A STUDY OF THE RHETORICAL THEORY AND SELECTED SPEECHES 0F AENEAS SYLVWS‘ PiCCOLQMIN!‘ Thesis for the Degree of Ph. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Thomas N. Pappas 3963 This is to certify that the thesis entitled A STUDY OF THE RHETORICAL THEORY AND SELECTED SPEECHES 0F AENEAS SYLVIUS PICCOLOMINI presented by Thomas N. Pappas has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for __PL:_Q.._ degree in m David 0. Ralph \ .gZ/K Major professor 10 17 63 Date / / 0-169 LIBRARY M‘cl’v'mn State ‘1' University r] COpyrighted by Thomas N. Pappas 1963 A STUDY OF THE RHETORICAL THEORY AND SELECTED SPEECHES OF AENEAS SYLVIUS PICCOLOMINI BY Thomas Ninappas A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Speech 1963 37;“7‘7/5’ {Caz-Mil ABSTRACT A STUDY OF THE RHETORICAL THEORY AND SELECTED SPEECHES OF AENEAS SYLVIUS PICCOLOMINI by Thomas N. Pappas The major purposes of this study are threefold: (1) To study the world of Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini; (2) To examine the rhetorical theories of Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini which are included in Dg_Libe- rorum Educatione; (3) To study selected speeches of Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini from standards of rhetorical criticism. The method used through the study is the historical-critical. Essentially inductive in approach, the researcher sought to examine the forces which gave rise to the theories and Speeches of Aeneas Sylvius. Because Aeneas Sylvius was a prolific writer and speaker, primary sources are abundant from which to develop a study of this nature. The researcher sought to do this as frequently as possible. The major findings of this study are classified into four divi- sions: historical, religious, political, rhetorical. HISTORICAL That Aeneas Sylvius was a product of the historical impulse which passes by the name "Renaissance" is evident when one considers the extent of his influence in that period. As a humanist, he repre- Thomas N. Pappas sented the revival of learning which characterized the early Renais- sance. Throughout this study, the involvement of Aeneas Sylvius in the affairs of his day is indicated: from the Council of Basle where he struggled to articulate his conciliarist inclinations to his elevation to the Holy See. POLITICAL Early in life, Aeneas Sylvius believed that the polemical confusions of his day were animated by three major difficulties: the struggle of the Hussites in Bohemia, the schismatic character of the Papacy, and the political chaos in Italy. At the close of the Coun- cil of Basle, recognition was accorded to the Hussites. In his flig- £g£y_g£ Bohemia, Aeneas Sylvius suggests that the declining strife in Bohemia among the Hussites would signal a brighter day for that area. By 1449, the Papacy was united under Nicholas V. The period of schisms, councils, and conciliarism was at an end. Aeneas Sylvius abandoned his previous conciliarist views. Finally, with the Peace of Lodi in 1454, the strife in the Italian states was ended. Curious as it may seem, the Pope was made the protector of the Peace of Lodi. Thus, the difficulties which Aeneas Sylvius suspected the most were solved by 1458. RELIGIOUS The fall of Constantinople became the backdrop for the rising Turkish peril. With the extinction of the Paleologi rule came the religious confrontation of Islam with Christianity. The period of religious schism was at an end; the Turkish challenge had to be met. Thomas N. Pappas Pius devoted his eloquence and his diplomacy to resolving the Turkish threat. Unfortunately, Christendom was not amenable to the programs of Pius regarding the Ottoman Empire. Pius failed to evoke necessary response even with his eloquence. RHETORICAL Pius II is one of the few men of the Renaissance who has recorded his rhetorical theories within the context of educational theory. Be- yond this, he was a frequent orator in the councils and assemblies of his day. This study suggests that Pius articulated his rhetorical theories in his public orations. Thus, in a society which placed a premium on oratorical excel- lence, one who understood both the theory of communication and its practice would be given generous honors. As Burckhardt notes, "Great as he was both as scholar and diplomatist, he would probably never have become Pepe without the fame and charm of his eloquence."1 lJacob Burckhardt, The Civilization g£_the Renaissance, (London, 1952), p. 171. To the discovery of the outward world the Renaissance added still a greater achievement, by first discerning and bringing to light the full, whole nature of man. This period . . . gave the highest development to individuality, and then led the individual to the most zealous and thorough study of himself in all forms and under all conditions. Jacob Burckhardt, The Civilization g£_the Renaissance iB_Italy, (New York, 1954), p. 225-26. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS During the months of work on this thesis, the present author has been assisted by several individuals: The major direction of the thesis was handled by Dr. David C. Ralph, whose patience and kindness knows no limit. Dr. Richard E. Sullivan greatly assisted in the deve10pment of the first chapter; his gracious contributions to the historical details of the thesis gave to the study its necessary perspective. The author also wishes to convey gratitude to Drs. Kenneth G. Hance and Murray Hengll for their useful recommendations throughout the important phases of the thesis development. Dr. Hans Baron of the Newberry Library and Dr. Roberto Giammanco, former professor at wayne State University showed considerable interest in the study and contri— buted generously throughout its development. Finally, particular gratitude is in order for Mrs. Gloria Pappas, wife of the author, who kindly proofread the manuscript; and to Miss Carol Rearick, who gave evenings of her summer to the laborious and painstaking task of typing the manuscript. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACMOWIEDMNTS O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O 0 iv I . IN TRODUCT ION O 0 O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 1 II. THE WORLD OF AENEAS SYLVIUS PICCOLOMINI . . . . . . . . 5 III. IV. Definition of the Renaissance The Burckhardtian Tradition The Burdachian Tradition The DevelOpment of the Renaissance as a Literary Force Early Humanism The Rise of the Universities The Use of the Vernacular Humanism, the Dignity of Man, and the World of Aeneas Sylvius The Development of the Renaissance as a Political Force Historical Preface Civic Humanism: Florence Civic Humanism: Siena The Papacy and Temporal Authority Aspects of Papal Politics The Deve10pment of the Renaissance as a Religious Force The Ending of the Great Schism Conciliarism in Practice THE RHETORICAL THEORIES OF AENEAS SYLVIUS PICCOLOMINI . 58 The Rationale for 22 Liberorum Educatione 23_Liberorum Educatione and Classical Rhetoric De Liberorum Educatione and the Trivium DE Liberorum Educatione and the Context of Medieval Rhetoric Renaissance Influences in the Rhetorical Theories of Aeneas Sylvius A RHETORICAL STUDY OF SELECTED SPEECHES OF AENEAS SYLVIUS PICCOLOMINI FRCM 1430 TO THE ENDING OF THE CONGRESS OF MANTUA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 Historical Preface From Conciliarist to Apologist V Pa Keynote Address to the Congress of Mantua ge Historical Background Speech Text Summary of Speech Purpose Invention Arrangement Audience and Occasion Style Delivery Reaction or Effect Second Address to the Congress of Mantua Historical Background Speech Text Summary of Speech Purpose Invention Arrangement Style Delivery Reaction or Effect Speech to the Malatestese PrOposal Historical Background Speech Text Summary of Speech Purpose Audience and Occasion Invention Arrangement Style Delivery Reaction or Effect Final Address to the Congress of Mantua Historical Background Speech Text Summary of Speech Purpose Invention Arrangement Style Delivery Reaction or Effect V. A RHETORICAL STUDY OF SELECTED SPEECHES OF PIUS II FRW 1462‘1464 o o o o o o I o o o o o o o o 158 Address to the College of Cardinals Historical Background Speech Text Summary of Speech Invention' Arrangement Style Delivery Reaction or Effect vi Page The Eulogy of Philip of Burgundy Historical Background Speech Text Summary of Speech Invention Arrangement Style Delivery Reaction or Effect Pius Refutes the Florentine Proposal Historical Background Speech Text Invention Arrangement Style Delivery Reaction or Effect Historical Summary VI. CONCLUSIONS 0 O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 198 B IBLIOGRAPT'IY O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 202 I. INTRODUCTION The rhetorical theories and the oratorical practice of the Humanists of the Italian Renaissance have long been a neglected area of study. It is rather ironic that such would be the situation, for many of the contributions of the Humanists in rhetorical theory serve to bridge the gap between Graeco-Roman rhetorical theory and rhetorical developments in the Post-Renaissance period. Chrono- logically develOped studies in the areas of Renaissance history and Renaissance rhetorical thought have recently been concluded; however, these fail to give the overview of the contributions of Humanism pg£_§g_to rhetorical theory.1 Admittedly, the Renaissance in its early phases (and particularly in Italy) lacked originality. The Humanists of Italy borrowed much from the Graeco-Roman world and so constructed their Renaissance. Petrarch, recognized by Jacob Burckhardt as ". . . the first truly mo- dern man. . ."2 lacked the creative genius characteristic of the Nor- thern European Renaissance Humanists, and especially the creative capa- city of Erasmus of Rotterdam and the Oxford Reformers in England; yet, the contributions of Petrarch to the development of rhetoric from 1Cf. Dominic A. LaRusso, "Rhetoric and the Social Order in Italy l450-lEOO," (Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Northwestern University, 1956). 2Jacob Burckhardt, The Civilization of_the Renaissance ig_Ita1y, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1950), p. 179. Graeco-Roman roots are noteworthy. He, like most of the Humanists of his day, was educated in a rigidly scholastic tradition. Grammar, Rhetoric, and Dialectic -- the Trivium of the Middle Ages, these were his early experiences in education. After he concluded his formal education, he began to devote his efforts to that distinctly humanistic endeavor, the uncovering of manuscripts.3 This was to lead him to uncover in 1345 an extensive supply of Ciceronian letters.4 Upon these letters, coupled with his familiarity with the dialogues of Plato, Petrarch furthered the cause of literary humanism in the fourteenth century. It is the belief of the present writer that the ramifications of the rhetorical theories and oratorical practice as seen in one of the significant Humanists, Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini, is suffi- cient rationale for the present study. Piccolomini differed from Petrarch and the other Humanists of the Italian Renaissance in that he developed a rhetorical theory which he designated as his own. Furthermore, be constructed a body of orations which serve to extend his theories into practice. Although from historical retrOSpect the historian of rhetoric can see decisive borrowings from classical rhetoric, the oratory of Aeneas Sylvius remains a product of personal creativity. It was his eloquence that won him the Papal tiara.5 The purposes of this study are fourfold: (1) To develop an 3Ernst Cassirer, et. al., The Renaissance Philosophy g£_Man, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1956), pp. 2-4. 4Hans Baron, The Crisis pf the Early Italian Renaissance, (2 v. Princeton: University Press, 1955) I, 139. 5Burckhardt, op. cit., p. 179. 3 understanding of the world in which Piccolomini lived; (2) to record his rhetorical theories and to suggest the influences which bore significantly upon these theories from the Classical, Medieval, and Early Renaissance literature pertaining to rhetoric; (3) to indicate his oratorical practice in terms of nature and extent; and, (4) to study selected speeches in terms of his rhetorical theories. A study of this nature must have explicit limitations. There are three such limitations: The first limitation concerns the world of Piccolomini -- only those years which served to influence the thought of Piccolomini overtly or otherwise will receive elaboration or analysis. The second limitation concerns the rhetorical contri- butions of Piccolomini; in this respect, his theory of rhetoric will receive detailed attention. The third limitation pertains to Picco— lomini the man. Thus, he constitutes the central focus of this study. The significance of a study of this nature should be noted. The study is confined to those years of Renaissance history which bore significantly upon the life of Aeneas Sylvius. The central focus is a man who served as a representative of both the secular world of arts and letters as Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini and the ecclesiastical world as Pope Pius II. There has been no study to date on the twofold contributions of Piccolomini as secular Humanist and as successor to the leadership of the Holy See. The method used in developing this study is descriptive as the historian would use description to indicate historical development, analytical as the theorist would use analysis for purposes of clari- fication, and interpretative as a means of synthesizing description and analysis. There are six chapter divisions to this SUde: the first will set forth the basic directions which the Study will take. The second pertains to the world of Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini. The complexity of this world is indicated by the controversial and decidedly ab- stract term "renaissance." For purposes of clarification, two inter- pretations of Renaissance thought will be discussed, the Burck- hardtian and the Burdachian. From definition the study proceeds to deve10pment with respect to the Renaissance -- the period and its literary, political, and religious implications. The third chapter pertains to the rhetorical theories of Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini as these relate to the classical rhetoricians, the Medieval Trivium, and pedagogy. The fourth chapter is a rhetorical analysis of se- lected speeches of Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini with particular refer- ence to the historical moment which gave rise to these Speeches, the substance of the speeches, and the end result in each situation. The fifth chapter will be a detailed rhetorical analysis of the final speech delivered by the Holy Father before his death. Because it is the most representative of all the Speeches delivered by Aeneas Sylvius, more Space is needed to develop the necessary aspects of rhetorical criticism. The final chapter is a summary of the conclu- sions which are suggested in the entire study. II. THE WORLD OF AENEAS SYLVIUS PICCOLOMINI DEFINITION OF THE RENAISSANCE Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini, born on October 18, 1405 at Cor- signano located twenty miles from Siena, has frequently been regarded as a product of the Renaissance. The meanings which that appellation has are many and varied. For purposes of the present study the term "Renaissance" Shall refer to that impulse, literary, social, and polit- ical, which set the basis for modern EurOpean historical deve10pment. This does not imply that what preceded the Renaissance was inferior to subsequent developments; rather, that the forms of civilization were transformed into different perSpectives and foci. THE BURCKHARDTIAN TRADITION What is the Renaissance? If one would read Jacob Burckhardt, the Renaissance would be equated with those developments in Italy early in the fourteenth century. These developments -— the revival of antiquity, the emergence of individualism in art and literature, the study of manuscripts -- are not isolated in the Burckhardtian tradition as elements in themselves, but are part of an idealized, romanticized panorama. Thus, Burckhardt is significant not because he "discovered the Renaissance," but rather because of the method he used in discovering the genius of the Renaissance. Burckhardt con- ceived the Renaissance to be less a chronological scheme (although the study of the period would lend itself to general chronology) and 6 more a topical development. Burckhardt says: "The Renaissance is not a fragmentary imitation or compilation, but a new birth . . ."1 Yet, what Burckhardt did, the Humanists of the Renaissance were not able to do. Why? The answer is clear and unmistaken: Living in the midst of a rapidly changing society and culture, the men of the Renaissance could scarcely be expected to envisage their own age as an integrated whole, nor to per— ceive clearly its relation to the past.2 G. R. Elton corroborates this view when he Speaks of the "self-con- scious recovery" of the ancient world made by the humanists who in recovering the past failed to realize the magnitude of that recovery.3 S. Harrison Thomson suggests that because the tradition of Rome was never forgotten it was consequently never lost.4 Johann Huizinga summarizes the above by equating the Burckhardtian tradition with the "rebirth of realism."5 Notwithstanding the explanations given, one is still compelled to ask "rebirth from what?" Have not historians discarded the useless designation of "Dark Ages"? Unless one abandons the necessity of viewing history contextually, it is necessary to retain the archaic 11bid., p. 131 2Wallace K. Ferguson, The Renaissance in_Historica1 Thought, (New York: Houghton-Mifflin, 1948), p. l. 3G. R. Elton, Renaissance and Reformation, (New York: Macmillan Company, 1963), p. 45. 4S. Harrison Thomson, Europe 12_Renaissance and Reformation, (New York: Harcourt Brace, 1963), p. 77. 5Johann Huizinga, Men and Ideas, (New York: Meridian Books, 1959), pp. 288.309. 9E: also a most illuminating essay in the volume previously cited titled "The Problem of the Renaissance." In this essay the author takes issue with the Burckhardtian tradition suggesting that it is guilty of overstatement. 7 appellation of "Dark Ages" as Opposed to (and almost contradictory to) the Renaissance. The present writer prefers to believe that the Renaissance differed from the Dark Ages in terms of focus. Thus, it is difficult to designate the substance of the rebirth; all one can hope to do is identify its ramifications. By this the writer means that the consequence of Renaissance consciousness in Boccaccio, or Salutati, or Leonardo Bruni, or Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini is em- phasis. To understand this emphasis, it is necessary to indicate its external manifestations. Herbert Weisinger has developed several of these which are paraphrased as follows: natural style in terms of the classic mode which, to them, represented grace, regularity, cor- rectness, and repose; polished and eminently refined diction; finita- tion of classical proficiency in civilization; comprehensive develop- ment; subjective experience with nature.6 Johann Huizinga develops several of these by cataloguing the prominent practitioners of hu- manism in art and literature. Yet, to Huizinga the rebirth in Italy was not exclusively linguistic imitation of the Greek and the Latin in their purified forms. He suggests that the rebirth was too general in character and too strong in ethical and aesthetic content for the intellects of the day. It was because the ancients possessed purity and breadth in knowledge that the Renaissance became imitative of these qualities. To Huizinga the Renaissance was governed by two Simple norms: beauty and virtue. The names catalogued by Huizinga -- Giorgio Vasari, biographer of the painters; Giotto, practitioner of 6Herbert weisinger, "The Renaissance Theory of the Reaction Against the Middle Ages as a Cause of the Renaissance," Speculum, (1945), XX, p. 461; Cf, also Herbert Weisinger, "Renaissance Theories of the Revival of the Fine Arts," Italica, (1943), XX. Renaissance art; Dante, the bridge to the Renaissance; Petrarch, the first to cross the bridge from Dante to Bruni -- these are the sum of the Renaissance experiences.7 THE BURDACHIAN TRADITION Behind the backdrOp of the Burckhardtian tradition have emerged the names of Huizinga and Ferguson, twentieth century historians of the Renaissance. Burckhardt's interpretation was one of many inter- pretations which flourished during the nineteenth century burst of romanticism, the romanticism that gave rise to Michelet and others of the French school of historiography. Another tradition apart from the Burckhardtian is that fostered by the German, Konrad Burdach. For Burdach, the aspects of Renaissance genius are no less relevant; however, these aspects are placed within a unique and rather uncon- ventional pattern.8 For the purpose of understanding Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini and his place in the Renaissance, it is useful to con- sider Burdach and his approach to the Renaissance. Burdach developed his definition of the Renaissance from four foci: linguistic, through the Study of the relationship between linguistics and a renewed con- sciousness; nationalistic, from the cross-currents of political and cultural influences; Spiritual, from a redimensioned attitude toward life; stylistic, from the modes of articulating one's culture and 7Huizinga, "The Problem of the Renaissance," op.cit., pp. 246-47. 8Konrad Burdach, "Sinn und UrSprung der Worte Renaissance und Reformation," Sitzungsberichte der preussischen Akademie der Wissenshaften, (Jahrgang, 1910), pp. 594-646. civilization.9 Wallace K. Ferguson states: "His Renaissance was a purely spiritual phenomenon." He continues by quoting Burdach in translation: What may bear the name Renaissance was a Spiritual move- ment. . . It comprehended the inner life of men and their ideal aims. It fulfilled itself in the Sphere of the aesthetic and the moral. . . But it worked chiefly outside the world of com- merce and it had from its very nature nothing in common with the economic forces or the changes in the external life of Europe. At any rate, it was not called forth by them."10 In substance, as indicated above, Burdach's interpretation in- cludes two important elements for the present study: First, Burdach regards the German Renaissance as being Spiritual in emphasis; second, he gives importance to the linguistic Study of German liter- ature.11 9Ferguson, op.cit., p. 308. 9:, also several useful references made by Johann Huizinga with respect to the scholarship of Konrad Burdach: Men and Ideas, op. cit., pp. 273, 276-77. 10Konrad Burdach, Deutsche Renaissance, p. 19, as quoted in Ferguson, op. cit. As Ferguson correctly observes, Burdach made a triumvirate of three humanists regarded highly by the German histo- rian -- Dante, Petrarch, and Cola di Rienzi, the latter designated as the most Significant. 