two eminent citizens of Florence to invite him to undertake the education of their children. This invitation Tommaso readily accepted; and from his eighteenth to his twenty-second year, he was engaged in the laborious employment of initiating his pupils in the rudiments of learning. Having at the end of four years from the time of his arrival in Florence, by strict economy, accumulated a sum of money, which he deemed sufficient to enable him to prosecute his studies with advantage, he returned to Bologna. His literary accomplishments had now gained him the countenance of several respectable friends, at whose recommendation he was admitted into the family of Nicolao Albergato, who was then the bishop of that city. By his prudence and good conduct he gained the esteem of his patron, who soon promoted him to the stewardship of his household. In the midst of the multifarious employments which devolved upon him in consequence of his acceptance of this office, Tommaso found leisure to fathom the depths of scholastic theology. When he had attained the age of five-and-twenty, in discharge of his mother’s vow, he enrolled himself in the priesthood. He continued to live in the family of Nicolao Albergato for the space of twenty years, at the end of which period the death of that prelate obliged him to seek a new patron. His well-known virtues soon obtained for him the countenance and support of Gerardo d’Andriani, cardinal of Santa Maria Transtevere. In the suite of this dignitary he accompanied Eugenius to Rome, to which city the papal court was transferred on the twenty-eight of September, 1443. He had not long resided in the pontifical capital before he was distinguished by the favour of Eugenius, who on the death of his second protector took him into his service, and appointed him sub-deacon of the apostolic see, and soon afterwards promoted him to the honourable office of vice-chamberlain.[349]

During his attendance upon the pontiff at Bologna Poggio enjoyed frequent opportunities of becoming thoroughly acquainted with the singular merits of Tommaso, whose proficiency in literature and ingenuous manners had some years before engaged his esteem, and conciliated his affection. Nor was Tommaso insensible of the good qualities of Poggio. A memorial of the mutual regard which subsisted between these able scholars, exists in the dedication of a Dialogue _On the Unhappiness of Princes_, which Poggio published in the year 1440, and which he inscribed to his friend before his virtues had been brought forward to public observation by his acquisition of distinguished honour and great emolument. In this dedication Poggio notices the common error of men, who are so much struck with the pomp and grandeur of the great, that they take it for granted, that power and magnificence confer on their possessors the gift of true felicity. He observes, however, that those who rise above the level of vulgar intellect ought to be convinced that happiness does not depend upon the external blessings of fortune, but that it is the meed of virtuous dispositions. He professes that it is his object to persuade men of this truth; and remarks that a work which is intended to promote this happy end, may with the strictest propriety be addressed to an ecclesiastic, who in the whole course of his conduct has demonstrated, that he has studied to be virtuous, rather than to be rich or great.[350]

After this preface, Poggio proceeds to state, that in the summer of the year in which he followed Eugenius IV. to Florence, to which city the pontiff was banished by the fury of the Roman populace, he happened to pay a visit to Niccolo Niccoli, whose house was the common resort of the learned. Here he found Carlo Aretino and Cosmo de’ Medici, with whom he entered into conversation on the politics of Italy. After having recounted to his friends the hardships which he had lately suffered when he was taken captive by the soldiers of Piccinino, he complained of the unsettled life which he led in consequence of his attendance upon the Roman court, which in the course of thirty-four years that had elapsed since his admission into the pontifical chancery, had never continued for two years together in the same place. On this Carlo Aretino remarked, that Poggio was discontented with a situation which the generality of men regard as an object of envy, since the pontiffs and their superior servants are usually deemed masters of every circumstance necessary to the insurance of a happy life. In consequence of this observation, Niccolo Niccoli gave it as his opinion, that whatever advantages the attendants and courtiers of great potentates may derive from the control which they acquire over public affairs, princes themselves lead a life of anxiety and care, and endure all the inconveniences, whilst others reap all the benefits of empire. Such is the introduction to the Dialogue _On the Unhappiness of Princes_, in the body of which Niccolo Niccoli is represented as detailing the miseries of exalted rank. On this copious subject he dilates at considerable length, proving from history that the best princes are liable to the bitterest woes incident to human nature. Gaining courage as he proceeds, he attempts to demonstrate that eminence of station is unfriendly to virtue. Examining the conduct of the most renowned chieftains, both monarchs and demagogues, who have rendered themselves conspicuous in the annals of the world, he impeaches them of avarice, cruelty, intemperance, pride, and unbridled ambition; and appeals to his auditors, whether men who are thus enslaved by their passions, can possibly be deemed happy. Arguing upon the position, that man is the creature of the circumstances in which he is placed, he maintains, that the possession of uncontrolled authority betrays the powerful into vice, inasmuch as it frees them from those salutary restraints which are necessary to the confirmation of good principles. Hence, he observes, it frequently happens, that men who have adorned a private station by their virtues have become the disgrace of human nature when they have been raised to the summit of power.

