the civilization of the renaissance in italy-第44部分

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！


　novels。　When　the　　enthusiasm　for　the　ancient　world　was　greater　than　for　the　saints；　it　　was　simple　and　natural　enough　that　noble　families　called　their　sons　　Agamemnon；　Tydeus；　and　Achilles；　and　that　a　painter　named　his　son　　Apelles　and　his　daughter　Minerva。58　Nor　will　it　appear　unreasonable　　that；　instead　of　a　family　name；　which　people　were　often　glad　to　get　rid　　of；　a　well…sounding　ancient　name　was　chosen。　A　local　name；　shared　by　　all　residents　in　the　place；　and　not　yet　transformed　into　a　family　name；　　was　willingly　given　up；　especially　when　its　religious　associations　made　　it　inconvenient。　Filippo　da　San　Gimignano　called　himself　Callimachus。　　The　man；　mis…　understood　and　insulted　by　his　family；　who　made　his　　fortune　as　a　scholar　in　foreign　cities；　could　afford；　even　if　he　were　a　　Sanseverino；　to　change　his　name　to　Julius　Pomponius　Laetus。　Even　the　　simple　translation　of　a　name　into　Latin　or　Greek；　as　was　almost　　uniformly　the　custom　in　Germany；　may　be　excused　to　a　generation　which　　spoke　and　wrote　Latin；　and　which　needed　names　that　could　be　not　only　　declined；　but　used　with　facility　in　verse　and　prose。　What　was　　blameworthy　and　ridiculous　was　the　change　of　half　a　name；　baptismal　or　　family；　to　give　it　a　classical　sound　and　a　new　sense。　Thus　Giovanni　was　　turned　into　Jovianus　or　Janus；　Pietro　to　Petreius　or　Pierius；　Antonio　　to　Aoniuss　Sannazaro　to　Syncerus；　Luca　Grasso　to　Lucius　Crassus。　　Ariosto；　who　speaks　with　such　derision　of　all　this；　lived　to　see　　children　called　after　his　own　heroes　and　heroines。

Nor　must　we　judge　too　severely　the　latinization　of　many　usages　of　　social　life；　such　as　the　titles　of　officials；　of　cere　monies；　and　the　　like；　in　the　writers　of　the　period。　As　long　as　people　were　satisfied　　with　a　simple；　fluent　Latin　style；　as　was　the　case　with　most　writers　　from　Petrarch　to；　Aeneas　Sylvius；　this　practice　was　not　so　frequent　and　　striking；　it　became　inevitable　when　a　faultless；　Ciceronian　Latin　was　　demanded。　Modern　names　and　things　no　longer　harmonized　with　the　style；　　unless　they　were　first　artificially　changed。　Pedants　found　a　pleasure　　in　addressing　municipal　counsellors　as　'Patres　Conscripti；'　nuns　as　　'Virgines　Vestales；'　and　entitling　every　saint　'Divus'　or　'Deus'；　but　　men　of　better　taste；　such　as　Paolo　Giovio；　only　did　so　when　and　because　　they　could　not　help　it。　But　as　Giovio　does　it　naturally；　and　lays　no　　special　stress　upon　it；　we　are　not　offended　if；　in　his　melodious　　language；　the　cardinals　appear　as　'Senatores；'　their　dean　as　'Princeps　　Senatus；'　excommunication　as　'Dirae；'　and　the　carnival　as　'Lupercalia。'　　The　example　of　this　author　alone　is　enough　to　warn　us　against　drawing　a　　hasty　inference　from　these　peculiarities　of　style　as　to　the　writer's　　whole　mode　of　thinking。