11William J. Bossenbrook has devoted considerable space to the clarification of the Burdachian and Burckhardtian interpretations vis-a-vis the German and Italian Renaissance. In his words: "Re- birth and reform exerted a greater if more ambiguous influence among the Italians and Germans than among other peoples. Both lacked a State tradition fostered by a strong national monarchy. Both had been dependent upon the Roman imperial tradition, and with the de— cline of the medieval Empire, both had increasingly a restoration either of the ancient republican institutions or of imperial forms of sovereignty." William J. Bossenbrook, The German Mind, (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1961), pp. 94-5. Thus, there is a similarity between the two civilizations, a similarity which is ac- cented by the diverse elements which comprised both civilizations in the period of the Renaissance. Albert Hyma has emphasized the unique SSpects of the German and the Italian contributions of the period of the Renaissance within the context of the implications of these for the Reformation. Cf, Renaissance £2_Reformation, (Grand Rapids: E. B. Eerdmans, 1951). 10 The general attack upon Burdach's definition of the Renaissance stems from divergent approaches to historiography.12 Houston S. Chamberlain rejected the compartmentalized nature of the historio- graphy of Burdach, preferring a development which recognizes the con- scious awakening of the Germanic peoples to a different focus; he places the date for this awakening at 1200. As he notes, "the in- tellectual and moral bankruptcy of the raceless chaos of humanity" was not caused by the Germanic Teutons and their barbarisms; the Teutons awoke to a reSponsibility and assumed this reSponsibility.13 Unlike Burdach, Chamberlain looked to Italy for the early inspiration of Renaissance civilization.14 Support for this view came from still another German historian, Ludwig Woltmann. He Spoke glowingly of the sources of the Renaissance as being purely Italian. German influences deve10ped; yet, the major effort was Italian.15 One might understand the attack upon Burdach's position, especially in view of his evident neglect of the cultured and artistic Spirit which developed. De Fi- lippis has summarized the various positions with respect to defining the Renaissance by suggesting that one's historiography determines 12Cf. Hans Baron, The Crisis gf_the Early Italian Renaissance: Civic HEESnism and Republican Liberty ig_ag_égg_g£_€lassicism and Tyranny, (Princeton N. J. University Press, 1955); Cf, also Hans Baron, "A Struggle for Liberty in the Renaissance: Florence, Venice, and Milan in the Early Quattrocento," American Historical Review, LVIII, (1953), 265-89; H. Koht, "Le Probleme des Origines de la Renaissance," Revue dg_§ynthese Historique, XXXVII, (1924), 107-16. 13Houston S. Chamberlain, Foundations g£_the Nineteenth Century, (2 vols. New York, 1914), I, 8. 14Ibid., I, 7. 15L. Weltmann, Die Germanen und die Renaissance in Italien, (Leipzig, 1936). 11 one's posture toward the problem of defining the Renaissance.16 It is indeed difficult to isolate a definition; all one can hope to do is develop the consciousness of that moment in time. It would be safe to conclude that Burckhardt and Burdach may serve in a Study of Aeneas Sylvius through the respective civiliza- tions which each interpretation emphasizes. Aeneas Sylvius was, after all, an Italian by birth and training. Yet, he served suc- cessfully in the Court of Frederick III, Holy Roman Emperor. As Wbltmann observes, he is responsible for carrying the torch of hu- manism to Germany. Thus, the interpretations of Burckhardt and Bur- dach stand at various extremes; Aeneas Sylvius is a product of the historical moment under interpretation.17 THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE RENAISSANCE AS A LITERARY FORCE EARLY HUMANISM The world into which Aeneas Sylvius was born faced the vexing problems of change. It was not a world of papal universalism; rather, it was a world dominated by the emerging secularism of humanities. To say that humanism was a unique product of this period would be incorrect. Humanism developed with Petrarch and his contemporaries; yet it did not originate with them. Charles H. 15M. De Filippis, "The Renaissance Problem Again," Italica, XX, (JUne, 1943), pp. 65-80. 17The literature on this period is abundant. Besides Burdach, Burckhardt and those scholars cited, Cf. also the following: John A. Symonds, Renaissance in Italy, (New— York, 1954); E. M. Muntz, La Renaissance en Italiefl et en France a 1' Epoq_e§de Charles VIII, (Paris, 1889); Emile Gebhart, Les Origines de la Renaissance en Italie, (Paris, 1879); Douglas Bush, The Renaissance and English Humanism, ¢oronto, 1939). 12 Haskins has indicated the roots of humanism in the twelfth century by positing a "renaissance" of this century. It was in this century that early humanism was nourished, not as a force concerned with manuscripts and language study, but as a perspective.18 As Friederick Heer affirms: Twelfth century humanism, delighting in the world, in books, and in argument, revolved around man himself; it was anthropo- centric, seeing no sense in philosophizing over God and nature unless man himself was also seen in the picture.19 Giuseppe Toffanin notes that "early humanism. . . extolled the mind within the context of priorities, man being the chief."20 Thus, before the fifteenth century are humanistic antecedents to be found, certainly not of the same form as the humanism Spoken of in Burckhardt, but humanism nonetheless. THE RISE OF THE UNIVERSITIES Humanism, or any other perSpective, needs a vehicle of communica- tion. This vehicle was the emerging universities in Europe. The experiences of Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini at the University of Siena must be viewed from the patterns of university education established two centuries before his time. The trivium and later the guadrivium are not products of Renaissance humanism; rather, they are creations 18Haskins clearly indicates contempt for history which is con- cisely compartmentalized. In his own words: "Vague, obscure, tan- talising, as all periods are, it at least shows us clearly that the new movement is nothing sudden or catastrophic, but reaches far back into the eleventh century." Charles H. Haskins, The Renaissance g: the Twelfth Century, (New York, 1955), p. 29. 19Friederick Heer, The Medieval Werld, trans. by the author. (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1962), p. 79. 20Giuseppe Tdffanin, History pf Humanism, (New York, 1954), p. 64. 13 from the early developments in university education. The trivium included the study of grammar, rhetoric, and logic. The qpadrivium had more of the scientific in that it added to the trivium arith- metic, geometry, astronomy, and music. Charles H. Haskins notes that The twelfth century filled out the trivium and the quadri- vium with the new logic, the new mathematics, and the new astro- nomy, while it brought into existence the professional faculties of law, medicine, and theology. Universities had not existed hitherto because there was not enough learning in Western Europe to justify their existence; they came into being naturally with the expansion of knowledge in this period. The intellectual revolution and the institutional revolution went hand in hand."21 In the twelfth century, of the four prominent universities at Salerno, Paris, Oxford, and Bologna, the one at Bologna was unques- tionably the most influential.22 This university was organized orig- inally as a guild composed of mature students proficient in the arts; later it developed into a prominent university of jurisprudence. The importance of the University of Bologna for the purposes of this study is seen in the influence it held over the University of Siena, later the university responsible for educating the young Aeneas Sylvius. Hastings Rashdall says the following with reference to the question of influence: In 1246, when Frederick II attempted to prevent students from going to Bologna, Siena took the Opportunity afforded by the dissensions in which the great university city was involved to hire a doctor of civil law and proclaim the opening of a studium by the accustomed method of sending messengers to the neighboring towns with an announcement of the lectures. In the 21Haskins, op. cit., p. 368. 22Hastings Rashdall, Medieval Universities, (3 vols: Oxford: university Press, 1936), I, 62. 14 following year there were considerable numbers of doctors in the place. In 1252, Innocent IV granted the university . . . exemp- tion from taxes . . . This exemption is the first admission of university Status by the officials at Siena. In 1275 a new wave of scholars and students came from the University of Bologna to Siena to establish the local uni- versity. Again, in 1321 and in 1338 more discontented students migrated from Bologna to Siena. These migrations did unimagined good for the university at Siena. Hastings Rashdall observes that the most remarkable feature of this university through- out its history is the closeness of its dependence upon the town . . . Many other universities were, as completely as Siena, the creations of the free city government.24 Humanism was augmented and sustained by the universities in Europe in the early Renaissance. Through the program of studies typical to the several universities, students were educated in the humanities. Unquestionably, the trivium and quadrivium served humanism well. The most significant contributions afforded by humanism through the universities were wrought within the context of Renaissance literature. THE USE OF THE VERNACULAR The world of Aeneas Sylvius sees the triumph of the vernacular, and Dante is the most dramatic testimony to that triumph. As Charles S. Baldwin indicates: 23Ib1d., II, 34. 24Ibid., II, 34-35. Jacob Burckhardt develops a most illumi- nating history of the universities in Italy in his famous essay on the Renaissance. He indicates that the most treasured professorial chair was that of rhetoric. "0f the chairs which have been mentioned, that of rhetoric was especially sought by the humanist . . ." Burckhardt, op. cit., p. 154. 15 The fourteenth century closed with the convincing achieve- ment of Chaucer in English. To French also, though individual eminence was less, the century promised the literary future. The long medieval course of Latin had reached its term. The new literary day was for the new languages.25 James Wéstfall Thompson corroborates the above by observing: One of the most important facts in the history of the Middle Ages we have been inclined so far to take for granted, namely, the formation of the languages used today by the peOples of Western Europe, and by them carried to all quarters of the g10be.26 The century before the birth of Aeneas Sylvius saw the proliferation of vernacular literature, and eSpecially was this proliferation evi- dent in Italy. Dante, mentioned above, was one of many who achieved greatness through the use of the vernacular. Added to Dante's name would be the names of Petrarch, Boccaccio, Bruni, de Feltre, and many others. Though humanists, their humanism made them no less relevant to the peOples of their day. The first source is Francesco Petrarch. His view of classical antiquity borders on being enthusiastically passionate. Yet, in spite of his intense interest in the Latin of antiquity, he used the vernacular quite frequently. In a letter to his friend and admirer, Giovanni Boccaccio, Petrarch noted the following: Latin in both prose and poetry, has been so thoroughly developed by the great authors of antiquity that it is almost impossible for anybody to add very much. Our language Italian , on the other hand, has but recently been discovered, and though it has been devastated by many, it is cultivated by some serious workers and under their hands should improve greatly.27 2§Charles S. Baldwin, Renaissance Literapnyheo y and Practise, (New York: Columbia University Press, 1939), pp.6-7. 26James Westfall Thompson, A2 Introduction £2_Medieva1 Europe, (New York: Norton, 1937), pp. 761-62. 27Letter to Boccaccio dated August 28, 1366, Venice. Fracassetti, Lettere Senili, V, 2. l6 Petrarch continued by expressing his desire that the use of the vernacular by humanists would be extended. In his useful volume on medieval thought, Frederick Artz discusses the importance of Petrarch to the emerging Spirit of the vernacular. He observes that In the vernacular verses of Petrarch there is both a more worldly outlook and a more deliberate attempt to imitate classical Latin poetry in subject matter, figures of Speech, and vocabulary than had appeared early in any vernacular poetry. The Spell of the Latin classics was heavy on Petrarch, and he ' grafted this love of antiquity and the attempt to imitate it onto the older troubadour and Tuscan traditions.28 The Tuscan tradition which developed by the time of Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini was keenly aware of the contributions made by Petrarch. In comparing the tradition from Dante to Petrarch to earlier literary developments, Artz concludes that "Petrarch is definitely more modern; for an ethical consciousness he, in some degree, substituted an aes- thetic consciousness . . . Above all, Petrarch is modern in his childish desire for earthly fame."29 Such fame is best achieved in the vernacular and this Petrarch understood fully. 28Frederick B. Artz, The Mind pf_the Middle Ages, (New York: Alfred KnOpf, 1962), p. 341. 29Ibid., pp. 341-42. Perhaps Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini had this in mind when he spoke of immortality in the preface to his Commentaries. His words are truly indicative of the Spirit suggested in the quotation above: "If the Soul dies with the body, as Epicurus wrongly supposed, fame can advantage it nothing. If on the other hand the soul lives on after it is released fromtthis corporeal frame, as Christians and the noblest philosophers tell us, it either suffers a wretched lot or joins the company of the happy spirits. NOW in wretchedness is no pleasure even from renown and perfect felicity of the blest is neither increased by the praise of mortals nor lessened by their blame. Why then do we so strive for the glory of a fair name?" Commentaries p£_PiuS I}, trans. Florence A. Gregg, (New York: G. P. Putnam, 1959), p. 27. The answer to the question indicated is rather obvious: we strive for a "fair name" and for "earthly fame" because in these there resides a type of immortality. Because of this, Aeneas Sylvius is a firm believer in the use of the vernacular. l7 Coluccio Salutati, eloquent secretary of Florence during the last years of the fourteenth century, agreed with the views of Petrarch on the use of the vernacular. In a letter to Brother John Dominici he writes the following: "I will, then, Reverend Father, begin with you a discussion as to whether it is more satisfactory to commence our education with sacred literature or to Spend some time on profane studies."30 He continues by justifying profane studies and vernacular usage when such are supported by religious experiences.31 In this connection, Ernst Robert Curtius has con- cluded a useful study on the relationship between the vernacular and religious expression. His conclusions appear to substantiate vernacular usage; however, he does indicate the dramatic and far- reaching effects which the vernacular had for the period of the de- 30Letter to Brother John Cominici of the Dominican Order, dated 1406, Florence, Novati IV, part 1. 31Considerable research on Coluccio Salutati has been done by Hans Baron in The Crisis pf_the Early Italian Renaissance, op. cit. The present writer was assisted greatly by extensive conversations with Hans Baron. Baron is of the opinion that Salutati and his Florentine circle significantly broadened the base of humanism. Salutati developed the tradition established by Petrarch and Dante which was inclined toward vernacular communication. This is not to underesthmate the humanism of Salutati, Poggio, Niccoli, Bruni, or, for that matter, Aeneas Sylvius. This is to say that humanism be- came more adaptive. For extensive documentation on the material in- cluded above, pf. Crisis, cited above; and Hans Baron, The Humanistic and Political Literature ip_Florence and Venice, (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1955), eSpecially pp. 156-160. Also, G. A. Brucker, Florentine Politics and Society, 1343-1378, (Princeton, N. J: Princeton University Press, 1962), p. 62; John Edwin Sandys, Harvard Lectures pp the Revival p£_Learning, (Cambridge,‘Mass: Harvard University Press, 1905). Sandys indicates in his work that "the influence of Petrarch and Boccaccio survived in Florence . . . in the person of Salutati," p. 31; pf, Erich Auerbach, Romance Languages and Literature, (New York: Norton, 1961), pp. 132, 140, 148. l8 cline of papal universalism.32 Leonardo Bruni, perhaps the first humanist historian, related his proficiency in Latin and Greek to the developing Italian ver- nacular. Although he regarded the pure languages as the foundation of learning, he articulated the need for an idiom of expression adaptive to common experience. In his words: "This leads me to press home this truth . . . that the foundation of all true learning must be laid in the sound and thorough knowledge of Latin . . . this will serve you as you test your correctness in choice of voca- bulary and of constructions."33 It is interesting to note that Bruni venerated Dante, the master of the vernacular. As Ferguson observes: " . . . his admiration was tempered by the fact that Dante was more accomplished in the vulgar style and in rhyme than in the Latin and literary style."34 Both Battista Guarino (a contemporary of Aeneas Sylvius) and Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini Spoke at length on the need for the use of the vernacular. Particularly Aeneas Sylvius Spoke to this point when he suggested that Solid education can never be achieved without the study of Greek and Latin; yet, even this study must be related to a higher objective, that of communicating with people. Aeneas Sylvius deals at great length with the subject of vernacular pro- 32Ernst Robert Curtius, EurOpean Literature and the Latin Middle Ages, (New York: Harper, 1963), pp. 383-401. 33"Selection from Leonardo Bruni, De Studiis et Citeris," in Vittorino d§_Feltre and Other Humanist Educators, edited by William H. WOOdward, (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1897), p. 123. 34Ferguson, op. cit., p. 21. 19 ficiency, not based exclusively on use, but on perfection (within the vernacular context). AS a humanist he believed that linguistic barbarity could be overcome by understanding and the use of perfect expressions as models for the developing vernacular. Thus, he ex- horts the student of vernacular languages to establish a classical model and to learn from that source the essence of perfection in communication.35 In Dg_Liberorum Educatione, Aeneas Sylvius justi- fies the reading of pagan authors on the basis that these serve as useful models for the student particularly interested in the vernac- ular.36 HUMANISM, THE DIGNITY OF MAN, AND THE WORLD OF AENEAS SYLVIUS The terms "humanism" and dignity of man" are vexed with far- reaching connotations which deserve attention in any study concerned with Aeneas Sylvius. When Myron P. Gilmore notes that "Aeneas Sylvius had himself received a humanist education and had participated in the intellectual excitement that had stimulated many of the best minds of his generation," he underscores the relationship between Aeneas Sylvius and the emerging humanists.37 Before developing this section on humanism, it is necessary to 35Woodward, 0p. cit., pp. 142-154. 36Cf. Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini, 23_Liberorum Educatione, trans. Brother-J. S. Nelson, (washington, D. C: Catholic University Press, 1940), p. 147. In the chapter to follow a detailed discussion of the contributions of Aeneas Sylvius to education and rhetoric will be given. On the vernacular with reference to Dg_Liberorum Educatione cf. also: The Cambridge Medieval History, (Cambridge, England: At EBA University Press, 1936), Volume VIII titled Thp_Close p£_£hg Middle Ages, pp. 706-717. 37Myron P. Gilmore, The WOrld pf_Humanism, (New York: Harper, 1952), p. 2. 20 derive a working definition for the term. It has been suggested by several historians that humanism in the Renaissance may be defined as a program of education, and in many respects this would coincide with the views of the present writer. HMmanism strove to develop the universal man through the discipline of education. Much was derived from the Graeco-Roman world, with Latin receiving dominant attention. Paul O. Kristeller observes that Humanista in Latin, and its vernacular equivalents in Italian, French, English, and other languages, were terms com- monly used in the sixteenth century for the professor or teacher or student of the humanities . . . This term was apparently used in the general sense of a liberal arts or literary education by such authors as Cicero and Gellius . . .38 The historical development of humanism involved preoccupation with textual criticism, acquisition of manuscripts, language study based on the Latin and Greek models, and other related disciplines; how- ever, all these were consummated within the context of the chief occupation of the humanists, that being education. Thus, humanism as it is understood and practiced in the Renaissance had less of the purely philOSOphical propensities. As Paul Kristeller further notes: "The Studia humanitatis includes one philosophical disci- pline, that is, morals, but it excludes by definition such fields as logic, natural philosophy, and metaphysics . . .39 38Paul 0. Kristeller, Renaissance Thought: The Classic, Scholastic, and Humanist Strains, (New York: Harper, 1961), p. 9; pf. also A. CEEpana, "The Origin of the Werd'Humanist;" Journal pf_the warbu£g_ and Courtauld Institutes, IX, (1946), 60-73. In this article the author develops a historical rationale for believing that the word 'humanism' means teacher, educator, and theorist. This would corro- borate with the practice of Aeneas Sylvius and his emphasis upon Cicero and Quintilian, especially the latter. 39Kristeller, Renaissance Thought, 0p. cit., p. 10. 21 The humanism of the Renaissance deve10ped along four classical expressions: Platonist, Aristotelian, Ciceronian and Quintilianist. Each avenue relates Significantly to many endeavors, but for the purposes of this study only the rhetorical Shall receive extensive development. Scholarship in the humanism of the Renaissance was confined to two significant arenas: Latin, through the contributions of the Roman world; and Greek, through the world of Aristotle, Plato, Isocrates, and the SOphists. Admittedly, the humanists were the professional educators of the Renaissance and Since one of the disci- plines of the trivium was rhetoric, it was necessary for them to develop a continuity with the polemic of the Graeco-Roman world per- taining to the value of rhetoric. Thus " . . . Renaissance humanism must be understood as a characteristic phase in what may be called the rhetorical tradition in Western culture."40 The humanists strove to integrate rhetoric within the pedagogy of their times. The tradition of rhetoric had existed in Italy during the Middle Ages. Alfredo Galletti has developed the historical context in his study on eloquence. He suggests that the dictatores, who were theorists and practitioners of rhetoric, were the early counterpart of the Renaissance humanists.41 Although the dictatores were not classical scholars, they did concern themselves with practical ora- tory and eloquence. The contributions of the humanists in rhetoric are seen in their integration of rhetoric with classical models. 401bid., p. 11. 41Alfredo Galletti, L'Eloquenza, (Milan: Corticelli, 1904). 