civilized countries, and by every succeeding age.55 It is true, some modern authors have endeavoured to throw doubts even upon this subject, and have indirectly questioned, or boldly denied the superiority of his pretensions, as a patron of letters, to those of the other sovereigns of the age. "It is well known," says one of these writers, "what censure attaches to the character of Leo X. for having favoured and rewarded musicians and poets, in preference to theologians and professors of the law; whilst the glory of having revived and promoted the studies of polite literature, is to be attributed rather to the pontiffs, his predecessors, and to his own ancestors, than either to himself or to his cousin Clement VII."'56 "I observe," says another eminent literary historian, "that these times are generally distinguished as THE AGE OF LEO THE TENTH; but I cannot perceive why the Italians have agreed to restrict to the court of this pontiff that literary glory which was common to all Italy." "It is not my intention," adds he, "to detract a single particle from the praises due to Leo X. for the services rendered by him to the cause of literature. I shall only remark, that the greater part of the Italian princes of this period might with equal right pretend to the same honour; so that there is no particular reason for conferring on Leo the superiority over all the rest."57 After the pages which have been already devoted to enumerate the services rendered by Leo X. to all liberal studies, by the establishment of learned seminaries, by the recovery of the works of the ancient writers, and the publication of them by means of the press, by promoting the knowledge of the Greek and Latin languages, and by the munificent encouragement bestowed by him on the professors of every branch of science, of literature, and of art, it would surely be as superfluous to recapitulate his claims, as it would be unjust to deny his pretensions to an eminent degree of positive merit.58 How far he was rivalled in his exertions 55 "Quantum Romani Pontificis fastigium inter reliquos mortales eminet, tantum Leo inter Romanos pontifices excellit," says Erasmus, lib. i. ep. 30. 56 Denina, Revoluzione d'Italia, lib. xxi. cap. 12, nel fine. 57 Andres, dell' Origine, &c. d'Ogni Letturatura, vol. i. p. 380. 58 For some observations on this subject the reader may consult the notes of Count Bossi in Ital. Ed. vol. xii. p 136, &c.* was rivalled in in these commendable pursuits, by the other princes of his time, is a question which has not hitherto been particuHow far Leo larly discussed. If, however, for this purpose, we take a general view of the states of Italy, or even of Europe, and compare the efforts made by their sovereigns with those of Leo X., we shall find little cause to accede to the opinion so decisively advanced. In Naples, with the expulsion of the family of Aragon, and the introduction of the Spanish government, the literary constellation which had shone so bright at the close of the preceding century, suddenly disappeared, and left that unfortunate and distracted country in almost total darkness. The vicissitudes to which the city and territories of Milan had been exposed, and the frequent change of its sovereigns, had effectually prevented that place from being considered as a safe asylum for either the muses or the arts; and even the character of the princes of the house of Sforza, in the time of Leo X., as displayed during the short period in which they held the sovereignty, exhibited few proofs of that predilection for literature, by which some of their ancestors had been distinguished. Although the city of Venice was further removed from the calamities of the time, yet the continental territories of that state had suffered all the horrors of warfare; and even the capital derives more celebrity, in the estimation of the present day, from its having been fixed upon by Aldo for the establishment of his press, than from the literary character of its inhabitants.59 The family of Gonzaga, the sovereigns of Mantua, have justly been distinguished as eminent patrons of learning; but the inferiority of their resources, which were exhausted by military expeditions, and the narrow limits of the theatre of their exertion, prevent their being 59 For a more favourable account of the state of literature at Venice, I think it incumbent on me to refer to the statement of Bossi, who has alleged, in addition to his own opinion, that of my late excellent and learned correspondent, the Cav. Morelli, who has in several of his works vindicated the claims of that republic to a high degree of literary merit. In admitting to a certain extent the validity of these claims, I shall not greatly weaken my argument, which, strictly speaking, applies only to individuals, and not to aggregate bodies; and besides, the Venetians may be admitted to have had a considerable share in the early promotion of literature, without being allowed to have rivalled, in that respect, Leo X. Vide Ital. Ed vol. xii. p. 138.