The　history　of　Latin　composition　cannot　here　be　traced　in　detail。　For　　fully　two　centuries　the　humanists　acted　as　if　Latin　were；　and　must　　remain；　the　only　language　worthy　to　be　written。　Poggio　deplores　that　　Dante　wrote　his　great　poem　in　Italian；　and　Dante；　as　is　well　known；　　actually　made　the　attempt　in　Latin；　and　wrote　the　beginning　of　the　　'Inferno'　first　in　hexameters。　The　whole　future　of　Italian　poetry　hung　　on　his　not　continuing　in　the　same　style；　but　even　Petrarch　relied　more　　on　his　Latin　poetry　than　on　the　Sonnets　and　'Canzoni；'　and　Ariosto　　himself　was　desired　by　some　to　write　his　poem　in　Latin。　A　stronger　　coercion　never　existed　in　literature；　but　poetry　shook　it　off　for　the　　most　part；　and　it　may　be　said；　without　the　risk　of　too　great　optimism；　　that　it　was　well　for　Italian　poetry　to　have　had　both　means　of　　expressing　itself。　In　both　something　great　and　characteristic　was　　achieved；　and　in　each　we　can　see　the　reason　why　Latin　or　Italian　was　　chosen。　Perhaps　the　same　may　be　said　of　prose。　The　position　and　　influence　of　Italian　culture　throughout　the　world　depended　on　the　fact　　that　certain　subjects　were　treated　in　Latin'urbi　et　orbi'while　　Italian　prose　was　written　best　of　all　by　those　to　whom　it　cost　an　　inward　struggle　not　to　write　in　Latin。

From　the　fourteenth　century　Cicero　was　recognized　universally　as　the　　purest　model　of　prose。　This　was　by　no　means　due　solely　to　a　　dispassionate　opinion　in　favour　of　his　choice　of　language；　of　the　　structure　of　his　sentences；　and　of　his　style　of　composition；　but　rather　　to　the　fact　that　the　Italian　spirit　responded　fully　and　instinctively　　to　the　amiability　of　the　letter　writer；　to　the　brilliancy　of　the　　orator；　and　to　the　lucid　exposition　of　the　philosophical　thinker。　Even　　Petrarch　recognized　dearly　the　weakness　of　Cicero　as　a　man　and　a　　statesman；　though　he　respected　him　too　much　to　rejoice　over　them。　After　　Petrarch's　time；　the　epistolary　style　was　formed　entirely　on　the　　pattern　of　Cicero；　and　the　rest；　with　the　exception　of　the　narrative　　style；　followed　the　same　influence。　Yet　the　true　Ciceronianism；　which　　rejected　every　phrase　which　could　not　be　justified　out　of　the　great　　authority；　did　not　appear　till　the　end　of　the　fifteenth　century；　when　　the　grammatical　writings　of　Lorenzo　Valla　had　begun　to　tell　on　all　　Italy；　and　when　the　opinions　of　the　Roman　historians　of　literature　had　　been　sifted　and　compared。　Then　every　shade　of　difference　in　the　style　　of　the　ancients　was　studied　with　closer　and　doser　attention　till　the　　consoling　conclusion　was　at　last　reached　that　in　Cicero　alone　was　the　　perfect　model　to　be　found；　or；　if　all　forms　of　literature　were　to　be　　embraced；　in　'that　immortal　and　almost　heavenly　age　of　Cicero。'　Men　　like　Pietro　Bembo　and　Pierio　Valeriano　now　turned　all　their　energies　to　　this　one　object。　Even　those　who　had　long　resisted　the　tendency；　and　had　　formed　for　themselves　an　archaic　style　from　the　earlier　authors；　　yielded　at　last；　and　joined　in　the　worship　of　Cicero。　Longolius；　at　　Bembo's　advice；　determined　to　read　nothing　but　Cicero　for　five　years　　long；　and　finally　took　an　oath　to　use　no　word　which　did　not　occur　in　　this　author。　It　was　this　temper　which　broke　out　at　last　in　the　great　　war　among　the　scholars；　in　which　Erasmus　and　the　elder　Scaliger　led　the　　battle。