22 Baldwin notes that the dictatores of the Middle Ages used the five parts of rhetoric with the emphasis on style.42 These parts were systematically related to the classical canons via the humanist endeavors in reviving Graeco-Roman rhetoric. However the rhetoricians of the Middle Ages were by no means without a tradition of their own. Admittedly it was largely based on what sources were extant from Augustine's Platonism, yet it did have substance and theory. Beyond Augustine, they had Boethius and other Roman writers. The major problems in the rhetoric of the Middle Ages were nothing more than the problems which confronted Aristotle and Plato: Of what value is rhetoric? In an article titled "Rhetoric in the Middle Ages," Richard McKeon deve10ps an apprOpriate synthesis of the problem: The rhetorician who professed to treat of subject matters accessible to the 'common notions' of the mind without need of technical competence, found himself opposed on the one hand by theologians who had learned from Augustine to use the distinc- tion between words and things both to attack the rhetoric of the schools and to practise a rhetoric concerned with divine eloquence and divine things, and on the other hand by rheto- ricians who had learned from Boethius to use the distinction between thesis and hypothesis to limit rhetoric to probable reasoning concerning specifically delimited questions sub- ordinate to the general questions of dialectic. To the Augustinian the excessive use or extension of rhetoric no less than dialectic was suspect; to the peripatetic follower of Boethius limitation or criticism of dialectic, whether from the vieWpoint of theology or of rhetoric, was an attadc on the use of dialectic.43 42Charles S. Baldwin, Medieval Rhetoric and Poetic, (Gloucester, Mass: Peter Smith, 1959), p. 216. 43Richard'McKeon, "Rhetoric in the Middle Ages," Speculum, XVII, (Jan. 1942), 12-13. A rather extensive discussion of the subordina- tion of rhetoric to dialectic is developed in the above mentioned article. The historical deve10pment of this is indicated by Baldwin: "at the fall of Rome the Trivium was dominated by rhetorica; in the Carolingian period, by grammatica; in the high.Middle Age, by dialec- tica." Baldwin, Medieval Rhetoric, 9p. cit., p. 151. He further sug- gests that this sequence deve10ped because of what the various writers 23 The humanist of the Renaissance who felt that rhetorical per- fection was suspect borrowed much from Platonism. Through the Platonic school of Florence, Plato's distrust for rhetoric was main- tained. Aristotelianism developed the belief that rhetoric is con- cerned with giving effectiveness to truth. Thus, a basic value is associated with the use of rhetoric. Beyond Plato and Aristotle, the most popular of the classical world were Cicero and Quintilian. Renaissance humanists eulogized, imitated, and copied Cicero's prose and oratory style. As Burckhardt observes: 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.44 The rank held by Quintilian in this period of Renaissance humanism is noted by Aeneas Sylvius himself, who in his views on education copies the format and style of Quintilian. John A. Symonds alludes to the fifteenth century as the golden age of "Speechification."45 The tradition of Cicero was extended, and men of eloquence were individuals of respectability. This is the period during which the would emphasize. Only in the later Renaissance does the tradition become more fluid and less arbitrary. 44Burckhardt, op. cit., p. 186. 45John A. Symonds, The Revival p£_Learning, (New York: G. P. Putnam, 1960), p. 386. 24 "apes of Cicero" cultivated their interests.46 Symonds refers to the decadence which resulted from the Speechification noted: The emptiness of all this oratory, separated from the solid concerns of life, and void of actual value, tended to increase the sophistic tendencies in literature. Eloquence, which ought to owe its force to passionate emotion or to gravity of meaning, degenerated into a mere play of words; and to such an extent was verbal cleverness over-estimated, that a scholar could ascribe the fame of Julius Caesar to his 'Com- mentaries' rather than his victories . . . To play upon the texts of antiquity, as a pianist upon the keys of his instru- ment, was no small part of eloquence . . .47 The element which John Symonds overlooked within this context of study relates to the contribution of Cicero to the Renaissance. Hans Baron has defined this in an article titled "Cicero and The Roman Civic Spirit in the Middle Ages and Early Renaissance." He suggests that the imitation of Cicero during the Renaissance con- tributed appreciably to both the expansion of Renaissance humanism 46"Apes of Cicero" was used by F. Villani in his biography of Salutati titled Life pf_Coluccio Salutati. 47Ibid., p. 387. John A. Symonds' scholarship in the history of the Renaissance is noteworthy. There remains little doubt, however, that he held eloquence and oratory in contempt. He disagrees with Burckhardt in this respect, for the latter has devoted sections of his Civilization pf the Renaissance to the development of eloquence during the period. He regarded rhetoric as a significant develop- ment during the Renaissance. Abuses doubtless existed; however these received less attention in Burckhardt than in Symonds. In terms of Aeneas Sylvius and the respect which he had for rhetoric, Symonds says very little. He only indicates the propensities of Aeneas Sylvius in rhetoric, but deve10ps none of the actual theories of Aeneas Sylvius, nor does he suggest any contributions. Of John A. Symonds the following has been indicated: "Symonds had not the temperament for cool analysis or careful qualification. Writing with time and death at his heels, he never gave his mind time to digest the fruits of his voracious reading, and the sense of driving strain and excitement that burned fitfully throughout his work heightened its dramatic quality. In his presentation . . . the Renaissance appeared as an age of violent contrasts." Wellace K. Ferguson, Renaissance in Historical Thought, 0p, cit., p. 204. Cf, also Van Wyck Brooks,—John Addington Symonds, A_Biographica1 Study, (New York: 1914), pp. 130-136. 25 and to the "powerful self-confidence of the fifteenth century."48 The extent of his pedagogy suggests, in the words of Crassus, "What cannot be learnt quickly, will never be learned at all."49 Such ideas, developed from De_0ratore, were revived in the fifteenth century; this revival is important for the Renaissance period. The pOpularity experienced by the Italian Humanists was not exclusively derived from their veneration of the ancients. Aris- totle, Plato, Cicero, and Quintilian formed the substantive base for a pedagogical system which was to impress Aeneas Sylvius with the necessity of encouraging humanism. Thus, the humanists became the educators of the Renaissance. As Paul O. Kristeller and John H. Randall, Jr. note: The major concern of the humanists was an educational and cultural program based on the study of the classical Greek and Latin authors. In dealing with these texts, they elaborated methods of historical and philological criticism which contri- buted greatly to the later developments of these disciplines.50 The far-reaching implications of Renaissance humanism motivated greater and more practical elements. "They emphasized the ideal of literary elegance and considered the imitation of the Roman authors the best way of learning to speak and write well in prose and verse."51 48Hans Baron, "Cicero and the Roman Civic Spirit in the Middle Ages and Early Renaissance," in Bulletin p£_the John Rylands Library, XXII, (1938), p. 97. 49_D_e_ Oratore, III, 22, 82-83, 89. 50Cassirer, et. al., The Renaissance Philosophy_p£pMan, 0p. cit., p. 3. 51Ibid. As Ferguson observes on this question: "After the hOpe- ful beginning of the Carolingian age, learning degenerated, for men rushed into the Study of Aristotle, and that in defective form, so that better studies were neglected, and a new system of education was imposed upon youth. The result was that both Christian morals and 26 It is correct to conclude humanism represented an ideology.52 Thus, the innocence of humanist educators cataclysmically trans- formed society from top to bottom. This restive ideology became the "yeast in the leaven." Basic to the educating disciplines of humanism was the emer- gence of Renaissance philosophy. Unlike the Cartesian method of the seventeenth century, Renaissance philosophy was nourished by nascent Platonism. Aeneas Sylvius was quite familiar with the Platonism of his generation because of his tenuous friendship with Nicholas of Cusa. The latter " . . . may in a sense be called the the study of literature were destroyed," These the humanists effectively revived. Cf. Ferguson, The Renaissance ip Historical Thought, op. cit., pp.-45-6. 52This element is suggested with equivocation by Alfred von Martin in a lengthy quotation worth noting: "The concept of a 'hu- manist' knowledge concerned with truths applicable to humanity in general, with an ethical system based upon personal virtus (i. e. ability gained by an individual's own endeavor), implies the nega- tion of the belief in supra-natural powers which had been taught by the clergy, in favor of a 'natural philOSOphy'; it means that what applied to the bourgeois was applied to humanity in general and was regarded as universally valid; it even means that new at- tacks might be made upon those positions which had until then been firmly held by the clergy. Such were the tendencies inherent in bourgeois liberty in the Renaissance as in later times, but as yet they needed a firm foundation which might be used with 'authority.' This function was fulfilled by classical antiquity. It is always the way of secular authority to base its claims upon its past, and the further back these claims go, the greater the authority. There is need for antiquity, for a model, i. e. 'Classical Antiquity.' The traditions of medieval humanism gave a Starting-point for a new erudition, correSponding to the level attained by bourgeois culture, which wrested from the clergy its monopoly founded upon the theo- logical orientation of medieval learning. The new ideal made its triumphant way, and Scholasticism was confined to the narrow bounds of clerical circles." Alfred von Martin, The Sociology 2£.EEE. Renaissance, (New York, 1963), p. 27. 27 first Western Platonist of the Renaissance."53 Quite frequently his philosophy and epistemology were learning experiences to Aeneas Sylvius, who read with enthusiasm his celebrated book De_ngp§_ Ignorantia. The most impressive facet of De Egg£§_was Cusa's dis- cussion of the nature of the universe. To the humanists, this question was basic to the historical Weltanschauung of their genera- tion. Cusa answered the question thus: The earth, then, is a noble star, which has a light, a heat, and an influence different from those of all other stars. Just as each differs from every other by its light, its nature, and its influence, so each one communicates to another light and influence, not intentionally, since all the stars move and shine only in order to be in a better way; and then participa- tion occurs. Light shines by virtue of its own nature and not in order that I Should see . . . Plato, in fact, said that the world is an animal; if one conceives God as its soul.54 Less than one generation after the death of Nicholas of Cusa, his Platonism was transformed into a most distasteful naturalism. 53Cassirer, et. al., The Renaissance Philosophy pf_Man, 9p. cit., p. 7. The present writer suggests that the relationship between Cusa and Aeneas Sylvius was tenuous because of a Speech made by Cusa him- self before Aeneas Sylvius after he became Pope. The following is indicated: "I have long susPected, Your Holiness, that I was hateful to you. Now I am certain of it Since you ask of me what I cannot grant without incurring Heaven's reproach. You are preparing to create new cardinals without any pressing reason merely at your own whim . . . I do not know how to flatter. I hate adulation. If you can bear to hear the truth, I like nothing which goes on in this Curia. Everything is corrupt. No one does his duty. Neither you nor the cardinals have any care for the Church. What observance of the canons is there? What reverence for laws? What assiduity in divine worship? All are bent on ambition and avarice. If I ever speak in a consistory about reform, I am laughed at. I do no good here." Commentaries, 9p. cit., VII, 228. Cassirer has referred to Nicholas Cusa as one of the notables of Renaissance thought. He ob- served that De Docta Ignorantia was one of the seminal influences on emerging humanism. Cf, Ernst Cassirer, "Giovanni Pico della Miran- dola," Journal p£_the History p£_Ideas, III, (1942), 321. 54Nicholas of Cusa, De_Docta Ignorantia, trans. by J. B. Ross, (New York, 1958), p. 587-8. 28 Aeneas Sylvius was more akin to the former Statement of theistic philosophical expression. The catalogue of humanists who influenced Aeneas Sylvius must be extended beyond Nicholas of Cusa. Revived Latin scholarship was the prevailing temper throughout the universities in the Tuscan area. Giovanni di Conversino da Ravenna had established a distinguished reputation as humanist professor of rhetoric at Padua. His famous students, Vittorino da Feltre and Guarino da Verona, extended his humanism into textbooks on education. The Ciceronian influence in da Ravenna is evident in his two students who commented on their master's brilliant lectures on the "typical Latin Style to be found in Cicero."55 Mention has been made of the important contributions of Coluccio de' Salutati in the area of humanistic scholarship. No less of a reputation was shared by GaSparino da Barzizza who began a school of rhetoric at Milan in 1418 similar to the Isocratean school of classical times. Leonardo Bruni, Manuel Chrysoloras and Georgius Trapezuntius achieved fame as humanists in historical criticism, Greek, and literary criticism reSpectively. It was un- likely that Aeneas Sylvius would not have encountered their reputed fame at the University of Siena. He mentions the justified fame of Salutati, Bruni, and Alberti within the context of his description of emerging humanism in Florence.56 He suggests his affinity with the Spirit of humanistic enterprise by consistently alluding to the necessity of humanistic scholarship. Theodorus of Gaza, professor 559;, Sir R. C. Jebb's "The Classical Renaissance," in The Cambridge Modern Histopy, I, 543. 56Commentaries, 0p. cit., pp. 108-9, 316. 29 of Greek at Ferraro for nine years (1441-50), took residence near the papal court during the pontificate of Pius II. Gemistos Plethon, a Neoplatonist and a teacher, nurtured the extensive study of classical antiquity vis-a-vis the Platonic Academy of Florence. John Argyropolous, a brilliant successor to Chrysoloras, served as professor at Florence and at Rome from 1456-1471. Perhaps the most famous of the humanist contemporaries of Aeneas Sylvius was Lorenzo Valla, who, in his Donation of Constantine exposed western man to the first example of exhaustive historical criticism.57 Of all the humanists, Flavio Biondo received the most unrestrained praise from Aeneas Sylvius. Of Biondo's fame, R. C. Jebb notes the following: Flavio Biondo, who died in 1463, compiled an encyclo- paedic work in three parts, Roma Instaurata, Roma Triumphans, and Italia Illustrata, on the history, institutions, manners, topography, and monuments of ancient Italy. He lived to complete also more than thirty books of a great work on the period commencing with the decline of the Roman Empire, Historiarum ab inclinatione Romanorum. In an age so largely occupied with —Style, which was not among his gifts, Biondo is a signal example of laborious and comprehensive erudition..58 57Joseph R. Strayer and Dana C. Munro, The Middle Ages, (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1959), p. 539. 58R. C. Jebb, 0p. cit., p. 547. With particular reference to the humanists catalogued above, considerable research is available. The following items suggest the most relevant items: Paul 0. Kris- teller and John H. Randall, "The Study of the Philosophies of the Renaissance," Journal Lf the Histopy Lf Ideas, II, (1941), 449- 96. N. Nelson, "Individualism as a Criterion of the Renaissance," The Journal Lf English and German Philology, XXXII, (1933), 316- 34. K. E. Seton, "Some Recent Views of the Italian Renaissance," Report Lf the Annual Meeting Lf the Canadian Historical Association, 1947, pp. 5- 34. Perhaps the finest publication to date is Hans Baron, Crisis, 0p. cit., and his Humanistic and Political Literature in Florence and Venice at the Beginningny the Quattrocento: Studies in Criticism and Chronology, (Cambridge, Mass: University Press, 1955). In addition, The Cambridge Modern History,V Volume I, and Wallace K. Ferguson's useful The Renaissance in Historical Thought, 30 Aeneas Sylvius recognized the schematic historical scholarship of Biondo; nonetheless, he notes with descriptive admiration that Flavio Biondo was a distinguished historian who had long been Apostolic Secretary and in high favor with Pope Eugenius IV. He wrote a universal history from the time of the Emperors Honorius and Arcadius, with whom the decline of the Roman Em- pire is said to have begun, to his own day, a work which is certainly painstaking and useful and deserves to be revised and emended.5 Florence A. Gragg observes that Biondo enjoyed the good favor of Aeneas Sylvius throughout his life.60 In the final analysis, the humanists were able to transform the "ideology" of humanistic effort into a conception of far—reaching magnitude. The undeniable fact of humanistic effort is that this small group of thinkers transformed the world into a work of fathomable art. The new vitality of humanism was magnetic, par- ticularly for men like Aeneas Sylvius, who understood the necessity of expansion in humanism throughout Italy. In the words of von Martin, " . . . the fundamental transformation of all conditions . . . were bound to bring about an energetic development of artistic endeavor and the emergence of new problems in art. The creative impulse had to be brought to fruition by an entirely new consciousness in the artist."61 The "creative impulse" suggested in von Martin's statement was extended by the deve10pment of op. cit. A most recent publication titled Facets of the Renaissance includes two important essays by wallace Ferguson,-fiThe Reinter- pretation of the Renaissance," and by Myron P. Gilmore, "The Renaissance Conception of the Lessons of History." (New York, 1963). 59Commentaries, op. cit., XI, 323. 60g. Ibid., x1, 323 _f_f. 51von Martin, op. cit., p. 25. 31 humanism from Petrarch to Aeneas Sylvius. Another element basic to the "consciousness of the Renaissance" is the emergence of the dignity of man. The concept of the dignity of man developed from the NeOplatonism of the Renaissance. Neo- platonism posited that man is able through active intellect to attain almost god-like properties. Within this context, man is able to elevate himself above the mundane and ordinary. The ultimate quest of man toward dignity is indicated in the universal man -- that man pre-eminently qualified in several areas of endeavor. In the words of Herschell Baker: "If he uses his native gifts prOperly, man is_ God-like in his possession of a rational soul. Just as God is above all things, so man seeks to conquer the universe."62 Jacob Burck- hardt corroborates the concept of native universalism by noting: The fifteenth century is, above all, that of the many- sided man. There is no biography which does not, besides the chief work of its hero, Speak of other pursuits all passing beyond the limits of dilettantism. The Florentine merchant and statesman was often learned in both the classical lan- guages: the most famous humanists read the Ethics and Politics of Aristotle to him and his sons."6 Burckhardt, in his discussion of the dignity of man, suggests that some individuals typically fit the pattern of the "all-sided" man. Leon Battista Alberti is a case in point. Alberti combined his efforts in art with lasting contributions in architecture. Besides, he was skilled in gymnastics, music, Speech, and law, to mention but a few. Human dignity is equated with human proficiency. The concept of human dignity pre-supposes a catalogue of addi- 62Herschell Baker, op. cit., pp. 245-6. 63Burckhardt, op. cit., pp. 214-15. 32 tional properties: native glory and unrestricted human grandeur; erudition and depth of learning; virtue and human worth; character and nobility. In what sense does Aeneas Sylvius qualify as homo universale? Florence A. Gragg gives the answer in her introduction to the Commentaries: "Pius II -- statesman, poet, humanist, incorrigible traveler and nature lover." She suggests that "His individualism as a humanist followed him to the papal throne; he remained too much the performer ever to become the patron."64 The complexity of his experiences make Aeneas Sylvius a most interesting area of study. Primarily is this true because of his competence and capa- city -- competence in whatever he undertook to accomplish as humanist; capacity in that his retentive powers and rhetorical manner made him the humanist par excellence. THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE RENAISSANCE AS A POLITICAL FORCE It would be incorrect to assert that the world of Aeneas Sylvius was little affected by the political transformations which took place in the Tuscan city-state and in Italy. A factor basic to Renaissance historiography is the inter-relationship between literary humanism, based on Graeco-Roman models, and civic humanism, based on the same models. Civic humanism was decidedly political and was inextricably associated with the Renaissance as Hans Baron correctly indicates: "Not only did humanistic scholars all over 64Commentaries, op. cit., p. 17. Myron P. Gilmore notes: "The perception of a man like Aeneas Sylvius embraced the contem- porary political, religious, and intellectual scene. What lay out- side his conscious formulation was an analogous general view of the economic condition of EurOpe." Ih£_World 2£_Humanism, op. cit., p. 3. 33 Italy look to the new Aflnens on the Arno; the most significant effect for the future was that from Florence ideas spread through all Italy such as could develop only in the society of a free city."65 The distance between Florence and Siena is very small, and the Renaissance in Florence of the late fourteenth century was to have effect in Siena early in the life of Aeneas Sylvius.66 The political effect of the Renaissance in the Tuscan area sur- rounding Siena will constitute the emphasis in this section. HISTORICAL PREFACE The political changes which developed between the feudal period and the Renaissance are well known and need little reiteration; however, the unique transformations from feudalism to city-State structures in Italy are worthy additional scholarship. During the ‘Middle Ages, Italy was the focal point of dynastic involvement. The Holy Roman Empire had Specific aspirations in Italy and sought to translate these aspirations into material acquisitions. Perhaps the ambitions of Frederick Barbarossa, Holy Roman Emperor, were the most dramatic for the Italian city-states. These ambitions were based on a wider perSpective; that perspective included all of the Italian peninsula within the broader confines of the Holy Roman 65Baron, Crisis, op. cit., I, 6. 