From this train of argument Niccolo draws the conclusion, that as happiness seems to be banished from the palaces of the great, if she resides any where on earth, she must be found in the abodes of private individuals, who have the wisdom to set bounds to their desires, and to dedicate themselves to the cultivation of their intellectual powers. The conduct of these men he proposes as an object of imitation, and exhorts his friends to the study of those principles of philosophy which will render them happy in themselves, and fearless of the power, and independent of the favours of the great.[351]

Such is the tenor of the Dialogue _On the Unhappiness of Princes_, in which Poggio dwells with so much energy on the vices of exalted rank, that it may reasonably be suspected that resentment and indignation had at least as much influence in its composition as the suggestions of philosophy. In perusing this work, the reader is perpetually led to recollect, that its author was a citizen of a proud republic, and a zealot in the cause of learning. His democratic asperity bursts forth in copious enumerations of the follies and vices of sovereign princes. His literary spleen is discernible in the sarcastic observations which he introduces by the medium of Niccolo Niccoli, on the indifference with which the rulers of Italy regarded his researches after the lost works of the writers of antiquity; in the detail which he gives of the neglect and scorn which Dante, Petrarca, and Bocaccio experienced from the great men of their times; and in the general observations which he makes upon the contempt with which mighty potentates too frequently regard the labours of the learned. The effusions of moroseness which occur in this dialogue are, however, interspersed with precepts of sound morality, and the historic details with which it abounds are at once entertaining and instructive. To which it may be added, that Poggio has exhibited in this composition a striking, and in all probability a correct delineation of the temper and manners of the splenetic, but sagacious disputant Niccolo Niccoli.[352]

This dialogue was not well calculated to conciliate the favour of sovereign princes. But the patronage of the great was not the object of its author’s wishes. It was sufficient for Poggio that it was received with approbation by the learned, and that it secured to him the esteem of Tommaso da Sarzana, and other private individuals, whose kind regard might compensate the depredations made amongst his comforts by the ravages of death. For he was now arrived at that period of life in which man is generally called to experience the severest of trials, in being doomed to survive his friends. He had already lamented the death of Niccolo Niccoli. He had attended, a mournful assistant at the funeral of Lorenzo de’ Medici. Leonardo Aretino was the only associate of his early studies, who was left to sympathize with him in the recollection of their juvenile pleasures. In the strength of Leonardo’s constitution, Poggio fondly hoped that he had an assurance, that the happiness which he derived from his friendly attachment would be prolonged to the close of his own mortal career. But in the commencement of the year 1444, a violent disease suddenly bereft him of the sole surviving companion of his youthful years. In Leonardo he lost not only a kind, but also a powerful friend. Soon after that accomplished scholar had fixed his residence in Florence, he was called by the favour of the people to fill some of the most important offices of the state. By his faithful discharge of the duties of these offices he acquired such a high degree of popularity, that he was at length promoted to the chief magistracy of the Florentine republic.