FOOTNOTES:
[294] F. Nitti, Leo X. e la sua politica (1892), seeks to defend Leo against the charge of excessive nepotism. He strains the evidence at times, and quite admits that duplicity was the essential feature of the Pope's policy. See also his Documenti ed osservazioni riguardanti la politica di Leone X. (1893). A biography of Leo was written by the contemporary Bishop of Nocera, Paolo Giovio, but this Vita Leonis X. is the work of a courtier. Guicciardini (Storia d'Italia), Sanuto (Diarii), and Bembo (Opere) are more critical, and the letters of the Roman ambassadors are valuable. P. de Grassis, Master of Ceremonies at the Papal Court under Julius and Leo, wrote a Diary of Leo X., but there seems to be some reluctance to publish it. The work published by Armellini (Il diario di Leone X., 1884) is merely a discreet compendium of it. Fabroni's Leonis X. Vita is too ancient (1797), and The Medici Popes (1908) by H.M. Vaughan, is an excellent popular work. Roscoe's stately Life and Pontificate of Leo X. (1805) is too flattering to its hero and is discredited in places by more recent research.
[295] Sanuto, Diarii, xviii.
[296] Guicciardini, xii. There is a copy of his Spanish treaty in the State archives at Florence.
[297] The instruction is reproduced by Nitti, p. 61. As the document adds that Leo will not allow any prince, "even were it his own brother," to hold "both the head and the tail of Italy" (Milan and Naples), Nitti and Pastor claim that it shows that nepotism was not the key-note of Leo's policy. It seems strange that, in view of all his admitted duplicity, they can take seriously this phrase of the Pope's. We may admit, however, that the security of the Papal States was the Pope's first consideration.
[298] Dr. Pastor (viii., 81) is here less candid than usual. He says that "Giovio passes over the whole truth of the accusations brought against the moral conduct of Leo X.," whereas the Bishop of Nocera devotes several very curious pages to the subject (lib. iv., pp. 96-99 in the 1551 edition of the Vita Leonis X.) and ends with a reminder that we can never be quite sure about the secrets of the chamber and an assurance that Leo was at all events less guilty than other Italian princes. The courtly writer seems to me convinced that Leo was addicted to unnatural vice. Vaughan, on the other hand, is wrong in saying that Giovio alone mentioned these vices. Guicciardini (lib. xvi., c.v., p. 254, in the 1832 edition of the Storia d'Italia), in the course of a sober characterization of Leo, says that he was generally believed to be chaste before his election, but he was "afterwards found to be excessively devoted to pleasures which cannot be called decent."
[299] It is sometimes pointed out, rather in the way of merit, that Leo received less than some of his predecessors by the issue of indulgences. It was not from want of will on his part.
[300] In Cœna Domini, March 28th.
[301] The situation in England does not call for consideration in this chapter. Henry VIII. wrote against Luther and, in presenting his book to the Pope, requested a title analogous to that of "the most Catholic King." By a Bull of October 26, 1521, Henry received the title of "Defender of the Faith," which his successors retain.