* placed in any degree of competition with Leo X. On the death of Guidubaldo, duke of Urbino, in the year 1508, and the accession of his successor, Francesco Maria della Rovere, that court changed its character; and after the expulsion of the duke by Leo X., in the year 1516, the duchy of Urbino may be considered as composing, like the Tuscan state, a part of the dominions of Leo X. Of all the principalities of Italy, Ferrara is the only one that had any pretensions to contend with the pontifical see in the protection and encouragement afforded to men of talents, learning, and wit, and the possession of Ariosto alone, is an advantage not to be counterbalanced by any individual of the Roman court; yet the patronage conferred on this great man by the family of Este, was so scanty, as to have supplied him with frequent subjects of remonstrance and complaint. As a patron of learning, Alfonso was greatly inferior to many of his predecessors, and he was indebted for his glory rather to his military exploits, than to his successful cultivation of the arts of peace. During his avocations or his absence, the encouragement of literature devolved, with the care of his states, on his duchess Lucrezia, to whom is to be attributed no small share of the proficiency made in liberal studies during the times in which she lived. Nor is there any person of the age who is better entitled to share with Leo X. in the honours due to the restorers of learning, than the accomplished, but calumniated daughter of Alexander VI. Still less pretensions than the Italian potentates have the other sovereigns of Europe to participate in or to diminish the glory of Leo X. The cold and crafty policy of Ferdinand of Spain, and he vanity, imbecility, and bigotry of the emperor elect, Maximilian, were ill adapted to the promotion, or the toleration, of liberal studies;60 and their 60 Mr. Archdeacon Cose, after noticing the present work, in a manner which demands my sincere acknowledgments, has remarked, that I, like Robertson and Hume, "have treated the character of Maximilian I. with unmerited contempt; and that, being misled by their authorities, by the prejudices of the Italian historians, and by the fluctuation of his conduct in the Italian states, I have depicted him without a single virtue or good quality."-Hist. of the House of Austria, vol. i. p. 443. On this I may be allowed to observe, that the only instances in youthful successor, Charles V., and his rival, Francis I., were too much engaged in hostilities against each other, to allow them at this time to afford that encouragement to letters and to arts, which they manifested at a subsequent period. The most munificent, as well as the most learned monarch of his time, was Henry VIII., under whose auspices England vigorously commenced her career of improvement; but the unaccountable versatility, and unrelenting cruelty of his disposition, counteracted in a great degree the effects of his liberality; and it was not until the more tranquil days of his daughter Elizabeth, that these kingdoms rose to that equality with the other states of Europe in the cultivation of science and of literature, which they have ever since maintained. That an astonishing proficiency in the improvement of the human intellect was made during the pontificate of Conclusion. Leo X. is universally allowed. That such proficiency is principally to be attributed to the exertions of that pontiff, will now perhaps be thought equally indisputable. Of the predominating influence of a powerful, an accomplished, or a fortunate individual on the character and manners of the age, the history of mankind furnishes innumerable instances; and happy is it for the world, when the pursuits which I have had occasion to advert to the character of this sovereign, have been in connexion with the affairs of Italy, in which Mr. Coxe himself candidly admits that his conduct was fluctuating; and if, in this opinion, I am also supported by Hume and Robertson, I cannot be supposed to have deviated far from the truth. On this head the German edition of the present work exhibits a much longer critique by Mr. Henke, who is of opinion, (Germ. Ed. vol. iii. p. 500,) that before we can positively decide on the relative merits of Leo X. and the other sovereigns of the time, as promoters of science and literature, a further investigation would be necessary. In bringing forwards the exertions of Maximilian I. in this respect, as described by Frommanni, (Comment. de Maxim. I. in Rem Literariam meritis, p 632) Mr. Henke has not, however, thought proper to place them in any degree of competition with those of Leo X. On the contrary, he has, at considerable length, stated the reasons why Leo X. was enabled to render greater services to the cause of literature than it was in the power of Maximilian to do; thereby admitting all that I have ventured to contend for. I would willingly, with Mr. Henke, give every merit its crown," but I cannot, for that reason, assent to the opinion of Denina, that the glory of having revived and promoted the studies of polite literature is to be attributed rather to the predecessors of Leo X. than to himself; nor to that of the Abate Andres, that the greater part of the Italian princes of the period might, with equal right, aspire to the same honour; and that, therefore, there is no particular reason for conferring on Leo the superiority over the rest, or for characterizing these times as THE AGE OF LEO X.* 66 |