The life of Poggio Bracciolini

by William Shepherd

The opening of the Dialogue On the Vicissitudes of Fortune is singularly grand and interesting. It exhibits Poggio and his confidential associate, Antonio Lusco, fatigued by the inspection of the remains of Roman magnificence, reposing themselves amidst the venerable ruins of the capitol, which building commands a prospect of almost the whole extent of the city. After Antonio has gazed for a few minutes upon the waste of years, he exclaims with a sigh, “How unlike, Poggio! is this capitol to that which Maro sung, as—

“Chang’d from horrid thorn to glittering gold.”

“The gold has now disappeared, and thorns and briers resume their reign. When I consider our present situation, I cannot but remember how Caius Marius, the pillar of the Roman republic, when he was banished from his country, landed in Africa, and seated himself amidst the ruins of Carthage, where he meditated upon the fate of that city, and could not determine whether he himself or the rival of Rome afforded a more striking spectacle of the instability of human things. But with respect to the devastation of Rome, there is nothing to which it can be compared. The calamity which has befallen the mistress of the world exceeds in magnitude every misfortune recorded in the annals of history.—It is a truly lamentable circumstance, that this city, which formerly produced so many illustrious heroes and commanders, the parent of such signal virtues, the nurse of arts, the inventress of military discipline, the pattern of sanctity, the establisher of laws, the protectress of good morals, the queen of the nations, should now, by the injustice of fortune, not only be stripped of her dignity, but should also be doomed to the most wretched servitude, and should become so deformed and abject, as to exhibit no traces of her former grandeur, except what are to be found in her ruins.”[381] These observations lead Poggio to remark, how wonderfully few are the vestiges of ancient art which remain in the extensive precincts of Rome. Of these vestiges he gives a complete and interesting catalogue, which affords a very minute account of the appearance of the ruins of Rome in the fifteenth century. At the close of this enumeration, Lusco resumes his reflections on the mutability of Fortune, on which Poggio inquires of his friend what he means by that term. In answer to this question, Lusco gives the Aristotelian definition of Fortune, describing it as an accidental cause, and says, that those circumstances happen by Fortune which happen to man contrary to his design and intention. To this definition he observes that Aquinas accedes. Poggio, remarking that we speak of the good fortune of Alexander or Cæsar, though they laid plans to accomplish what they effected, objects to the foregoing definition, in the place of which Antonio substitutes another, which attributes events that are commonly esteemed fortuitous to the over-ruling providence of God. After this preliminary conversation, Poggio proceeds briefly to recount some ancient examples of the mutability of fortune, and then describes the astonishing success of the arms of Tamerlane, and the calamities of Bajazet. He then requests Antonio to detail some of the more modern instances of a calamitous reverse of circumstances. With this request Lusco complies, and the instances which he recounts occupy the whole of the second book of the Dialogue, in which various changes which had taken place in different parts of Europe, and particularly in Italy, from the year 1377 to the period of the death of Martin V. are narrated with great perspicuity and elegance.—The third book comprises an entertaining epitome of the history of Italy during the pontificate of Eugenius IV. The fourth book is not strictly relevant to the subject of this dialogue, and ought to be considered as a separate and detached composition. It contains an account of Persia and India, which Poggio collected from the narrative of Niccolo Conti, a Venetian, who in the course of a peregrination of twenty-five years, had penetrated into the regions situated beyond the Ganges. This bold adventurer having, during his residence in Arabia, been obliged to abjure the Christian faith, immediately after his return to Italy repaired to the pontifical court to solicit from Eugenius IV. the remission of his sin of apostacy. On this occasion Poggio procured from him an account of his route, and of his observations on the manners, customs, and natural history of the eastern nations. This account he digested into a narrative, which will be found not a little amusing by the modern inquirer, and must have excited an extraordinary degree of attention at the time of its publication.