For　all　the　admirers　of　Cicero　were　by　no　means　so　one…sided　as　to　　consider　him　the　only　source　of　language。　In　the　fifteenth　century；　　Politian　and　Ermolao　Barbaro　made　a　conscious　and　deliberate　effort　to　　form　a　style　of　their　own；　naturally　on　the　basis　of　their　　'overflowing'　learning；　and　our　informant　of　this　fact；　Paolo　Giovio；　　pursued　the　same　end。　He　first　attempted；　not　always　successfully；　but　　often　with　remarkable　power　and　elegance；　and　at　no　small　cost　of　　effort；　to　reproduce　in　Latin　a　number　of　modern；　particularly　of　　aesthetic；　ideas。　His　Latin　characteristics　of　the　great　painters　and　　sculptors　of　his　time　contain　a　mixture　of　the　most　intelligent　and　of　　the　most　blundering　interpretation。　Even　Leo　X；　who　placed　his　glory　in　　the　fact；　'ut　lingua　latina　nostro　pontificatu　dicatur　facta　auctior；'　　was　inclined　to　a　liberal　and　not　too　exclusive　Latinity；　which；　　indeed；　was　in　harmony　with　his　pleasure…loving　nature。　He　was　　satisfied　if　the　Latin　which　he　had　to　read　and　to　hear　was　lively；　　elegant；　and　idiomatic。　Then；　too；　Cicero　offered　no　model　for　Latin　　conversation；　so　that　here　other　gods　had　to　be　worshipped　beside　him。　　The　want　was　supplied　by　representations　of　the　comedies　of　Plautus　and　　Terence；　frequent　both　in　and　out　of　Rome；　which　for　the　actors　were　an　　incomparable　exercise　in　Latin　as　the　language　of　daily　life。　A　few　　years　later；　in　the　pontificate　of　Paul　II；　the　learned　Cardinal　of　　Teano　（probably　Niccolo　Forteguerra　of　Pistoia）　became　famous　for　his　　critical　labors　in　this　branch　of　scholarship。　He　set　to　work　upon　the　　most　defective　plays　of　Plautus；　which　were　destitute　even　of　a　list　of　　the　characters；　and　went　carefully　through　the　whole　remains　of　this　　author；　chiefly　with　an　eye　to　the　language。　Possibly　it　was　he　who　　gave　the　first　impulse　for　the　public　representations　of　these　plays。　　Afterwards　Pomponius　Laetus　took　up　the　same　subject；　and　acted　as　　producer　when　Plautus　was　put　on　the　stage　in　the　houses　of　great　　churchmen。　That　these　representations　became　less　in　common　after　1520；　　is　mentioned　by　Giovio；　as　we　have　seen；　among　the　causes　of　the　　decline　of　eloquence。

We　may　mention；　in　conclusion；　the　analogy　between　Ciceronianism　in　　literature　and　the　revival　of　Vitruvius　by　the　architects　in　the　sphere　　of　art。　And　here；　too；　the　law　holds　good　which　prevails　elsewhere　in　　the　history　of　the　Renaissance；　that　each　artistic　movement　is　preceded　　by　a　corresponding　movement　in　the　general　culture　of　the　age。　In　this　　case；　the　interval　is　not　more　than　about　twenty　years；　if　we　reckon　　from　Cardinal　Adrian　of　Corneto　（1505）　to　the　first　avowed　Vitruvians。

Neo…Latin　Poetry

The　chief　pride　of　the　humanists　is；　however；　their　modern　Latin　　poetry。　It　lies　within　the　limits　of　our　task　to　treat　of　it；　at　least　　in　so　far　as　it　serves　to　characterize　the　humanistic　movement。

How　favourable　public　opinion　was　to　that　form　of　poetry；　and　how　　nearly　it　supplanted　all　others；　has　been　already　shown。　We　may　be　very　　sure　that　the　most　gifted　and　highly　developed　nation　then　existing　in　　the　world　did　not　renounce　the　language　such　as　the　Italian　out　of　mere　　folly　and　without　knowing　what　they　were　doin