66The relationship between Siena and Florence was not purely literary; although it became overwhelmingly literary, it began along commercial lines. These are indicated by Henri Pirenne, Economic and Social History gngedieval Europe, (New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1933). "In Tuscany, Siena and Florence communicated with Pisa by the valley of the Arno and shared in her prosperity." (p. 33). Also, he observes that the Florentine and Sienese inter- ests in money were expansive and mutual. (p. 102). 34 Empire. The most treasured name in Frederick's estimation was not Barbarossa, but that name given to him by the German princes and nobles —- "new Caesar."67 The proof of his qualities as "new Caesar" could be seen only in his material strength in the forma- tion of a broader German Empire including the domain of the earlier Caesar, Italy. This domain he would receive if he would help de- stroy the recently formed republic at Milan.68 The formation of the republic came in direct Opposition to the trend toward city- state consciousness which had recently swept the Lombard towns.69 The campaigns pursued by Frederick Barbarossa in Italy cover the period from 1154 to 1184. In 1183, Frederick came to terms with his earlier enemies, the Milanese. Through the Peace of Constance, agreed upon in the same year, Frederick's relations with the Lombard League became quasi-feudalistic. The officials of the Lombard towns, though achieving their positions through elections, were to become vassals to the Emperor Frederick and were to be invested with their office by the emperor. This was the epitome of loose feudal dependence. In addition to this relationship, Frederick enjoyed more direct control in Tuscany through Romagna and the lands of the Countess Mathilda. The final success in Italy came in 1186 when the proposed marriage between Frederick's son Henry and Constance, the heiress to the throne of 67James Westfall Thompson, Medieval Europe, op. cit., p. 397. 681bid., p. 399. 69Cf.‘Marc Bloch, Feudal Society, trans. by L. A. Manyon, (Chicago? University of Chicago Press, 1961), particularly the chapter titled "Towards the Reconstruction of States: National Developments." 35 William II, King of Southern Italy and Sicily, was concluded. Henry VI, successor to his father Frederick, was not able to con- solidate the Italian domains acquired. His wife Constance spent much of her time solidifying the claims of the future Frederick II in the Two Sicilies. Beyond this, little was done to develop co- hesion in the Lombard and Tuscan territories in northern Italy. This task was left to the capable Frederick II. Early in Burck- hardt's essay on the Renaissance he mentions the importance of Frederick II, referring to him as " . . . the first ruler of the modern type who sat upon the throne . . ."70 Throughout the reign of Frederick II, much attention was devoted to Italy. In fact, it would not be incorrect to suggest that the major focus of the total reign of Frederick II was directed toward Italy. He worked strenuously to effect what most frequently occupied his imagination -- the direct administration of all Italy. That this dream included the virtual unification of Italy can be little doubted. That this dream was nearly achieved in fact is common knowledge. Thompson observes: The whole administration of northern Italy was thus fused with that of southern Italy into one system dominated by the emperor. This, had it proved permanent, would have been an important step in the unification of Italy; even as it was . . . it did lay the foundations for the later northern despotisms. Three elements are basic to the emerging northern de3potisms, and these elements cannot be understood without the introductory 7OBurckhardt, op. cit., p. 5. This point is seriously in ques- tion among modern historians. Cf, Bossenbrook, op. cit., pp. 37-40. 71Thompson, Medieval Europe, op. cit., p. 426. 36 remarks which preface this section. The first element pertains to the deve10pment and expansion of the larger city-states; the second pertains to the emergence of tyrannical deSpots; the third, the emer- gence and Spread of civic humanism. Proof of the city-state consciousness is evident in the histo- ries of both Lombardy and Tuscany during the early Renaissance. Proof of the existence of despots is abundant in the entire history of Italy in the early Renaissance.72 Despotism was more distinctly evident in the Visconti of Milan in the fourteenth century and the Baglioni in the fifteenth. As despotism emerged, the growing influence and im- portance of the condottiere developed.73 The history of the fif- teenth century is abundant with records of condottiere becoming rulers, and it was precisely this deve10pment which motivated Aeneas Sylvius to observe: "In our change-loving Italy, where nothing stands firm, and where no ancient dynasty exists, a servant can easily become king."74 It is questionable how many servants became kings; however, it is certain that condottiere in many instances overthrew existing rulers and formed the basis of the emerging de5pots. Civic humanism, the last element indicated 7ZBurckhardt devotes considerable attention to the deSpotisms of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Cf, Burckhardt, 0p. cit., pp. 4'39. 73Perhaps the most concise discussion of the Condottiere is given in the Cambridge Medieval Histopy, op. cit., VIII, 209-211. The treatment here is quite sympathetic in terms of the over-all effect which the condottiere had on the Italian Renaissance in politics. 74As quoted in Burckhardt, 0p. cit., p. 21. Hans Baron is ex— tremely useful on this point. He discussed the condottiere under the general caption "citizen army." Cf. Crisis, op. cit., I, 334- 335. 37 above, became a political force throughout the Renaissance in Italy. CIVIC HUMANISM: FLORENCE For the present study, the development of civic humanism as contrasted to deSpotism and tyrannies Shall be viewed from two foci: Florence, as it relates to the Tuscan city-states; and Siena, as it relates to both Tuscany and Florence. The justification for this approach is rooted in the influences which those states and republics had on the emerging humanism of Aeneas Sylvius, which was to have both literary and political overtones. Both Florence and the Tuscan city-states had to cope with the vexing problem of dominant deSpotism. The culmination of the struggle between democracy and oligarchy had reached fruition in 1382 in Florence and early in the next century for the Tuscan city- states. The most interesting trend of the period is " . . . how in the fourteenth century Florence and Italy provided themselves with the beginnings of a new mentality."7S This new mentality was con- tinuous with the conflicts of the fourteenth century and the expec- tations of civic liberty achieved in the fifteenth. In the period from 1382 to 1434, triumphant oligarchy pre- vailed in Florence. The origins of this oligarchy are to be found in the uprisings of 1378 to 1383, and, the end result was the proclamation of an oligarchy in Florence on February 28, 1382. This oligarchy was decidedly expansionist and aggressive. The man who was to serve as the Secretary to the Florentine Commune in the early sixteenth century isolated the vexing problems 75Ferdinand Schevill, A_Historz p£_Florence, (New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1936), p. 310. Cf, also, G. A. Brucker, op. cit., pp. 64-79. 38 which had so involved Florence in the early Quattrocento. In his words: "Republican governments, more especially those imperfectly organized, frequently change their rulers and the form of their institutions; not by the influence of liberty or subjection, as many suppose, but by that of slavery and license . . ."76 In the midst of the political chaos which characterized Milan, Venice, Naples, and the State of the Church early in the Quattrocento, Florentine political development remained aggressive and expan- sionist. This was no less the policy which had characterized the States in Italy mentioned above. In the words of Ferdinand Schevill: "It was a program every whit as expansionist as that of the rival states, two of which lay to the north of Florence and two to the south."77 ‘With a most efficient form of government -- oligarchy, the situation was ripe for the kind of policy Florence was to pursue. As H. B. Cotterill notes: ". . . Florence succumbed to influences which have ever tended to lead back from republican liberty to deSpotism."78 Aeneas Sylvius spoke descriptively of the policy of Florence which deve10ped from despotism as most perplexing. As he notes: ". . . when they believed themselves free, having 76Niccolo‘Machiavelli, History p£_Florence, trans. by H. A. Rennert, (New York, 1901), p, 158. 77Ferdinand Schevill, Medieval and Renaissance Florence, (New York: Harper, 1961), pp. 336-7. 78H. B. Cotterill, Italy from Dante £p_Tasso, (London: Harrap, 1918), p. 306. Basic to this period is another significant develop- ment and that is the decline of feudalism in Florence. The transi- tion from the Trecento to the Quattrocento saw the emergence of a pronounced urban economy. 39 driven out one master only to admit many" they were in truth subject the more. "The city has often been racked by civil war, while the upper classes fought together for the mastery."79 During the expansionism of Florence early in the Quattrocento, many cities in the Tuscan area fell into the orbit of Florentine control. The last city to succumb to the domination of Florence was Siena. During the extreme difficulties experienced by Lucca, a friendly neighbor to Siena, she appealed to the latter for aid and received the requested assistance. After Lucca was defeated by Florence (in Spite of Siena's aid), there was very little doubt that the liberty of Siena was now at best nominal. As Schevill observes: Should Lucca fall a prey to Florence, Siena would be the only remaining free town of Tuscany, and it took no prophet to foresee what in that event would happen to that small upland state. In case any Sienese doubters needed to be convinced of what was in store for their city, the street urchins of Florence might have enlightened them, for they went about the city singing 'Ave Maria, grazia piena; avuto Lucco; avremo Siena.'80 Vexed with this threat, Siena appealed to Milan for military assis- tance. This assistance, coupled with the timely death of one of the Florentine oligarchs -- Niccolo da Uzzano by name -- averted disaster and defeat for Lucca and Siena, and foreshadowed the return of Cosimo de'Medici in control at Florence. Thus, the heart of the challenge presented by Florence to the Tuscan states is nothing more than a reiteration of that challenge presented by the Duchy of Milan to Florence in the Trecento. The 79Commentaries, op. cit., p. 106. 80Schevill, op. cit., p. 351. 40 fact remains that " . . . tyranny . . . by its nature is dynamic, expansionist, and a potentially unifying factor in inter-state relations on the Peninsula."81 The decentralized character of the Tuscan states provided fertile Opportunity for the oligarchy of Florence to dominate and to control. From 1402 to the end of the fifteenth century, the history of Florence is the history of benevolem: despotism. The struggle between the Albizzi, who represented the banking and merchant hegemony, and the Medici, neophytes in the ranks of the oligarchs, ended with the victorious Medici assuming control of the Signoria in 1434. The rationale for civic humanism was best articulated by Bruni who believed that political freedom was a necessary prerequi- site to civic virtue. Bruni suggested that Roman civilization de- clined because of the emergence of Imperial despotism. Thus, civic humanism became an ideology. The recognition that Tuscany had originally been a country of civic freedom and had reassumed this character after the end of the Roman Empire, explained . . . why Florence and Tuscany at the present time formed the region of the greatest city-states independence and the strongest love of liberty.82 To the generation of Cosimo de 'Medici, the words of Machiavelli penned four decades later would appear correct: "When . . . a good, wise, and powerful citizen appears, who establishes ordinances capable of appeasing or restraining these contending dispositions, 81Baron, op. cit., p. 12. 82Ibid., p. 53. 41 so as to prevent them from doing mischief, then the government may be called free, and its institutions firm and secure . . ."83 The ideological backdrop of the political deve10pments indicated above remains humanistic at its very core. The undeniable evidence for this fact is seen in Leonardo Bruni, who, within the context of historiography underscored the emotional aspects of civic humanism.84 As S. Harrison Thomson notes: The story of Florence offered opportunities for remarks on the nature of liberty and tyranny, and Bruni, doubtless influenced by Salutati, made his own views quite clear. To him the pursuit of liberty is the central theme of human his- tory, and in his own day the history of beloved Florence illustrated that pursuit as eloquently as had the history of Greece and Rome in ancient times. The History was doubtless Bruni's most important work . . CIVIC HUMANISM: SIENA In terms of civic humanism in the early Renaissance, Siena presents a most curious contrast. It was not a city with great ambitions comparable to Florence. Siena was content to number herself with the several cities of Tuscany. Her primary foreign policy was to protect her native liberty which she had enjoyed for centuries, and any infringement upon that liberty would be met with resistance. From 1390 to 1408 the active aggressor in Tuscany was Milan. First under Giangaleazzo, the Milanese expanded their hegemony to include Pisa, Perugia, and Siena. As they advanced to Florence, Giangaleazzo died, as did the offensive. The decline 83Machiavelli, op. cit., p. 158. 84C. C. Bayley, War and Society ip_Renaissance Florence, (Toronto, 1963), pp. 102-177. 85Thomson, op. cit., p. 312. 42 of the Milanese offensive saw the emergence of Florentine aggression. As Hans Baron observes: "Florence pursued the same policy in parts of Tuscany. In 1405-06 her growing territorial state, in a cruel sequel to the wars with Giangaleazzo, incorporated the city of Pisa, master of the mouth of the Arno."86 With direct access to a port, Florence could advance her merchant interests. She could even com- pete with Venice for commercial control of the peninsula. In 1408, the complete disintegration of Giangaleazzo's empire followed the emergence of Naples with King Ladislaus as the dominant force; Florence now needed allies deSperately in order to avert disaster. " . . . the city of Rome and her territory, the whole dominion of the Church seemed about to fall under his King Ladislaus' rule."87 By 1409, Umbria, including Perugia, Assisi, Cortona, and the plains in southern Tuscany were under the control of Naples. At this point Siena and Florence entered into a mutual defensive league. This league was to have a dramatic effect for King Ladislaus' advance. Thus, Hans Baron observes: "What finally stopped the King in his advance to the north was . . . the league concluded between Florence and Siena for the mutual protection of their territories . . ."88 The histories of Florence and Siena diverge at this point: Florence tried to meet the Neapolitan offensive by conquest wherever this was possible; Siena wanted to maintain her 86Baron, Crisis, op. cit., p. 317. 87Ibid., p. 318. 881bid. 43 autonomy and civic liberty. Florence became more expansionist; Siena became more amenable to conciliation. In August, 1414, King Ladislaus of Naples suddenly and quite unexpectedly died. As Leonardo Bruni observed: It was his premature death which delivered the Florentines and the other free city-states from their grave suspicions and from the most evident and certain danger; for as long as he lived, there were no ways of escape at the end of which there did not loom the need to submit.89 Thus, in less than twenty years, Tuscany was subjected to two offensives, the one from.Milan and the other from Naples. These offensives foreshadowed a third threat to Tuscan freedom, and this was to again originate in Milan. Filippo Mario Visconti, the Milanese general, began to consolidate the earlier domains of Giangaleazzo. By 1421 Visconti had seized Parma, Brescia, and much of northern Italy. Florence could not be expected to remain neutral for long. After Milan annexed the republic of Genoa, Florence made preparations for war. Thus, 1423 was a fateful year for Tuscany in general and Florence in particular. A delegation was sent to Milan to declare that Florence was determined to preserve that liberty which our fathers had bequeathed to us . . . and as the evidence of our past history clearly shows, we shall persist in this determination for ever, to save liberty, which is dearer to us than life, for which we shall not refuse to risk fortunes, children, brothers, even body or soul, without reservation.90 The unfortunate sequel to this declaration was the stunning defeat of Florence in 1424 and again in 1425 by the Visconti of Milan. Only after Venice entered the conflict on the side of Florence did 89A5 quoted by Hans Baron, Ibid., p. 323. 901bid., p. 329. 44 Visconti meet his equal. In 1436, Genoa was liberated from the tyranny of the Visconti; she now numbered herself among the inde- pendent Italian states which included Florence, Siena, and Venice. The recall of Cosimo de 'Medici in 1434 and the expansion of Florentine commerce stabilized the politics and economy of Florence throughout the Quattrocento. In Siena, economic recession deve- loped during the lifetime of Aeneas Sylvius. As Sismondi notes: "Siena was now a place of far less importance than before; she had been outstripped by Florence in commercial deve10pment and extent of territory . . ."91 By 1430, Siena adopted a form of government which had originated in Florence, this being the bglig_system. Fifteen citizens were given extraordinary powers and were entrusted with the defense of Siena. As in Florence where the Medici manipu- lated the Eflliflg so in Siena the pgli§_became the puppet of the fami- lies of wealth. The most significant families were the Popolani, the Noveschi, and the Petrucchi. Although the Piccolomini family had been a dominant force in the politics of Siena during the Trecento, it declined in significance during the following century. Even the elevation of Aeneas Sylvius to the pontificate could hardly reverse the ultimate eclipse of the Piccolomini family. The summary of Sismondi is useful to understanding the position of Siena by 1450: "Siena was a small weak state . . ."92 91J. c. L. Sismondi, History o£_the Italian Republics, trans. by'William Boulting, (London), p. 661. 921bid., p. 662. THE PAPACY AND TEMPORAL AUTHORITY The political deve10pments which characterized Italy in the early Quattrocento served to transform the Papacy into a force subservient to secular pursuits. The reasons for the transforma- tion are obvious. First, while the Papacy was divided during the period of the Great Schism (1378-1414), the reSpective pontiffs at Avignon and Rome came to rely on temporal authority in support of their spiritual claims. As Sismondi observes: " . . . they were exiles, and owed those monarchs the hOSpitality of asylum."93 Second, the Papal lands were carved into Spheres of interest during the Great Schism; the Papacy sought to regain the lost territories and political control over the lands previously held by the Holy See. The developments which follow the Great Schism clearly support the view that the Papacy understood the importance of the temporalization of the Holy See. The situation which confronted the Papacy is indi- cated in the following: The Pope had become subordinate to ecumenical councils; his Spiritual influence was but a shadow of what it had once been; religion had degenerated among the masses into formalism, habit, or convention; the good things in life were sought by the traders . . . ; the new learning had brought back the joy of life to humanity; men were absorbed in the living of this life, not in subordinating it to the next; the hierarchy had become corrupt, and nowhere more corrupt than in its chief BishOp and cardinalate; the worldly desires of the Papacy and its polfizical interests required that it should become master of its own house, should aspire to hold the balance of power in Italy, in order to preserve itself from being swayed this way and that way . . . ; and the Popes were therefore bound to become more and more worldly, to aspire to the station of Italian Princes, and to secure that station by the accepted methods of Italian deSpots.94 Burckhardt corroborates the aforementioned situation when he states 93Sismondi, op. cit., p. 469. 941bid., p. 475. 45 46 that the Papacy acted in the spirit of the secular Italian princi- palities and thus "was compelled to go through the same dark expe- riences as they; but its own exceptional nature gave a peculiar colour to the shadows."95 Richard Garnett suggests that "the con- duct of the Popes in incorporating petty independent or semi-inde- pendent principalities with the patrimony of St. Peter did not materially differ from the line of action adopted by Louis or Henry . . ."96 Garnett continues by noting that the Spirit of the age urged such action by the Holy See. Further evidence that the temporalization of the Holy See was analagous to the consolidation of the national monarchies and the Italian principalities is sug- gested by Leonardo Olschki: Territorial rivals were crushed by mercenary armies under the command of able condottiere; the various petty Italian despots were played off against one another; the moral and political assistance of foreign sovereigns was enlisted through territorial deals.97 Thus, concurrent with the emergence of conciliarism (to be discussed in the following section) is the transformation of the Papacy into a temporal force. ASPECTS OF PAPAL POLITICS When Martin received the Papal tiara, he also received the ad- ministrative direction of the Holy See located at Rome. The city of Rome was in extremely poor repair; the States of the Church were 96Richard Garnett, "Rome and the Temporal Authority," Cambridge Modern Histogy, I, 220. 97Leonardo Olschki, The Genius o£_Ita1y, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1949), pp. 245-6. 47 generally in chaos; and the Campagna had become a wasteland. Martin, working through the Colonna, managed to restore a semblance of order to the territories of Papal jurisdiction. This order was effected through the following means: he curtailed Roman freedom for the purpose of expanding the influence of the Colonna; he allied himself with Naples to give added weight to his control; after the death of Ladislaus, he allied himself with Francesco Sforza, again siding with military might and expedience; he increased taxes in the Papal States and thereby replenished his exhausted treasury -- in short, through nepotism and power politics, Martin expanded the temporal authority of the Holy See. As Sismondi notes: "But, with the single exception of this town [Bologna , Martin succeeded in possessing himself of all the territory that the Church held before the Great Schism."98 With the pontificate of Eugenius came the decline of the Co- lonna. Using the House of Orsini as a political tool, he managed to weaken the Colonna by recalling the gold which they had amassed under Martin. With the assistance of both Florence and Venice, revolts which broke out immediately after the death of Martin throughout the Papal States were put down. Two years after his accession, Eugenius left Rome in the midst of political anarchy and went disguised to Florence. At this point Rome proclaimed a republic and issued statements scorning Eugenius. In 1433, the ambitious condottiere Francesco Sforza diSpatched a force to Rome; his ultimate objective was to include the Papal States into his 98Sismondi, op. cit., p. 476. 