The Dialogue On the Vicissitudes of Fortune is the most interesting of the works of Poggio. It inculcates maxims of sublime philosophy, enforced by a detail of splendid and striking events. The account which it contains of the changes which took place in Italy at the end of the fourteenth, and at the commencement of the fifteenth centuries, presents a succinct and clear view of the politics of that period; and the journey of the Venetian traveller merits the attentive perusal of the curious inquirer into the history of man.[382]

Soon after the publication of the Dialogue On the Vicissitudes of Fortune, Poggio gave a striking proof of the confidence with which he relied on the protection of the pontiff, by publishing a Dialogue On Hypocrisy. The astonishing boldness with which he lashes the follies and vices of the clergy in this composition has been already noticed. Had he ventured to advance the sentiments which it contains in the days of Eugenius, he would in all probability have expiated his temerity by the forfeiture of his life. The predecessor of Nicolas felt little veneration for learning, and he united in his character the restlessness of ambition, and the rigour of religious austerity. As the manners of a court universally take their complexion from those of the sovereign, the retinue of Eugenius was crowded with ecclesiastics who assiduously endeavoured to rise to preferment by assuming a sanctity of deportment which they well knew to be the ready passport to the favour of the pontiff. These men, who attempted to disguise their pride under the garb of humility, and who, whilst they made a public profession of excessive piety, secretly indulged themselves in the grossest debauchery, Poggio had long regarded with contempt and indignation; and in his Dialogue On Hypocrisy he attacked them with all the severity of sarcastic wit. This dialogue he inscribed to one of his friends, named Francesco Accolti, of Arezzo, a celebrated lawyer, to whom he observed in his prefatory address, that as he had formerly endeavoured to display the despicable nature of Avarice, he had lately undertaken to describe, in its true colours, Hypocrisy, a vice of a much more odious complexion. He also intimated to Francesco, that he was fully apprized, that by the publication of the work which he then transmitted to him, he should give very great offence; but at the same time he sarcastically remarked, that they who complained of the severity of his animadversions would virtually acknowledge themselves guilty of the crime which it was his intention to hold up to general reprobation.

In the introductory part of the dialogue we are informed, that Poggio was accustomed to take frequent journeys to Florence; on which occasions his first visit was generally paid to Carlo Aretino: that the last time he had an opportunity of paying his respects to that eminent scholar, he found him in his library engaged in reading Plato’s Politia; and that after the customary interchange of civilities, Carlo, inquiring into the state of the Roman court, asked him whether it was as much frequented by hypocrites as it formerly was, during the pontificate of Eugenius. To this inquiry Poggio answered, that the reign of hypocrites was come to an end. Carlo rejoicing in this information, uttered a vehement philippic against hypocrisy, which, he observed, was more severely reproved by Jesus Christ than any other vice. Displaying its evil consequences, he remarked, that hypocrisy tends to destroy confidence between man and man, and to throw suspicion on virtue itself.