48 domains. "Sforza, like so many of the condottiere, had already become a powerful lord, with possessions in the centre, the north, and the south of the peninsula."99 Piccinini, a condottiere fighting for the Papacy, confronted Sforza at Monte Lauro and Mont Olino and was twice defeated. 0f necessity, Eugenius had to come to terms with Sforza. Again, Eugenius made his headquarters at Rome, a city ravaged by the political complexities of the times. Throughout the pontificates of Nicholas V, Calixtus III, and Pius II, the political impotence of the Holy See was accented; this impotence was best seen in the failure of Pius II to evoke sufficient support for the Turkish Crusade at the Congress of Mantua (1459). A final but no less important consequence of the political impotence of the Holy See was the secularism which emerged in the pontificate of Nicholas. His legacy was one of humanistic achievement. "Nicholas filled Rome with classical cOpyists, and sent all over Europe to collect precious manuscripts . . . He practically rebuilt Rome . . ."100 Thus, the Papacy was transformed from a spiritual force to a secular patron of arts. The transformation developed from political involvements of the Papacy during the first forty years of the Quattrocento. As Sismondi concludes: The successor of the fisherman, the inheritor of the charge of Christ, the Holy Father, whom half a century before, the idealistic Catherine of Siena had been wont to address as her 'most sweet Christ on earth,’ neither forgot nor was allowed to forget that he was the official Head of a great organization, which must remain wholly independent, and re- quired temporal possessions as security for its undisturbed 99Ibid., p. 473. 100Ibid., p. 613. 49 peace and exercise of its universal functions. His claim to temporal kingship brought him into conflict with the designs and wills of the menacing rulers and adventurers that surrounded or occupied the State of which he con- ceived himself to be monarch dg_jure, though far, indeed, from being ruler dg_facto. To gain his ends, the Sword was useful as an occasional weapon. The swords of others were more useful still.101 The conciliar spirit which developed concurrently with the political involvements of the Papacy, must be regarded as a deci- sive factor in the transformation of the Holy See. The section which follows is devoted to indicating the extent to which con- ciliarism served in the changing posture of the Papacy in political affairs. THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE RENAISSANCE AS A RELIGIOUS FORCE THE ENDING OF THE GREAT SCHISM Religious currents should be catalogued under the ecclesias- tical; however, the Renaissance afforded a strange blending of the religious and the political. This is not that period which passes by the name ”Reformation," yet many elements of reform are basic to its history. Indeed, there is a syncretic blending of socio- political deve10pments within the context of religion. As indicated above, Aeneas Sylvius lived in a period vexed with humanism and change, yet these two elements little affected the schismatic character of the Catholic Church. In the year of the birth of Aeneas Sylvius, two popes served, one at Rome, the other at Avignon in southern France. The effects of the Great Schism defaced the moral fiber of the church. The most obvious 1011bid., p. 479. 50 reason for the Great Schism is suggested in the emergence of the secular states. In time, the church could do the only practical thing which was to compromise its claim of universalism and hege- mony.102 Concerned individuals registered chagrin at the schismatic character of the church, and talk from various sectors revolved around the possibility of convening a council u) rectify the abuses within the church. Perhaps the most vocal of those concerned indi- viduals was a French cardinal, Pierre d'Ailly. The controversy ignited by d'Ailly has passed into history as the conciliar argu- ment. In this connection, E. F. Jacob has suggested that "There is something pathetic in the Spectacle of a faithful man watching the disintegration of the machinery which he has helped to work successfully and efficiently."103 Pierre d'Ailly and Dietrich of Niem were two such individuals as described by E. F. Jacob. Dietrich of Niem has described the Great Schism as a labyrinth in which the reader will find here and there diSpleasing things. He observes that these should not disturb the reader, for "those Who write histories in their search for truth often recite what they 102This particular point is supported by the ensuing develop- ments consequent to the Council of Constance. AS Brian Tierney notes: "Throughout the period of the Avignon Papacy, the oligarchic ambitions of the cardinals always seemed in direct Opposition to the ideals of would-be conciliar reformers; and yet, paradoxical though it seems, the curialist arguments were eventually absorbed without incongruity into the theories of such eminent conciliarists as d'Ailly and Zabarella, who were themselves both of the Sacred College." Brian Tierney, Foundations of the Conciliar Theory, (Cambridge, Eng: University Press, 1955), pp. 182-83. 103E. K. Jacob, Essays $2 the Conciliar Epoch, (Manchester: University Press, 1953), p. 25. 51 would prefer to suppress."104 The thing which historians like Dietrich of Niem seek to suppress is suggested by Noel Valois in his history of the Councils: "Several popes disputing the tiara and dividing the church."105 From d'Ailly'S position, popes err to the point of heresy, and, because of this, councils are more effective than pOpes.106 Indi- viduals who supported d'Ailly's view iterated that maxim that the church was built upon Christ alone and not upon popes. These individuals ranged from John Gerson, professor at the University of Paris, to John Wyclif. The arguments advanced by conciliarists like d'Ailly were certainly not wholly original. William of Occam had given legal substance to conciliarism early in the fourteenth century by noting that a council is a "lawful meeting of sundry persons exercising the authority of and acting for the various 104Dietrioh of Niem, p_e_ Schismate, pp. 4-5. 105Noel Valois, Lg Pope §£_13_Concile (Paris: Librairie Alphonse, 1909), p. V. This analysis is decidedly the finest analytical study into the program of the conciliarists. The pOpes are the scapegoats for Valois in his description of the controversy. 106Considerable research is available on the theory and practice of conciliarism. H. X. Arquilliere, in two very useful essays, contributed much to current understanding in conciliarism: Qf, "L'Origine des theories conciliaires," Revue des Questions Historiques, XLV, pp. 23-55. As E. F. Jacob notes on the historic question of conciliarism, "Conciliar thought was not a body of doctrine suddenly devised . . . but had much earlier origins. Recent studies, however, indicate that these origins are to be found not so much in any single crisis in the relations of Church and State, or in the works of individual political publicists, as in the thought and doctrines of the canon lawyers themselves." Jacob, op. cit., p. 240. Cf, on this matter John T. McNeill, "The Emergence of Conciliarism," in Medieval and Historiogrgphical Essayg ip_Honor p£_James‘Westfa11 Thompson, (Chicago: University Press, 1938), pp. 269-301. 52 parts of the whole community in discussing matters touching the common good."107 AS John H. Mundy observes on the contribution of Occam to the conciliar theories: "Occam's critical dissection of the theoretical bases of papal presidency weakened Rome's position in the minds of most intellectual churchmen until the authoritative definitions of the Council of Trent."108 The Spe- cific aspects of Occam's scathing indictment are suggested in his own candid summation of the issue: All power . . . which the Roman pontiffs have possessed or still possess in the ordinary course beyond that just Specified, they have secured and now hold as the result of human action, whether condition, concession, Spontaneous submission; or consent, tacit or expressed; or because of the powerlessness negligence or malice of other men; or through custom or some other human right.109 In the final analysis, Occam objects to pontiffs who without justification usurp spheres of interest which are not papal.110 107From the original Statement " . . . congregatio esset con- cilium generale reputandum in qua diverse persone gerentes auctori- tatem et vicem universarum partium totius sanitatis ad tractandum de communi bono rite conveniunt . . . " (Occam, Dialogus, pt. I, lib. VI, cap. 85). It would appear that Occam justifies the work of a Council as being perfectly Catholic and necessary. Friederick Heer observes the "democratic philosophy in Occam's political ideas and therefrom deduces his view that Occam paved the way for the con- ciliarism of the fifteenth century." Heer, Op. cit., pp. 223, 225. Cf, Daniel Waley, The Papal State ip_the Thirteenth Century, (London: Macmillan, 1961), pp. 1-29. 108John H. Mundy, "The Conciliar Movement and the Council of Constance," in The Council of Constance: The Unification of the Church, ed. John H. Mundy afidHKennerly M. WOody, (New Ygfk?—COTEmbia Uhi3EESity Press, 1961), p. 8. 109William of Occam, "De gestis diversorum Christianorum," Tractus primus, c. v. 786. 110The catalogue of canonists who supported this basic view is indeed extensive: Panormitanus, a monk who taught at Siena during Aeneas Sylvius' earlier years; Petrus de Ancharano, professor at Bologna; Joames de Lignano, professor of canon law at Bologna; 53 Compounded with the fact that several pontiffs have been enter- taining heretical views, the conciliar theory received added sup- port and credibility. As Jacob observes: . . . one has to admit that Occam is very formidable; not because of the reservations, the delicate balancing of his mind, his philosopher's caution and circumspection -- these we might expect; but because of the frightening effi- ciency and comprehensiveness with which he enumerates every11 p0581b1e argument for the Sides he 18 trying to represent. CONCILIARISM IN PRACTICE The conciliar Spirit gave rise to the Councils of Constance (1414-1418) and Basle (1431-1443). At the end of the conciliar period, the schisms which had torn the church asunder for two generations were at an end. After an abortive and ill-fated summons to the Council of Constance by Pope John XXIII, the enthusiasm and respect for the papacy fell to a new low. John had failed to recognize the schis- matic character Of the church, and, in 1413, what was to be a first attempt to rectify the abuses of the church, further accented the same abuses. Besides John XXIII, there was Pedro of Luna, who was called Pope Benedict XIII, and Angelo Corrario, who had the name Pope Gregory XII. The fact that John XXIII was incapable of serving as mediator became quite obvious from the beginning. Sigismund, in Spite of initial failure, demanded that a Council (falsely designated as Oecumenical in character) be convened at Baldus de Ubaldis, a noted jurist who wrote extensive commentaries on the Decretals of Gratium. The above mentioned are but a few of a most exhaustive catalogue suggested by Tierney, op. cit., pp. 256- 263. 111Jacobs, op. cit., p. 105. 54 Constance. Jointly with the Pope at Rome, a renewed summons was issued with a stated agenda designed to unify the church, check ecclesiastical abuses, and combat heresy.112 The initial topic of concern for all the prelates was the question of heresy. Thus, the trial and execution of John Huss set the stage for the remaining years of the Council of Constance. In essence, the heresy of John Huss was much the same as that of John Wyclif -- this was the tacit denial of the ritualistic value of the church, and the consequent glorification of the laity, i. e., the priesthood of the believers. As Martin Luther was to do a century later, Huss decried the sale of indulgences as useless waste. For this, he was excommunicated by POpe John XXIII. When Huss was summoned to the council, it was believed that the liberal conciliarists would not press the heresy too hard. As James Westfall Thompson notes: "Huss was deceived . . ."113 After being asked to recant his heretical views, Huss replied with adamant refusal. John H. Mundy puts the matter thus: "John Huss' urge to spiritualize the Church by laicising . . . was too much for moderates. The moderates' words were Often revolutionary, but the objective was not . n]. 14 Huss, (New York: Longmans, Green, 1900), p. 66; Cf. also Eustace J. Kitts, POpe John the Twenty:Third, (London: Constable, 1910), partic- ularly the chapter titled "Convocation of the Council, " pp. 182 -204. Kitts has a detailed resume of all the names of the cardinals and prelates in attendance. pp. IX-XII. 113Thompson, op. cit., p. 984. 114John H. Mandy, op. cit., pp. 39-40. A.most interesting booklet was brought to the attention of the present writer which is: titled Hus the Heretic, by Era Poggius. It contains two letters 55 With the elimination of John Huss, the Council took on a new perspective -- now it became decidedly orthodox in theology. The orthodoxy of the Council is reflected in the proceedings against John XXIII. He was requested to resign his pontificate. He agreed to this demand only on the condition that Gregory and Benedict would do likewise. On March 22, 1415, John agreed to resign without condition. To annul this statement, John left the Council of Constance disguised (so that he might withdraw and declare the Council closed) maintaining tentatively his papal hegemony. At this critical point, the arch-conciliarist, John Gerson, took the absence of John XXIII as occasion for a discourse on why the council is greater than the pope. He used many of the arguments suggested by Occam earlier in the last century in per- suading the prelates of the superiority of council to pope. Noel Valois affirms the position that the escape of Pope John coupled with the declaration by Gerson were decisive factors in determining the course of papal affairs for one generation after the conclusion of the Council of Constance.115 On April 16, POpe John XXIII was asked to return to the Council for interrogation or to vacate the papal office. On May 14, the commissioners made a report pertaining from Poggius (a member of the body assembled at Constance) to a friend, Leonhard Nikolai. First printed in 1523 at Constance, it contains a sympathetic apology for Huss. In a letter dated October, 1415, the author Poggius notes the following: "I wanted to acquaint you with this story of an heretic, my dear Nikolai, so that you might know how much fortitude of faith Hus had shown be- fore his enemies and how blissful in his faith this pious man's end had been. Verily, I say unto you, he was too just for this world." p. 103 (Newberry Library holding, Chicago, Illinois). 1159p. Valois, op. cit., pp. XXII-XXIX. 56 to the deposition of the pOpe. After hearing the report, the council proceeded to declare John XXIII convicted of the charges brought against him; viz. of having brought scandal upon the church by his corrupt life, and of having publicly been guilty of simony, and as such, suspended from the exercise of any of the functions of the papal Office.116 On May 25, John was deposed; Gregory and Benedict abdicated pre- tensions, and the church was prepared to elevate a new pontiff. On November 11, 1415, Martin V became pontiff, and a semblance of unity was restored to the Holy See. It is not necessary that details be given of the remaining decisions of the Council. These are well beyond the confines of the present study. As part of the world of Aeneas Sylvius, it is worth- while to ask whether the Council of Constance accomplished much. Aeneas Sylvius, later in the caitury, recorded in his commentaries his belief that the council established precedent; he believed that many useful things emerged from the council, and perhaps these were what made him early in life a conciliarist.117 From historical context, it is useful to ask specifics pertaining to the value of the Council of Constance. From the proposed agenda, all items were accomplished in the course of the council. The fourteen year Old Aeneas Sylvius saw a church relatively free from heresy and corrup- tion, and united under one pontiff. It is true that the period of the Great Schism was passed; however, the period of papal universalism 116Edward H. Landon, ApManual o£_Councils o£_the Holy Catholic Church, (London: Rivington, 1846), pp. 160-1. 117Commentaries, op, cit., pp. 500-502. 57 118 was likewise passed. The papacy needed a strong and assertive occupant, and in the lifetime of Aeneas Sylvius (and including his pontificate) such an individual was not found. The historian of the papacy, M. Creighton, concludes his analysis of the Council of Constance and its aftermath in the following: The ecclesiastical aristocracy took advantage of the temporary debasement of the Papal monarchy to increase its own powers and importance . . . On all sides difficulties and disunion prevailed, so that men were wearied and hopeless. The most sanguine, as he left Constance, could only hope that at least a beginning had been made for conciliar action in the future . . . 19 118J. Neville Figgis, "Politics at the Council of Constance," Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, XIII, pp. 103-115. Cf. also Agnes E. Roberts, "Pierre d' Ailly at the Council of Con- stance," Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, IV. Dietrich of Niem also wrote a useful book titled History_ of the Life and Deeds of POpe John XXIII till His Flight and Imprisonment which contains a very useful synthesis of conciliarism to 1418. 119M. Creighton, A History_ of the Papaoy from the Great Schism III: THE RHETORICAL THEORIES OF.AENEAS SYLVIUS PICCOLOMINI The emphasis of the present chapter will be singular: to study the development of the rhetorical theories of Aeneas Sylvius Picco- lomini within his interpretation of education. The rationale for such methodology is suggested by Aeneas Sylvius himself, for he included his rhetorical theories within the confines of a textbook on education titled 22_Liberorum Educatione.1 Before detailing the rhetorical theories of Aeneas Sylvius, it is necessary to preface the analysis with remarks pertaining to the importance of rhetoric in the society of the Renaissance. That the place of the orator in the period of the Renaissance was secure cannot be denied, for in a society so dependent upon ceremony and propriety, the oration was both proper and fitting. This Aemeas Sylvius understood, for as a humanist, he was a prac- titioner of the art of oratory. The utility of the oration in the society of the Renaissance was far-reaching. Statesmen and diplo- mats could not expect prominence without a "ready and eloquent tongue." Princes were accorded little honor without the elegance, beauty, and fluency of the prepared oration; in fact, the truly prominent individuals of the Renaissance —- those who have survived the realm of obscurity, were the_humanist-orators, those proficient 1Aeneas Sylvius, 2§_Liberorum Educatione, trans. Brother Joel S. Nelson, (Washington, D. C: Catholic University of America Press, 1940), hereafter entered as Liberorum Educatione. 58 59 in rhetorical practice. Jacob Burckhardt devotes considerable space to the importance of oratory and public address in the Renaissance in Italy. He observes that "The social position of the speaker was a matter of perfect indifference; what was desired was simply the most cul- tivated humanistic talent."2 Aeneas Sylvius was called upon many times to address a gathering precisely because of his proficiency in public address. As a humanist, he was called upon to defend other humanists in their quest for high position.3 As Secretary and Ambassador, he did much to prepare the way for his final elevation to the Papal Chair. Great as he was both as scholar and diplomatist, he would probably never have become Pope without the fame and the charm of his eloquence. For nothing was more lofty than the dignity of his oratory. Without doubt this was a reason why multitudes held him to be the fittest man for the office even before his election.4 Aeneas Sylvius suggests the importance of rhetoric to the Prince. The success or failure of a Prince is largely dependent upon the regard which the subjects have for him. Thus, even in the political arena, perfected eloquence was necessary. Burckhardt relates the political to the humanistic in suggesting: "At the yearly change of public officers . . . a humanist was sure to come forward, and sometimes addressed the audience in hexameters or sapphic verses."5 2Burckhardt, op. cit., p. 170. 39$, the first speech cited in the next chapter which was in defense Of a humanist for a position in the University of Padua. 4Burckhardt, op. cit., p. 171. 5Ibid., p. 172. 60 The classic example of the utility of rhetoric is seen in the function of the Condottiere. As suggested earlier, these were the professional soldier class of the city-states. Their history is filled with the rhetorical performance of excellence.6 The rhetorical practice of the Renaissance was not limited to one form, i. e. deliberative, epideictic, forensic but it included all three. Guarino, cited earlier,7 was called upon frequently to deliver addresses at funerals, anniversaries, weddings, legal gatherings, and humanist assemblies. If he could not attend, he would invariably send one of his colleagues or students in his place. The presentation of the oration was considered the high point of the festival in question. The educator Filelfo several times delivered orations at such festive occasions. The instance cited by Burckhardt is the wedding of Anna Sforza to Alfonso of Este.8 The fact remains that this constituted a most important facet of humanist endeavor.9 6The literature on this aSpect of Speech activity is not readily available. Much of the material which is of considerable value is not to be found in this country. The present author suggests the following as excellent sources: C. Argegni, Condottiere, (Rome: Tosi, 1946); Daniel M. Bueno de Mesquita, Some Condottiere of the Trecento," British Academy, (1951), XXXII, 219-241; Oscar Browning, Ihg_égg of the Condottiere, (London: Methnen, 1895). 7Burckhardt, op. cit., p. 172. 8Ibid. 9§£, William H. WOodward, Vittorino dp Feltre and other Humanist Educators, (Cambridge Eng: University Press, 1897); Scipione Buonanni, Orazione Funebrale, (Rome:'Mascardo, 1613); Giacomo Grillo, Poets 35 the Court o£_Ferrara, (Boston: Excelsior, 1943); Silvio Pasquazi, Rinascimento Ferrarese, (Caltanissetta: Scieascia, 1957). 61 Speeches delivered on the battlefield constituted a most important occasion for public address. These types "were simply general appeals to patriotism of the hearers and were addressed to the assembled troops in the church of each quarter of the city by a citizen in armour, sword in hand."10 The Speeches delivered by Aeneas Sylvius are interesting from many perSpectives: They used Cicero as a model; they were delivered quite frequently; after he became Pope, they vary, from persuasive in character, to eulogistic. Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the speeches of Aeneas Sylvius is the fact that they are models of what he recommends in his rhetorical theories. THE RATIONALE FOR DE LIBERORUM EDUCATIONE Using Quintilian aS his malel, Aeneas Sylvius developed his rhetorical theories within the confines of pedagogy. The occasion for the writing of Dg_Liberorum Educatione is the birth of Ladislaus, son of Albert, King of Austria, Bohemia, and Hungary. Before seeing his son, King Albert died a most unfortunate and untimely death;11 and this motivated Frederick III of Germany to declare Ladislaus under his personal care and tutelage. The lasting friendship which had existed between Aeneas Sylvius and Frederick III inSpired the former to contribute to the intellectual development of the adOpted son of the latter12 and 22_Liberorum Educatione, completed in 1450, 10Burckhardt, op. cit., p. 173. 11Because of the untimely death of King Albert, his son inherited the name Posthumus Ladislaus. 12Frederick III hOped that Ladislaus would in time deal with the menacing Hussites who were at this point hopelessly divided among themselves and fighting as radicals on all fronts. 62 was the end result of Aeneas Sylvius' efforts in rhetoric and pedagogy. Aeneas Sylvius loved the boy, and in his letters to a friend he referred to Ladislaus as "the hope of Austria, the desire of Hungary . . . he goes about the court like a king."13 Intense controversy developed because of the young Ladislaus. The Bohemians of the Hussite party wanted Ladislaus away from Frederick III, who himself was an avowed enemy to the Hussite anti- Catholic cause. At twelve, he was given Ulrich of €111 as guardian. The young lad was taken to Vienna, where the abusive actions of Ulrich called down the wrath of the people of Austria, Hungary, and Bohemia. A regency of twelve was declared; and Ladislaus became King of Austria, Hungary, and Bohemia under these regents. These were trying times, ani particularly trying for a divided regency. ConstantinOple fell to the Ottoman Turks in 1453, and one year thereafter Ladislaus became king.14 In 1457, one year before Aeneas Sylvius became Pope Pius II, Ladislaus himself was dead. Thus, the text dedicated to his monarchy, 23 Liberorum Educatione, did not serve its intended objective, for this was to the be the educating cohesion which was to guide Ladislaus in the years of rule which he was expected to effect. 14G. D. Laffan, "The Empire in the Fifteenth Century," Thg_ Cambridgngedieval History, VIII, pp. 145-46. In this essay, Laffan gives a detailed description of the forces at work in the Empire. That Aeneas Sylvius understood the magnitude and importance of the economic, social, political, and religious crisis current in the Empire is suggested by his frequent references to the "trying character of current history." He told Ladislaus in his treatise that courage was necessary in perilous times. 2§_LIBERORUM EDUCATIONE AND CLASSICAL RHETORIC The classical division Of rhetoric into five canons is doubt- less the most obvious influence derived by Aeneas Sylvius from the Roman world. The classical rhetoricians understood these to be invention, disposition or arrangement, style and delivery. Inven- tion, the first of the canons, implied more to the classical rhetoricians than "inventing new ideas." It extended into the broader area of the study of arguments and fallacies, and Specifi- cally, into the area of all arguments in support of your particular position. Invention was to the classical rhetoricians the most significant of the canons, for in truth, the success or failure of a Speech is largely predicated upon the tenability of the Speaker's argument and logic. As Donald L. Clark observes: the student of oratory is still to be instructed in detail how to go about discovering or inventing arguments which will win over his audience, prove his case and move to action. On the school level, at least, the art was based on what were called the places of argument. Thus in the De Partitione Cicero informs his son that arguments are defived from the places . . . or topics.15 Speeches lacking in invention were, in the estimation of Aeneas Sylvius, sorely deficient. Thus he decried the extempore Speech because sufficient thought had not entered into the development of the details of the speech. Such a Speech comes from the mouth and not from the heart.16 Aeneas Sylvius had read Dg_Inventione because he quotes freely 15Donald L. Clark, Rhetoric ip Graeco-Roman Education, (New York: Columbia University Press, 1955), pp. 75-6. 16QgLiberorum Educatione, op. cit., p. 139. 63 64 from that early treatise of Cicero. With reference to arrangement, Aeneas SYIvius devoted little attention to this beyond a mere statement that "a considered preparation does not allow the Speech to digress."17 This is qualified by the suggestion that the prepared speech should be "governed by suitable chains."18 He does not prescribe Specifically the nature of the "suitable chains"; yet, he understood from his own speech practice the importance of selecting and arranging arguments in prOper and logical sequence. His Speeches followed the Aristotelian divisions suggested in Rhetoric: exordium, narratio, confirmatio, and peroratio. It is quite probable that Aeneas Sylvius feared that Ladislaus would be confused by "too many chains."19 Style is discussed at great length within the context of the Ciceronian model. In his Speech, Ladislaus is requested to ex— hibit those qualities worthy of a noble prince. Thus, he exhorts Ladislaus to free his style from all baseness. He notes the importance of fluency with good will. Let obstinacy be lacking in disputes, let prudence con- quer, reason hold sway; it is noble not only to conquer but also to know how to be conquered . . . Let insult be lacking in your words, and falsehood, for lying is a slavish vice which all mortals ought to censure with hatred. The greater the dignity of him who lies the more detestable is his crime . . . Moreover, '1et not your speech be too humble or servile 17Ibid. 18Ibid., p. 141. 19Ibid. At this point he suggests the possibility of over- organized Speech in which it becomes obvious that meaning is secondary and "chains" are primary. 65 nor yet proud or arrogant. Whatever speech is haughty is uncivil, whatever is shallow never incites.’ His "acceptable style" is defined as moderation.21 With reference to pronunciation and memory, the analysis is decidedly classical. In his rationale he indicates the absolute necessity for good pronunciation. . . . your voice must be formed; let it not be broken with 'feminine shrillness,’ nor repeat the tremulous tone of the aged, nor shout too much. 'Let the words be expressed and let individual letters he enunciated with their prOper sound; let not the final syllables be lost'; let not the voice be heard in the throat and let your tongue be unim- peded, your mouth more unrestricted, and your speech more expressive. Your teachers will offer you certain words and verses . . . that you may turn them about and pronounce them as swiftly as possible.2 On the question of memory, he urges the cultivation of extensive powers of recall, particularly for the prince. He prefaces his remarks by suggesting the vital necessity of good memory. "But since power of Speaking, in which both words and thoughts are praised, cannot exist without the help of memory, there is need that the boy exercise his memory."23 Thus, Speech is of little value to the prince unless he is capable of overwhelming his audi- ence with a quick and ready mind. "The mark of this ability is in children and has a threefold quality: it perceives without labor, 201bid., pp. 143-45. 21Within the context of "acceptable style" mention is made of the "rules of gesturing." In his words: "Therefore decorum must be observed in every movement and posture. In this matter the Greeks were so curious that they composed a 'rule of gestures' which they called 'chironomia.' Ibid. 22Ibid., p. 141-43. Aeneas Sylvius quotes freely from Quintilian in his analysis of pronunciation. 23Ibid., p. 145. 66 it retains faithfully, and it imitates easily. Something must be committed to memory daily, whether this be verses or important maxims from illustrious authors."24 2§_LIBERORUM EDUCATIONE AND THE TRIVIUM The rhetorical theories of Aeneas Sylvius are not isolated phenomena apart from the tradition of medieval and early Renaissance history. Indeed, they are moulded by the continuum which began in the Graeco-Roman world and extended into 22 Liberorum Educatione. The orator-king has, according to Aeneas Sylvius, the reSponsibility of being both literate and articulate.25 "Every age without learning is dark; and an illiterate king cannot do without another's guidance. And since the courts of kings are filled with flatterers, who will speak the truth to the ruler? And is it not fitting that the king should have a liberal education?"26 The answer is a most enthusias- tic affirmative. Again, Aeneas Sylvius must have read Cicero, for he prescribed "the knowledge of all liberal arts"27 for his orator, 24Ibid. Again, Aeneas Sylvius turns to the classical theorists for the summary Statement. He concludes the above in the following: "For memory is called the storehouse of learning and instruction, and in the fables is called the mother of the muses because it begets and nourishes. You will aid this in each quality whether you are mind- ful or forgetful by nature. For either you will strengthen the abun- dance or supply the defect and you will obey the verses of Hesiod: 'If you strive to add small bits to little things and you do that frequently, a huge pile is accumulated.'" Ibid. 25Early in his treatise he suggests to Ladislaus that "the Roman emperors, so long as the commonwealth flourished, were not illiterate." A causal relationship is indicated. Ibid., p. 93. 261bid., p. 127. 27By "liberal arts" Aeneas Sylvius meant the guadrivium, for within the context of his analysis, he indicates in Specific detail each element of the qgadrivium. 67 and it is assumed that by "liberal arts" he meant the Trivium. Thus, Donald L. Clark observes that Cicero is " . . . the first to use the term '1iberal arts' to designate the cycle of instruction which had been the basis of Greek education Since Isocrates."28 The basis of education for Aeneas Sylvius included the Trivium within the broader context of the andrivium. Both the Trivium and Quadrivium were part of a continuum within which the entire scholastic program of education was included. By the time of the Great Schoolmen of the High Middle Ages, the Trivium spoke for theological ends. Hastings Rashdall suggests that the content of knowledge to be found in the Trivium may be derived from the text- books of the day. These texts were written by at least three extant authors: Boethius, the Christian theologian who was martyred for his beliefs; Cassiodorus, also a devout Christian thinker; and Martianus Capella, described by Rashdall as a "half-time pagan."29 The components of the Trivium and ggadrivium contributed abun- dantly to the tenor of the Middle Ages. That the Middle Ages accented the City of God is well known, and it did this because of the dichotomous relationship which had existed between Christianity and Roman civilization. Each of the textbook writers indicated earlier Spoke with the authority of Roman civilization and attain- ment, not overlooking the important facets of Christian thought. Grammar included more than mere technical rules; it embraced a broad program of classical philology. This is what Rashdall has 28Clark, op. cit., p. 12. 29Rashdall, op. cit., I, 35. 68 referred to as "the systematic study and interpretation of the classical writers of Rome."30 Charles S. Baldwin suggests that the study Of grammar included 31 " . . . certain induction into poetry." Louis Paetow quotes Rabanus Mburus in his definition of grammar as the " . . . art of explaining poets and historians, the art of correct Speaking and writing."32 Very likely, Aeneas Sylvius was familiar with Henri d'Andeli's "The Battle of the Seven Arts," and particularly the description given therein of grammar. An excerpt follows: Whereas Grammar is reduced in number. Grammar is much wrought up; And has raised her banner Outside of Orleans, in the midst of the grain fields; There she assembled her army. Homer and old Claudian, Donatus, Persius, Priscian, Those good author knights And those good squires who serve them, All set out with Grammar When she went forth from her bookcase33 The summary of the poems suggests that by 1200 "grammar withdrew into Egypt, where she was born. But logic is now in vogue."34 This is precisely what did happen to grammar during the later years of the Twelfth Century "Renaissance." Aeneas Sylvius gives a definition of grammar that is almost the same as that quoted by Paetow: "Gram- 3OIbid., I, 36. 31Charles 8. Baldwin, Medieval Rhetoric £2 1400, (New York: Peter Smith, 1957), p. 90. 32Louis John Paetow, "The Arts Course at Medieval Universities with Special Reference to Grammar and Rhetoric," The University of Illinois Studies, (Jan. 1910), Vol. III, 13. 33"The Battle of the Seven Arts," trans. by Louis J. Paetow, University of California Memoirs, Vol. I., 39-41. 34Ibid., p. 59. 69 matica . . . has three parts: the science of Speaking correctly, the explanation of poets and authors, and the art of writing."35 For Aeneas sylvius, "the fountain of all prOper instruction is grammar . . . " He further suggests that for these reasons we have decided to write something about grammar for you, not because we ourselves wiah to teach you grammar, but that we may point out briefly the fountains through the drinking from which true grammarians are made, and to which we desire that your teachers should lead you, so much the more as we think this to be for your advantage.36 The initial delimitation of grammar is that pertaining to the "science of correct Speaking." He defines correct speech from a linguistic perspective. By correct Speaking "we understand here that speech which is expressed with words suitably and duly joined . . . "37 He recommends the use of only those words which are " . . . native to our experience."38 'WOrds which are "coined" by the orator are justified only if the orator has skill and intelligence.39 The remaining sections on grammar pertain to the study of word origins and Latin declensions. These are important for the orator to master because proficiency in these matters will allow the orator to speak with abundant authority and conviction.40 35EgLiberorum Educatione, Op, cit., p, 147. 36y22£3 37;23g,, p. 149. BBEEES: 393233,, p. 153. 401bid., p. 153. 70 The High Middle Ages evidenced the emergence of dialectic as the chief area of study.41 Among the distinguished names of that period, those of Peter Abaelard, John of Salisbury, Peter Lombard, and Thomas Aquinas must be mentioned. In their reSpective areas, they contributed generously to the wedding between dialectic and logic within the context of education. Peter Abaelard, in his development of the utility of logic suggested, in the words Of Homer Haskins that, "Practical thinking cannot entirely shake itself free from logic, and, conversely, logic has sometimes practical con- sequences not at first realized."42 Peter Lombard gave to dialectic more of the theological blend which St. Thomas was to use in his later formation of the Summa Theologicae. Thus, the stimulus of the rediscovery of Aristotle's New Logic transformed the development of the trivium. As Homer Haskins notes: The earlier trivium had preserved a balance between logic on the one hand and grammar and rhetoric on the other, but this was now destroyed by the addition of a large body of new mate- rial to be mastered in dialectic, so that less time and still less inclination were left for the leisurely study of grammar and literature, as they had been pursued in the school of Chartres. 411bid., p. 167. Many authors corroborate the emergence of dialectic in this period. Baldwin, Medieval Rhetoric, op. cit.; 'McKeon, op. cit., 42C. Homer Haskins, The Renaissance p£_the 12th Century, (New York, 1963), p. 352. 43Ibid., pp. 355-56. The present author encountered two ex- tremely useful dissertations in this area of consideration. P. Abelson, "The Seven Liberal Arts: A Study in Medieval Culture," (unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Columbia University, New York, 1906); V. S. Clark, "Studies in the Latin of the Middle Ages and Renaissance," (unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Columbia university, New York, 1900). 71 The transformation of the trivium from the balanced to the dialec- tic oriented was greatly encouraged by one, John of Salisbury. John of Salisbury wanted dialectic to serve as a means to the pro- cess of education. He suggested that logic, as an exclusive study area, was barren and meaningless; however, when related to the other facets of education, it became a useful component. In his Metalo- gigop, John of Salisbuty gives a detailed discussion of the func- tion of dialectic in education: "Logica, being the theory of dis- course, embraces both investigation and judgment. Knowledge of truth being for them the highest good, the Peripatetics divided philosophy into two parts: natural or physical, and moral or ethical."44 Aeneas Sylvius did not give credence to the suggestion that logic involved the areas of investigation and judgment ex- clusively. He preferred the interchangeable use of rhetoric and logic for the development of the "better man." That he had read Aristotle's Rhetoric is assumed, for in several places he mentions the "Rhetoric of Aristotle . . . translated into Latin in our time, is still useful."45 Rhetoric and dialectic are integrally related for, in the words of Aeneas Sylvius, . . . it would be therefore for the advantage of a royal prince to be initiated in the rules of dialectic, and so to be taught that, after he has learned the divisions of logic, which 44Baldwin, Medieval Rhetoric, op. cit., p. 151. 45DgLiberorum Educatione, op. cit., p. 205. Aeneas Sylvius recommends strongly that the orator read and digest Aristotle's Rhetoric, particularly because of deve10pments in his time: He noted that a school in Vienna had "recently" edited a New Rhetoric in which corrupt and useless examples are to be found. These in- fluences can be offset by Aristotle. 9:, p. 205. 72 Cicero defines as 'reason diligently discussing,' he may know how to define, to distribute, and to arrange; and that he may not be unaware that capability of arranging is treated with a threefold diversity, because the exposition proceeds with argu- ments either true and necessary, or with those that are only probable, or with those that are openly false.46 It is easy to see that dialectic proceeds less from philoSOphy and is basically related to that area known in the classical canons of Rhetoric as disposition or arrangement. 2§_LIBERORUM EDUCATIONE AND THE CONTEXT OF MEDIEVAL RHETORIC A common characteristic of rhetoric during the Middle Ages is its varied uses. Because of this, the rhetoricians of the period turned their efforts toward definition and delimitation. The literature of the period of the Middle Ages is abundant with one central theme: Rhetoric -- as interpreted into the disciplines of communication. In the latter phases of medieval civilization, rhetoric came to mean more than oral communication pg£_§35 it was enlarged into an element of both letter writing and interpretation of legal canon. For purposes of clarity and organization, the present develop- ment of the context of medieval rhetoric is divided into four areas of investigation: Rhetoric as it deve10ped from the fall of the Roman Empire to the end of the tenth century; Rhetoric as it deve10ped in the eleventh century; Rhetoric in the "Twelfth Century 461bid., p. 207. Particular development of this point will be given in the section pertaining to the Classical Canons. It should be observed, however, that Aeneas Sylvius did not devote nearly as much Space to the treatment of dialectic as one would expect. He discussed the totality of dialectic in two full paragraphs, and hardly developed any illustrations of what he was saying. 73 Renaissance"; Rhetoric at the close of the Middle Ages. In connec- tion with these chronological divisions, four substantive develop- ments are worth indicating: (1) Rhetoric in the Middle Ages derived much from its classical heritage, primarily its Roman heritage Eli? §;yi§_Cicero and Quintilian; (2) Rhetoric found in St. Augustine the reiteration of the Platonist position in many aspects, and the significance of St. Augustine to later deve10pments in the Middle Ages becomes acute for rhetorical theory and development; (3) Rhetoric came to speak increasingly for ecclesiastical ends, and as such, was transformed from the typical divisions of oratorical forms (i. e. epidiectic, deliberative, forensic), to unique mani- festations; (4) As indicated earlier, the Middle Ages saw the periodic lessening of importance Of rhetoric in preference to the other disciplines of the Trivium. With the emergence of the humanistic emphasis on rhetoric, dialectic and grammar were trans- formed into a new focus. In this connection, the contributions of Leonardo Bruni, Pico della Mirandola, Masrilio Ficino, and Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini are of importance. The rhetoricians of the Middle Ages derived much from the writings of the Lesser Cicero, particularly in matters of qualifi- cation and substance. As Richard McKeon has noted: The rhetoricians of the Middle Ages followed Cicero or suggestions found in his works when they discussed Civil Philosophy as the subject matter of rhetoric, or divided that subject matter of rhetoric according to the three kinds of oratory -- deliberative, judicial, demonstrative -- or when they sought to determine it more generally by means of the distinction between propositium and causa . . . 47Richard‘McKeon, "Rhetoric in the Middle Ages," Speculum, XVII, (1942). 9;, also C. H. Haskins, "The University of Paris 74 That the rhetoricians of this period understood the controversy which had existed among Aristotle, Plato, and the Sophists can be little doubted; that they accepted many of the rhetorical elements of Cicero is self-evident.48 Dg_Inventione was available to the medievalist, and one can assume that he derived abundant material from that source. That he made it Speak for his own particular schemes is indicated in the transformation of many Ciceronian elements.49 An example of this practice is suggested by Richard ‘McKeon: The treatment of statement in the final book is therefore concerned not so much with the precepts of rhetoric, although some precepts can be found from analysis of the fashion in which the three styles of Cicero are applied to their appro- priate matter by 'ecclesiastical orators,‘ as with an elo- quence in which the words are supplied by the things and by wisdom itself and the Speaker is unlearnedly wise. The judg- ment expressed by Cicero at the beginning of 23 Inventione that wisdom without eloquence is of little benefit to the state, and eloquence without wisdom a great danger, is trans- formed when Augustine quotes it, by a dialectical doubling of all terms.5 The transformations in rhetorical theory were accepted as part of the "development" of learning in the Middle Ages.51 As indicated above, civil questions occupied much of the rhetorical theory and practice of the early period of the Middle in the Sermons of the Thirttenth Century," American Historical Review, X, (1907), 1-27. 48Charles S. Baldwin, Medieval Rhetoric, op. cit., pp. 2-50. 49McKeon, Op. cit., p. 6. SOIbid. 51Haskins, Renaissance, Op. cit., pp. 193-222; also Cf, the following: Louis F. Paetow, "Neglect of the Ancient Classics in the Early Medieval Universities," Transactions of_the Wisconsin Society of Arts and Letters, XVI, (1908), 311-319; H. Parker, "The Seven Liberal Arts," The English Historical Review, V, (1890), 416-461. The last mentioned is exceptionally useful. 75 Ages. As the Sixth century rhetorician Cassiodorus observes: "The art of rhetoric is, as the masters of secular letters teach, the science of Speaking well in civil questions."52 Thus, rhetoric articulated the judicial purposes exclusively and this practice was advanced by Isidore of Seville,53 Alcuin,54 and Rabanus Maurus.55 Particularly was this true of Alcuin, who suggested that the art of rhetoric be cultivated in matters pertaining to civil questions. Alcuin and those rhetoricians of the Middle Ages indicated earlier did not divorce morality from eloquence in the rhetorical practice of "civil service." To the contrary, virtue, wisdom, honor, and nobility were all part of that noble art.56 At the close of the 'Middle Ages and with the emergence of the Renaissance conscious- ness the emphasis on ethical considerations is basic to the good 52Cassiodorus, Institutiones, editec by R. A. B. Mynors, (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1937), Book II, p. 91; Cf, also Arnaldo Momigliano's very useful book Cassiodorus and Italian Culture o£_fli§_Time, (London, 1955), pp. 207-245. 53ISidore of Seville, Etymologiae, (Basel, 1489), II, 10; 91;. also, Ernest Brehaut, Ap_Encyclopaedist of the Dark Ages, (New York: Columbia University Press, 1912), pp. 266-274; Marie R. Madden, Political Theory and Law ipyMedieval Spain, (New York: Fordham Press, 1933), particularly the first chapter titled "Principles of the Theory: Doctrines of St. Isidore of Seville." 549E, The Rhetoric of Alcuin and Charlemagne, a translation 'with an introduction by Wilbur S. Howell, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1941); 9;, also, A. F. West, Alcuin and the Rise of the Christian Sd1ools, (New York: Charles Scribners, 1892), particularly the chapter titled "The Seven Liberal Arts." 55Rabanus Maurus, 22 Institutione Clericorum, (Seminar at ‘Munchen No. 5), pp. 8-17. This item is a Newberry Library holding. 56V. Langlois, "1'Eloquence Sacree au Meyen Age," in Revue des Deux Mondes, No. 115, (1893). 76 orator. Thus, Aeneas Sylvius develops the necessity for virtue in the orator-prince: "Nobility clothed in holy morals is de- serving or praise."57 This is followed by a quotation from St. Jerome's VUlgate: "For who would call him noble born who is un- worthy of his family and distinguished only by a famous name?"58 As suggested earlier, Aeneas Sylvius accepted the view of Quin- tilian that the orator must be a good man Speaking well. However, one should distinguish between the Medieval trend toward making rhetoric part of moralistic theology and the secular notion of ethics. There is a decided difference between the alliance effected with rhetoric and theology and that with rhetoric and ethics. The former Speaks for theological ends; the latter, for quite divergent ends. Richard McKeon Observes that the integration of problems of morality with rhetoric pushed the latter more toward the Holy Scriptures and consequently toward theology.59 The subservience of rhetoric to grammar is indicated in the early period after the fall of the Roman Empire. Baldwin believes that this subordination correSponds with the period from Cassio- dorus to Alcuin, which would make it extend into the Carolingian Renaissance.60 In this period, "Grammatica became more important than ever. It opened not only learning in general, not only literature, but aSpecially the interpretation of the liturgy, the 57EoLiberorum Educatione, op, cit., p. 191. 58Proverbs 8:15 59RichardiMcKeon, op. cit., p. 15. 6oBaldwin,‘Medieva1 Rhetoric, op. cit., p. 151. 77 offices, the creeds, and the Scriptures."61 Another important consideration within the context of the first period is the relative position of logic or dialectic. Rhetoric was subordinate not only to grammar, but also to dia- lectic. The latter discipline, admittedly, is concerned with hypotheses, subject matter, and other areas not related directly to rhetoric.62 The eleventh century evidenced the continuation of the sub- ordination of rhetoric to both dialectic and grammar. The most dramatic factor in this continuation was the availability of a complete edition of Aristotle's Organon. As Baldwin observes: In the next century the eleventh the theory of logic was fortified by commanding in Latin translation of those parts of Aristotle's Organon which had not been available; and its practise became more urgent through the historic debates as to universals. By offering thus the most active training in composition, logic confirmed the restriction of rhetoric to style.63 With the twelfth century came the "renaissance" suggested by Haskins,64 Pare, Burnet, and Tremblay.65 However, this "renaissance" did little for rhetoric other than to make it more scholastic. 61Ibid., p. 127. Baldwin further observes: "The study of figures, both those usually included in grammatica and those assigned to rhetorica, was applied to the interpretation of Holy Writ." Thus, the consequent alliance between grammar and rhetoric; and thus, the ultimate amalgamation of the latter into theological dispute and discourse. 62Richard'McKeon, op. cit., p. 15. 63Baldwin,‘Medieval Rhetoric, op, cit., p. 151. 64H. Haskins, The Renaissance of_the Twelfth Century, op. cit., p. 127. 656. Pare, A. Burnet, and P. Tremblay, Lo_Renaissance oo_XII o_Siecle: Les Ecoles o£_L'Enseignement, (Ottawa, 1933), pp. 267-70. 78 Peter Abaelard confirms this in his statement of the two-fold rhetorical purpose of the 01d and New Testament after having Specified that all the arts are servants to divinity: grammar which teaches construc- tions, dialectic which expounds arguments, and rhetoric which consists in persuasion. Of the writers on education in the twelfth century, Hugh of St. Victor, John of Salisbury, and Peter Abaelard are decidedly the most prominent; of these, none suggests that rhetoric is anything but a servant of ecclesiastical ends. Particularly is this true in the Metalogicon of John of Salisbury referred to above. He reduced the categories of the Trivium to include grammar and dia- lectic, with the emphasis being placed on the latter. The exclu- sion of rhetoric as a Significant avenue of academic endeavor is quite obvious. The developments indicated from the twelfth century are no less evident in the thirteenth. The century which was dominated by St. Thomas Aquinas served to accent the amalgamation of rhetoric into a theological framework. Aquinas had read 2o Inventione, which motivated him to suggest that the orator should draw his arguments within the context of rhetoric; however, he follows by indicating the veritable subservience of rhetoric to theology. Aquinas believed that "in different ways . . . the rhetorician persuades, the politician judges."67 In the final analysis, the 66Commentarius Cantabrigiensis io_gpistolas Pauli o Schola Petri Abaelardi: Io_Epistolam oo_Romanos, edited by A. Landgraf, (Notre Dame, 1937), pp. 1-2. 67Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologicae, Daniel F. Sullivan, trans. (New York, 1952), pp. 651-53. 79 theologian supersedes both. This gives support to Baldwin's searching summary.. He observes that: The two tendencies which came to their culmination in the thirteenth century, that by which rhetoric was made part of logic and that by which rhetoric became an instrument of theology, are determined by the important methodological differences which separate the Aristotelians and the Augus- tinians. For Thomas Aquinas rhetoric is one of the parts of logic concerned with probable argumentation° for Bonaventura rhetoric is the culmination of the Trivium.68 Both Aquinas and Bonaventura came vitally close to Aristotle with reference to the function of rhetoric in the area of probability. Particularly is this true when one observes the definition of the enthymeme given by Aristotle as a syllogism pertaining to proba- bilities.69 The development of the final periodization in the transforma- tion of rhetoric shall be given in the following section. In concluding this section, three elements related to rhetoric in the Middle Ages should be indicated: (1) although rhetoric was related to juriSprudence, it enjoyed this relationship almost exclusively through dictamen; (2) although the art of preaching was a component of rhetoric, it was primarily stylistic rather than substantive;7o 68McKeon, Op. cit., p. 23. 69Aristotle, The Rhetoric, W. Rhys Robert, trans. (New York: Random House, 1954), pp. 26-28. of, also James H. McBurney, "The Place of the Enthymeme in Rhetorical Theory" (unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Northwestern University, Evanston, 111.); George Kennedy, Tho_A££_o£ Persuasion io_Greece, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1963), p. 32. 70The literature on this element is abundant: Cf. Harry Caplan, "Classical Rhetoric and the Medieval Theory of Preaching," Classical Philology, XXVIII, (1933), 73-96; Harry Caplan, "Rhetorical Invention in Some Medieval Tractates on Preaching," Speculum, II, (1927), 284- 295; Harry Caplan, "Henry of Hesse on the Art of Preaching," Publi- 80 (3) poetry and rhetoric become enmeshed into a unity.71 RENAISSANCE INFLUENCES IN THE RHETORICAL THEORIES OF AENEAS SYLVIUS With respect to the period of the Renaissance, one observes a distinct transformation in rhetorical theory. "Logic dissolved its alliance with the communication arts and has aligned itself instead with the theory of scientific investigation."72 The reason for this development is indicated in the perspective of the Renais- sance. As Wilber S. Howell infers: With the emergence of the scientific spirit, there was less a need for the communication of rhetorical theories within the framework of logicae, or dialectic.73 Logic, as a consequence, found a new home in science. The relationship between the poetic and rhetoric are divorced from ecclesiastical integration and serve the Renaissance in the "revival of antiquity." The first phase of this development is indicated by the emergence of epistolography and in this phase, the Ciceronianism suggested in the first chapter of this study was venerated by Petrarch, Bembo, and other prominent humanists.74 cations of the‘Modern Language Association, XLVIII, (1933), 340-61; C. Homer Haskins, Studies io_Medieval Culture, (Oxford, 1929), pp. 36-71. 71Baldwin, op. cit., pp. 183- 2/05. Cf. also, E. Faral, Les Arts 72Donald Bryant, ed. The Rhetorical Idiom, (Ithaca:Cornell University Press, 1956), p. 56. 73Ibid., p. 57. 74Hans Baron, "Cicero and the Roman Civic Spirit in the Middle Ages and Early Renaissance," in Bulletin o£_the John Rylands Libragy_ op Manchester, XXII, (1938), 72-74. 81 City-states in Italy competed for the services of the most talented secretaries, those secretaries who could compose letters in elegant style. Jacob Burckhardt notes that "the letters of Cicero, Pliny, and others, were at this time diligently studied as models."75 This unique activity of the humanists, coupled with their tasks as orators, made humanism a most significant area of endeavor. Burckhardt suggests that " . . . at a time and among a people where listening was among the chief pleasures of life, and where every imagination was filled with the memory of the Roman Senate and its great speakers, the orator occupied a far more brilliant place than the letter-writer."76 Thus, humanism served as a character- istic phase in the rhetorical tradition of western culture.77 That humanism encouraged the break between dialectic and theology from rhetoric is clear at the dawn of the fifteenth century. A fifteenth century humanist, Pico della Mirandola suggested that the place of rhetoric among the disciplines of education was secure. He further suggested that rhetoric assume a "separate but equal" station. Ernst Cassirer, in Individuo g_§2§mg, develops these important relationships in Pico della Mirandola's thought. He observes that Pico's Aristotelianism would not allow his justi- fication of the fusion of rhetoric and philosophy. Even Aristotle had made rhetoric the counterpart of dialectic, and, further, had devoted a series of treatises to precisely that subject matter 75Burckhardt, op. cit., p. 169. 761bid., p. 170. 77Paul 0. Kristeller, Renaissance Thought, op. cit., p. 13. 82 which deals in things and not in words.78 Pico continues his justification of rhetoric as distinct from philosophy: rhetoric deals in verbal ornaments, and not in knowing and demonstrating truth. He also notes a basic incompatibility between rhetoric and phi1050phy, an incompatibility based upon divergent methodol- ogies. Ermalo Barbaro, a contemporary of Pico, suggests the same indicated above; however, he discusses rhetoric and oratory in a much more favorable context. He argues that rhetoric derived a morality of its own vis-a-vis the speaker's ethical appeal.79 Apart from Pico and Barbaro, the rhetoric of the early Renaissance derived much from Vittorino da Feltre (1378-1445). He encouraged rhetorical proficiency through his theories on edu- cation, and in this respect relates significantly to Aeneas Sylvius. From the practice of elegant writing, to the composition and delivery of orationes, rhetoric figures prominently in the peda- gogical schemes of both Aeneas Sylvius and da Feltre.80 Vergerius (b. 1349) encouraged the study of oratory in spite of its abuse: Rhetoric is the formal study by which we attain the art of eloquence . . . Oratory, in which our forefathers gained so great glory for themselves and for their language, is despised: but our youth, if they would earn the repute of true education, must emulate their ancestors in this accomplishment.81 78Cf Ernst Cassirer, Individuo e Cosmo, (Italy, 1927), pp. 104— 141, 260, 268. 79For a detailed development of this point, Cf. the following: Quirius Breen, "Giovanni Pico della Mirandola on the Conflict of Philosophy and Rhetoric," Journal of the History of Ideas, (June, 1952), XII, 384-426. Also, Cassirer, The Renaissance PhiloSOphy of Man, op. cit., particularly the chapter titled "On the Dignity of Man." 80W. H. WOodward, op. cit., pp. 3-92. 81Ibid., p. 107. 83 Leonardo Bruni, no less a humanist than da Feltre and Vergerius, suggested that from oratory we learn beauty in style, wealth of vocabulary, and elegance in expression.82 Thus, oratory must be studied as a model for all other disciplines. The same ex- pression is found in Battista Guarino,83 a contemporary of Aeneas Sylvius. Guarino was no less a Ciceronian than Aeneas Sylvius himself. After develOping a lengthy section on the need for a liberal arts education, he affirms: The course of study which I have thus far sketched out will prove an admirable preparation for that further branch of scholarship which constitutes Rhetoric, including the thorough examination of the great monuments of eloquence, and skill in the oratorical art itself.84 He recommends Cicero as the standard. Aeneas Sylvius constitutes a most significant facet of Renaissance rhetorical theory. He integrates his views in both the 2g Liberorum Educatione cited earlier, and in his Artis Rethoricae sic Praecepts.35 His theories are decidedly cumu- 821bid., p. 128. 83Cf. page eighteen above for a more detailed analysis of Battista Guarino as a humanist. 84Ibid., p. 171. 85Galletti, op. cit., p. 559. lme catalogue of material on Aeneas is scant, however, the following are significant: J. E. Sandys, A History of Classical Scholarship from the Sixth Century ticulaflyfuseful'ffom a historical perspective. H. 0. Taylor, "AIMedieval Humanist, " Annual Report of the American Historical Association, (1906), I, 51 -60. Gioacchino Paparelli, Enea Silvio Piccolomini, (Bari: Laterza, 1950). A recent and useful analysis of his development as a humanist. Berthe Widmer, Enea Silvio Piccolomini, (Basel: Schwabe, 1960). This work ties the relation— ship between Aeneas Sylvius and German humanism. Cf, pp. 294-298. 84 lative of the various traditions indicated from Plato, Aristotle, and the Sophists, through Quintilian and the period after the fall of the Roman Empire. He begins his rhetorical theories within a context sugges- tive of Aristotle's three proofs: ethical, logical, pathetic. He first discusses ethical proof in connection with good character. At great length is discussed the relationship between wisdom and virtue. Aeneas Sylvius affirms that especially are the two qualities necessary in a king.86 Early in the treatise Aeneas Sylvius uses the epigrammatic approach to convey his ideas. By epigrammatic is meant a pithy saying, appropriate within the context of thought, quotable out of context. He is discussing the relationship between wisdom and virtue. In the following, the concept of nobility is introduced: It is fitting that he who assumes the realms of his forbears should also inherit their virtues. You are suc- ceeding to nobility: take care that you be likewise an heir in morals. Nobility clothed in hol morals is deserving of praise. Nothing vicious is noble.8¥ Nobility and virtue have practical value to a ruling monarch. Especially is this true with Ladislaus, for as Aeneas Sylvius indicates: I pass over our Scipios, Fabii, Catos, Marcelli, and Caesars, all of whom had the greatest glory and learning. we wish that, when the time comes, you will rule after their fashion, so that Hungary, wearied by great disasters, and Bohemia, crushed by the cruel errors of heresy, under your 8622_Liberorum.Educatione, op. cit., p. 93. 87321g, The last two sentences indicate the epigrammatic method. 85 leadership may breathe once more . . .88 As a good theorist, Aeneas Sylvius understood the necessity for the "will to learn" in the student. Thus, early in his development he affirms that "There be a good disposition and the capability of learning in all boys who must be led to the summit of virtue."89 To support this view he borrows that picturesque analogy from Quintilian which says: that as birds are born for flying, horses for running, beasts for ferocity, so thought and activity are peculiar to man; while stupid and intractable persons are no more natural than enormous bodies and monstrous births. And although one person excels another in natural character yet no one is found unable to accomplish anything by endeavor. After a very brief development on the tOpic of bodily care, Aeneas Sylvius turns his attention to the care of the mind. The supreme regard with which the Renaissance humanist held the mind to be is vividly indicated. Doubtless he had read the con- temporary humanists of his day. Giannozzo Manetti, who boldly places man at the center of the universe, voices much with which Aeneas Sylvius would agree. For example: Just as the force, the reason and the power of man, for whom the world itself and all the things of the world were created, are great, straight, and admirable, so we must judge and believe that the mission of man consists in knowing and ruling over the world made for him, as well as over all things which we see established in this immense universe.91 881bid., p. 95. 89Ibid., p.97. 90Quintilian, Institutes gf_0ratory, trans. John S. Watson, (London: Henry Bohn, 1856), p. 9. 91Giannozzo Manetti, 23 dignitate hominis, (Basel: 1532), p. 152. 86 As the title to Manetti's treatise states, man possess dignity, not only through bodily beauty, but pre-eminently because of mental and intellectual development. Such was a recurring theme in the literature of the humanists. As wallace K. Ferguson indicates: . . . the transcendental phi1080phy of the Middle Ages denied to man and to life in this world all reality and all inherent value. To this philosophy, humanism was the dia- lectical antithesis, which restored the Spirit to itself by reaffirming the validity of worldly existence and the worth of man, and by replacing transcendence by immanence.92 Giovanni Gentile developed much the same view in his research on Renaissance humanism early in this century. He believed the humanistic Spirit of the Renaissance to be a perpetual reiteration of the themes of the dignity of man and the immanence of intellect.93 Burckhardt corroborates the view of Aeneas Sylvius and the humanists of that period: To the discovery of the outward world the Renaissance added still a greater achievement, by first discerning and bringing to light the full, whole nature of man. This period . . . gave the highest development to individuality, and then led the individual to the most zealous and thorough study of himself in all forms and under all conditions.94 Within such a context of thought, Aeneas Sylvius exhorts Ladislaus that "there is nothing that men possess on earth more precious than intellect."95 Quoting Plutarch's Moralia, Aeneas Sylvius indicates 92Wallace K. Ferguson, The Renaissance iE_Historical Thought, (New York: Houghton4Miff1in, 1948), p. 223. 93Giovanni Gentile, I_problem: della scolastica e_il_pensiero italiano, (Bari, 1912). 94Jacob Burckhardt, The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy, trans. S. C. G. Middlemore, (New YOFE: Random House, 155%), p. 225-26. 95Aeneas Sylvius, 2§_Liberorum Educatione, op. cit., p. 121. 87 that happiness is derived from knowledge and virtue.96 In preparation for Speaking well and ruling wisely, he exhorts Ladislaus to study philosophy -- philosophy as taught by Plato, not as presupposed by the Sophists.97 He agrees with Quintilian that the learning of philosophy must begin from the cradle, and not after the mind has been exposed to fictions.98 Without developing any additional avenues of study, he commences with his rhetorical theory. The basis of his theory Stems from a belief that proficiency in communication may be perfected. He states to Laidslaus: ". . . speech comes from practice."99 Later he develops a vicious attack upon impromptu speech, believing this form to be the most abusive harm wrought upon a developing mind.100 But mere speech is not the sole purpose of this treatise. ‘Much like the humanists of his day, Aeneas Sylvius sought per- fection: To " . . . Speak elegantly and well," and not " . . . only to Speak."101 At this point is introduced the question of means and ends. What is the "end" to all public Speech? The procurement of the greatest praise. This View is purely adapted from Cicero, for 96Plutarch, Moralia, (Paris: vascosan, 1572), ZF. 97EgLiberorum Educatione, op. cit., p. 127. 98Ibid., 9;, Quintilian, 02. cit., 1, 15. 9923_Liberorum Educatione, op. cit., p. 137. 1°01b1d., p. 139. 1011bid., p. 137. 