After the detail of this conversation, Poggio introduces as a third interlocutor, Jeronimo Aretino, Abbot of Santa Fiore, an ecclesiastic of considerable learning and of unblemished manners, who is represented as unexpectedly paying a visit to Carlo. On the arrival of Jeronimo, Poggio observes, that as this respectable dignitary had spent so large a portion of his days amongst the clergy, he must be well qualified to detail the characteristics of hypocrisy. This task, however, Jeronimo declines, as being an invidious one, and attended with no small degree of danger. But at the solicitation of his friends, and under the assurance of secrecy, he proceeds to advert to the derivation of the word hypocrite, which he defines as a term used to express the idea of a man who, for the promotion of some evil purpose, pretends to be what he is not. This definition he observes, includes not merely pretenders to extraordinary sanctity, but impostors of every species. Carlo, however, wishes to limit the meaning of the term to religious deceivers, whom he thus describes.—“They who assume the appearance of uncommon sanctimoniousness—who walk the street with squalid countenances, in thread-bare garments, and with naked feet—who affect to despise money—who are continually talking about Jesus Christ—who wish to be esteemed virtuous, whilst their deeds do not correspond with their outward appearance—who seduce foolish women—who quit their cloisters, and travel up and down the country in quest of fame—who make an ostentatious display of abstinence—who deceive and defraud—these men, I think may be justly denominated hypocrites.” After this description of the character of a hypocrite, Poggio proposes the question, whether men who are thus guilty of imposture are not less dangerous to society than those who openly profess to despise the obligations of morality; since whatever vices hypocrites may privately practise, they inculcate upon others the principles of virtue, and endeavour to palliate their very crimes by attributing the commission of them to good motives. This last remark gives Carlo occasion to detail several scandalous anecdotes of certain ecclesiastics, who, under the cloak of religious austerity, had indulged themselves in the most abominable gratification of their appetites. In the sequel of his speech, Carlo utters an eloquent invective against the ambition of the clergy who then frequented the Roman court. Poggio, concurring with him in sentiment, attacks the popular preachers of that time. He next animadverts upon the begging friars, the confessors, and the ecclesiastics who pretend to an extraordinary degree of temperance and maceration of the flesh. In speaking of this last description of hypocrites, he relates an anecdote of an Augustine friar, who undertook to subsist for eight days upon the holy wafer used in the Eucharist, and who actually quitted his cell at the end of the prescribed term in perfectly good health, and without the least diminution of his corpulency. This impostor gained great celebrity by his apparently miraculous abstinence; but after the lapse of some years it was discovered, that in spite of the vigilance of his guards, he had conveyed into his apartment a quantity of bread saturated with wine, which he had injected into his large leathern girdle, and that he had moreover provided himself with candles composed of sugar, slightly coated over with wax, which afforded him a plentiful supply of nourishment. When Poggio has finished his remarks, Carlo attacks the Fratres Observantiæ; and the remainder of the dialogue is occupied by strictures on the character and conduct of several individuals, who, during the time of Poggio’s residence in the Roman court, had distinguished themselves by the gravity of their demeanour, and by the sanctity of their religious profession.[383]

The talent of sarcastic wit which Poggio displayed in this dialogue, and in his invectives against Francesco Filelfo, in all probability caused Nicolas V. to delegate to him the task of drawing up a philippic against Amedæus of Savoy, who, under the title of Felix, persisted in claiming the honours of the pontificate. On the death of Eugenius, this antipope had endeavoured, by proceeding to the election of cardinals, and by the mission of embassadors to several of the Christian powers, to vindicate his rights, as the only legitimate successor of St. Peter.[384] Nicolas, naturally watching the conduct of his competitor with a jealous eye, not only aimed at his devoted head the thunders of the church, but threatened to deprive him of the sovereignty of Savoy, which he destined as the reward of Charles, king of France, whom he solicited to assist him in the subjugation of the pertinacious schismatic.[385] Eagerly taking up the quarrel of his master, Poggio attacked the offender in a long invective. A few extracts from this composition will demonstrate, that in the impartiality of his acrimony, he did not treat the ducal hermit of Ripaille with more lenity than he had shewn to the humble professor of rhetoric.

In his exordium he says, “I cannot suppress the grief which I feel when I see another Cerberus, whom we thought to have been lulled asleep, newly roused from the infernal regions to the disturbance of religion, and the destruction of the church. For what true believer is not deeply affected with sorrow, when he beholds a rapacious wolf, who was formerly fed on the blood of the faithful, now putting on the semblance of a lamb, for the purpose of invading, under the guise of humility, the peace of the church, which he has in vain attacked by open violence. Who is there that does not lament that a golden calf, set up by an assembly of abandoned men, to the disgrace of the faith, in contempt of Christ and his doctrine, should, under the pretence of peace, endeavour by his envoys and letters to pervert the minds of faithful and upright princes from the true belief?—Who would not call upon God to punish such hypocrisy, such villany, such baseness? Who would not detest the perverter of the faith, the enemy of religion, the author of schism, the high-priest of malignity?—This is the issue of his affected sanctity of manners, his relinquishment of the world, his solitary retirement, in which he pretended to dedicate himself to the service of God for the purpose of shamefully demonstrating his infidelity; in which he arrayed himself in humble apparel, in order that he might afterwards, like a roaring lion seeking whom he might devour, destroy all religion, excite a schism, and rend the unseamed garment of Christ.”