88 in Qg_Inventione he observes that "From eloquence those who have acquired it obtain glory and honour and high esteem."102 Aeneas Sylvius cites several examples to corroborate the view stated. The chief example is Ulysses. "And this was one art that gave Ulysses, although unwarlike, the mastery over Ajax. For after Achilles was slain, not the strong arm but the flowery tongue bore off his weapons."103 Again, Aeneas Sylvius returns to the question of "unpremedi- tated Speeches." It is rather ironic that after a lengthy dis- course on the value of the "ready tongue" he would so decry the impromptu speech. In his words: But although we approve the speech of a skilled tongue more than the sight of a silent king, still we do not advise a boy to Speak unpremeditatively, for what is said or done inconsiderately or rashly cannot be beautiful. unpremedi- tated Speeches not only of boys but also of men are filled with the greatest frivolity and negligence. But a considered preparation does not allow the speech to digress. What shall I say concerning boys when the renowned orators, Pericles and Demosthenes, often refused to address the people because they said they were unprepared.104 The use of the five canons of classical rhetoric cannot be em- ployed unless thought and deep insight have gone into their prOper 102Cicero, De Inventione, trans. Hf M. Hubbell, (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1949), l, 4. 1032£_Liberorum Educatione, p. 137. At this point Aeneas Sylvius again relies on Cicero for his defense. He quotes the passage "Let arms yield to the toga, let laurels yield to the tongue, Since therefore men differ from beasts because they can Speak, what praise at length is he not worthy of who excells others in that by which men surpass beasts?" Cicero, 2g_Inventione, l, 4. 1042§_Liberorum.Educatione, op. cit., p. 139. 89 use. As Dominic LaRusso notes: Thus does Piccolomini illustrate his understanding of rhetoric. It becomes an art now called by the title Speech, but includes all aspects of the ancient tradition from in- ventio to pronuntiatio despite the fact that these variaus parts are labeled as being parts of other arts all included under the term Speech.105 Aeneas Sylvius affirms the view which corroborates exhaustive manuscript detail with extensive evidence and support. Even in his theoretical development of rhetoric, he borrows profusely from ancient sources. One so devoted to humanistic efforts would of necessity be of the opinion that spontaneous utterances are suSpect. Classical humanists borrowed heavily from the pre- medieval period, and Aeneas Sylvius even utilizes the sources of the Middle Ages -- Peter Abaelard, John of Salisbury, and others. Thus, knowledge which is not solidly supported by evidence is open to serious question. Aeneas Sylvius did not distinguish between the impromptu Speech and the extempore Speech. In modern Speech practice, the latter does entail preparation. Although it is not what Aeneas Sylvius would regard as comprehensive, it i§_preparation and makes this type of Speech more premeditative. The objection which Aeneas Sylvius registers against the unpre- meditative Speech stems from his belief that such a speech comes from the surface rather than primary experience. 105Dominic A. LaRusso, "Rhetoric and the Social Order in Italy, 1450-1600," unpublished doctoral dissertation, 1956, Northwestern University. ‘Qf. also the following : Delio Canti- mori, "Rhetoric and Politics in Italian Humanism," Journal of. the Warbury Institute, I, (1937), p. 82; Ferdinand Schevill, The First Century g£_Italian Humanism, (New York: Crifts, 1928). 90 The ancients used to say that the tongue ought not to be free and wandering, but to be moved and, as it were, governed by suitable chains from the depths of one's breast and heart. For it must be thought that the Speech of facile, light, vain and importunate Speakers is born in the mouth and not in the breast.106 After discoursing on the "unpremeditative speech," Aeneas Sylvius turns briefly to a discussion of voice and articulation. He does not want Ladislaus to impress his audience as a crude, unrefined Speaker. Thus, he urges several practical exercises: (l) the prOper enunciation of each sound; (2) the proper and optimum pitch; (3) the elimination of extreme gutteral qualities; (4) the use of the mouth and lips as aids to prOper articulation; (5) the imitation of sound from teachers qualified in the art of proper Speech.107 The classical canon under question is ro- nuntiatio. Yet pronuntiatio is broader than pronunciation; it is the Sphere of delivery. More Shall be said of this element within the proper context. Proper pronunciation may be achieved through imitation. The orator is asked to correct the errors observed and to seek to achieve a tone and quality pleasing to the audience. He suggests: "In the first place your voice must be formed; let it not be broken with feminine shrillness, nor repeat the tremu- lous tone of the aged, nor shout too much."108 Still more remains pertaining to enunciation: 106De Liberorum Educatione, op. cit., p. 139. Cf. also The Attic Nights of Aulus Gellius, trans. John C. Rolfe, —(London: Heinemann, 1928), I, 15. 107Aeneas Sylvius, op. cit., p. 141. 108Ibid., p. 141. 91 Let the words be expressed and let individual letters be enunciated with their proper sound; let not the final syllables be lost; let not the voice be heard in the throat and let your tongue be unimpedediogour mouth more unrestricted, and your Speech more expre331ve. Speech.may be perfected only through diligence and observation. If the instruction is of high merit, and the capacity to learn of high degree, the desired end will be achieved: the orator perfected in style and Speech. Aeneas Sylvius uses as his model Demosthenes who " . . . was a little slow of tongue . . ."110 A common practice of Aeneas Sylvius is periodic eulogy on the value of rhetoric. He Observes that rhetoric makes the ready man; and good rhetoric applied diligently makes the superior indi- vidual. Such individuals " . . . Will grieve to be conquered, but . . . will rejoice to conquer."111 At this point he quotes the saying from Quintilian: "For although ambition is a vice, Still it frequently has been the cause of virtue."112 The rhetorical maxims of Aeneas Sylvius continue: The audience is not impressed by the individual who expresses himself haltingly. Thus, one of the objectives of the teacher is to bring fluency out from his halting style: "Let there be fluency in speaking, pleasantness in addressing those we meet, kindness in answering, for gruff manners in conversation draw upon oneself 109Ibid. 110Ibid., p. 141. 111Ibid., p. 142. 1121bid. 92 deserving resentment."113 Another element of delivery pertains to the attitude of the speaker. The speech of the orator Should not be too humble as to indicate weakness, nor is it to be too haughty, for this indicates superficiality. Aeneas affirms: " . . . grammar will direct this material of Speech which nature supplies, dialectic will sharpen, rhetoric will embellish, philosophy will temper and perfect."114 Power of communication is based on a retentive mind. Thus, the orator is requested to cultivate his memory to the fullest Nor only should he remember sayings from classical literature, but he should also develop sayings of his own and commit these to memory.115 In summary, several useful contributions to the rhetorical continuum are indicated in the views of Aeneas Sylvius. That his theories were a composite of the traditions of previous rhetoricians has already been indicated. The precise relation- ships remain to be indicated. From Plato he deduced his passionate distrust of rhetoric without substantive thought and analysis.116 In this connection, he suggests the rhetoric of a "prepared man." He had no reSpect for the Sophistic, which suggested exclusively the emphasis on results. 113Ibid., p. 145. 1141b1d. llSIbid. 116P0parelli, op. cit., p. 121. 93 In this sense, he suSpected the thirteenth century professors of rhetoric who "prided themselves on their ignorance of Cicero and their ability to get practical results."117 This does no: suggest that Aeneas Sylvius believed that rhetoric is suSpect; only that the practitioners of rhetoric are suspect when they emphasize the egotistical rather than the intellectually elevating. Aeneas Sylvius understood the importance of the decline in rhe- torical theory from the frequent references he makes to "empty and showy Speech."118 In this respect, the "teaching of the professional rhetoricians became more and more formal and empty.119 AS a theorist of some renown, he sought to stem the tide of empty formality.120 In the words of Charles H. Haskins, "For the Middle Ages rhetoric could no longer be the centre and goal of liberal education."121 Aeneas Sylvius hoped to transform the Situation. His regard for the liberal arts and the ready mind involves more than simply study and application; it involves the individual in a life-long effort of humanistic scholarship and study. In this connection, the names of Cicero and Quintilian are significant. He suggested that they be used as guides primarily because of the paucity of effective rhetorical scholarship in his own day. Although humanist educators were hard at work, they lacked the 117Haskins, The Renaissance p£_the 12th Centugy, 9p. cit., p. 139. 11823Liberorum Educatione, 9p. cit., P- 121- 119Haskins, 0p. cit., P. 139- 1202_e__Liberorum Educatione, OP- cit., Po 141- 121Haskins, op. cit., p. 139. 94 "classical" flavor of the two masters of rhetoric. Earlier in the present chapter, it was suggested that the theories of Aeneas Sylvius were a composite of earlier theories. They were composite in three areas: (1) dictamen, or the episto- lary composition. Under the name of rhetoric, this became in time the scope of effective letter-writing and correspondence. Aeneas Sylvius was a master at this. He wrote letters in pro- fusion and understood the relationship between oral communication and written composition. Many of the elements of epistology de- rived their names from rhetoric as in the case of dictamen. As Baldwin suggests, "of the traditional five parts of ancient rhetoric, inventio, diSpositio, and elocutio . . . bear directly on letters."122 0f the parts of Speech, exordium, narratio, petitio, and conclusio related significantly to the program of rhetoric as suggested by Aeneas Sylvius. It was understood to be dictamen in its broadest sense, but rhetoric nonetheless. (2) Preaching, or pulpit oratory was another effect upon the theories of Aeneas Sylvius. The various types are suggested within the context of pulpit oratory. In the words of Baldwin: "For the Middle Ages preaching is the characteristic form of oratory. Political oratory being in abeyance, legal oratory having little sc0pe, preaching practically monopolizes the third field distinguished by Aristotle . . . "123 122Baldwin,‘Medieval Rhetoric, op. cit., p. 213. 123Jacob Burckhardt corroborates the above in the following: "The national gift of eloquence was not wanting to the Italians of the Middle Ages, and a so-called rhetoric belonged from the 95 This classification is deve10ped within Aeneas Sylvius' view in terms of ecclesiastical responsibility. He delivered many such speeches in the tradition of the Medieval elements of preaching. The unfortunate aspect of the tradition is its reliance upon the stylistic. Rhetoric became too obsessed with poetic, and 22_Libero- rum Educatione clearly seeks to supplement the two but not to amal- gamate these into a unity. Aeneas Sylvius discusses the triune character of the Trivium and understands the importance of distinc- tion and development in the various areas. (3) Ceremonial addresses later developed into a broader program of "occasional oratory." There is not a clear division between the various forms because the forms converged upon one another. Epidiectic, deliverative, forensic -- these were important influences insofar as these suggest the situation which occasions the address. In the final analysis, the extension of Dg_Liberorum Educatione into the rhetorical practice of Aeneas Sylvius constitutes a signifi- cant element in one's understanding of the period of the Renaissance. Again, in the words of Burckhardt, Many Speeches breathe a spirit of true eloquence, especially those which keep to the matter treated of; of this kind is the mass of what is left to us of Pius II sic Aeneas Sylvius Picco- lomini. The miraculous effects produced . . . point to an orator the like of whom has not been often seen. His great audiences first to the seven liberal arts; but so far as the revival of the ancient methods is concerned, this merit must be ascribed . . . to the Florentine Bruno Casini, who died of the plague in 1348. With the practical purpose of fitting his countrymen to Speak with ease and effect in public be treated after the pattern of the ancients, invention, declamation, bearing and gesticulation each in its proper connection." Burckhardt, 0p. cit., p. 239. 96 as envoy before Nicholas V . . . were not events soon to be forgotten.1 The substantive elements and the qualitative criticism of a select number of these Speeches will constitute the essence of the chapter to follow. 1241bid. , p. 2400 IV. A RHETORICAL STUDY OF SELECTED SPEECHES OF AENEAS SYLVIUS PICCOLOMINI FROM 1430 TO THE ENDING OF THE CONGRESS 0F MANTUA This chapter attempts to study selected Speeches delivered by Aeneas Sylvius (Pius II), with particular emphasis upon those Speeches delivered at the Congress of Mantua (1459). Within the context of rhetorical criticism, those factors which bear Signifi- cantly upon the rhetorical practice of Aeneas Sylvius will receive extensive development. The procedural and substantive methodology utilized in the present rhetorical criticism is catalogued into eight norms of criticism. The following suggest the norms which are relevant: (l) to what extent did Aeneas Sylvius employ his rhetorical theories? Here, the reader is cautioned against looking for rigid and precise approximations of theory with practice. (2) to what extent did he suggest his speech purpose? (3) what factors prompted the speech? (4) what was the "climate of opinion" toward his Speech purpose? (5) how did his humanist training affect the nature and content of what he said? (6) and how did he adapt to his audience? (7) how did he deliver his Speech? (8) to what extent did he achieve his intended objective? For the present study, the classical factors in rhetorical criticism will be deve10ped. The Speeches of Aeneas Sylvius will be Studied from the rhetorical factors of invention, arrangement, 97 98 style, and delivery. Under each category, the relevant relation- ships will be indicated. The present chapter is divided into two parts: the first in- cludes a general discussion of the Speeches delivered by Aeneas Sylvius prior to his elevation to the Holy See. The analysis will be general because the sources available on this period of his speech activity are general.1 The second part commences with the keynote address which was delivered at the convocation of the Con- gress of Mantua. HISTORICAL PREFACE Schism threatened the Catholic Church in 1430, and conciliarists began supporting a movement for another ecumenical council. The most vocal conciliarist was Aeneas Sylvius, who believed that the general church council was the most efficient means of unifying the church. Pope Martin V, perhaps the most vocal of the anti-conciliarists, abhorred the conciliarism which made the pontiff subservient to the council. At the end of 1430, the Holy Roman Emperor, Sigismund, in collaboration with the University of Paris, made persistend demands upon the Holy Father to convoke a council. Martin objected. On November 8, 1430 a document was placed at the door of the Holy See demanding that a council be called. The following suggests the tenor of the demand: 1This historical development which led to the nomination of Aeneas Sylvius is important to the understanding of his pontificate. Thus, the division which follows forms the backdrop to the curious developments which follow the opening of the Congress of Mantua. 99 Whereas it is notorious to all Christendom, that since the Council of Constance an untold number of Christians have wandered from the faith by means of the Hussites, and members are being daily 10pped off from the body of the church mili- tant, nor is there any one of all the sons whom She begat to help or console her; now therefore, two most serene princes direct to all Christian princes the following conclusion . . .2 In essence, the conclusion urges the convocation of a council at Basle at the earliest possible date. Early in 1431, after the death of Martin V, the necessity of convoking the Council became obvious to all. Eugenius IV, successor to Martin V, though reluc- tant to accede to the conciliarists, did nonetheless issue petition and subsequent bull convoking the council at Basle.3 The council, which began on March 12, 1431, was convened primarily for the pur- pose of dealing with the Hussite problem in central Europe. John Hus, victim of the Council of Constance, was the cause for this second ecumenical council of the fifteenth century. His followers were sacking sections of central Europe which failed to recognize their cause. Even Bohemia proper, the seedbed of Hussite strength, was not without internal strife. In the midst of this religious strife, Aeneas Sylvius describes thus: I believe that no land was so full of imposing and richly decorated churches. They raised one's thought to the Skies. The high altars were heavily laden with gold and silver caskets for relics; the robes of the clergy were rich and embroidered with pearls; the sacred vessels were well-nigh priceless . . . And all this magnificence was to be found, not in cities alone, but in villages even.4 2The document is found in Martene, Ampl. Collectio, VIII, 48, as quoted in Creighton, 0p. cit., II, 193. 31bid., II, 197. 4Aeneas Sylvius, History p£_Bohemia, (Basle, 1918), trans. C. E. Maurice, p. 142. Note the picturesque and lively description indicated. Aeneas Sylvius was indeed a master of description, and in his Commentaries this is boldly evident. 100 The Bohemians were not united in their support of John Hus.5 If the Hussites in general had supported the views of John Hus, and were united in their opposition to papal interference,the situation might have been less precarious. This was not the case. Of the two groups at war in Bohemia, the Taborites were the most extraordinary. One of the more extreme elements in the Taborite congregation was the group known as the Adamites. Like Adam, they went around naked and are described by Aeneas Sylvius as promiscuous. He notes: They indulged in promiscuous intercourse, but no one might take a laymen without the consent of their chief elder. When one of these brethren ardently desired a sister, he took her by the hand, and, going with her to the chief elder, said, 'My soul is afire with love of this woman.‘ Whereupon the elder would reply, 'Go, be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth.’6 Such were the revolutionary movements in central Europe which the Council of Basle hoped to put down.7 The sympathy which Aeneas Sylvius had for the Council of Basle is indicated by his unrestrained contempt for POpe Eugenius IV. In his words, "In his old age there began the Council of Basle, with 5The vexing decision which confronted Wenceslaus, King of Bohe- mia, gave rise to the civil war in Bohemia. The decision was whether to support the cause of the deceased John Hus, or to agree with the Council of Constance that he was in fact a haretic. Wenceslaus sup- ported the Council of Constance in its view that Hus was worthy of death. Utraquists were decidedly more conservative than was the Taborite faction, which would be classified on any continuum as extremely radical. 92, J. W. Thompson, Ag Introduction EpJMedieval EurOpe, p. 985. 6Aeneas Sylvius, History pf_Bohemia, p. 142. 7Ibid. 101 which from the first he was at variance."8 Eugenius was at variance with the Council and thus dissolved the convocation soon after the prelates arrived at Basle. He gave four reasons for this action: (1) he suggested that the prelates in attendance were too few in number; (2) he suggested that hostilities current between the Austrian anti-Hussites and the Bohemians made the session precarious; (3) he suggested that men's minds were too distracted by religious schismatics vis-a-vis the Hussites; and finally (4) that the Council would conflict with the talks which were progressing with the Greek Emperor. ‘With these reasons he included a bull dissolving the Council. In direct violation to POpe Eugenius' bull, the Council of Basle continued its deliberations with three stated objectives: (1) the extirpation of heresy; (2) the purification of Christendom; (3) the reformation of morals.9 A letter included in thein£k§_ of Aeneas Sylvius suggests that Eugenius would be stoned to death if he were to continue his open and unrestrained hostility toward the Council of Basle. The alternative was a legally effected deposition of Eugenius.10 At this time Aeneas SYlviuS travelled to Milan in the service 8Commentaries, op. cit., p. 490. Sismondi, a historian cited by William.Boulting, has described the situation appropriately: " . . . the entire church was at war with the Hussites; the Holy See was at war with the Council; the new Pope was at war with the States of the Church." CE, William Boulting, Aeneas Sylvius: Orator, Mpp.p£_Letters, Statesman, Pope. (London: A. Constable Ltd., 1908), p. 46. 9Aeneas Sylvius was active in his support of Amadeo who later became Felix V, the schismatic anti-pope. 109$, Commentaries, 9p. cit., p. 490-93, 102 of the Bishop of that city. While at the city, two men were seeking the position of Rectorship at the University of Pavia, the one a jurist, the other a humanist. Aeneas Sylvius was asked by the humanist to plead for his cause. Boulting, who recounts the story, gets enjoyment from the details: Need one doubt how eloquently he would do so and the sar- castic things he would say concerning law, how rejoiced he would be to bring himself under the notice of the duke, what hOpes he would entertain of obtaining his favor? The jurist had been deemed likely to succeed, but the force of Aeneas's speech secured the post to the humanist.11 Such experiences brought the young Aeneas Sylvius to the attention of the reSponsible leaders throughout central Europe. This inci- dent foreshadowed the service which he was to render in the court of Frederick III. FROM CONCILIARIST TO APOLOGIST The following episode builds the drama of the first category of the speeches of Aeneas Sylvius. Aeneas had fallen, as indicated earlier, into the company of questionable friends. After he was released from his responsibilities as secretary to the Bish0p of Milan, he began his service with the Bishop of Novara. In 1435, the Bishop and the Visconti employed one Riccio, a Florentine, to abduct the Holy Father. Aeneas Sylvius carried the letters which 11Boulting, op. cit., p. 48. This story is not confirmed in any of the primary sources on Aeneas Sylvius; nor does Aeneas men- tion it in his Commentaries. Consequently it may be part of the tradition basic to the eloquence of Aeneas Sylvius in this period. Boulting, the only source for this narrative, gives no documentation. If such a story were true, it is unfortunate that a Specimen of the Speech delivered on the occasion was not preserved for posterity. 103 contained the details of the attempted abduction. Agents for the Holy See uncovered the plot, and consequently nothing came of it. Aeneas Sylvius had to leave, and when he returned to Milan he saw the dead Riccio, executed for his actions in the plot. This heightened the anti-papal sentiments latent in Aeneas Sylvius. These views bore Significantly on the results of his first oration at the Council of Basle. The question revolved around what city was to have the Council sessions. Cesarini preferred Milan and requested that Aeneas Sylvius deliver an oration for the benefit of that city. If Aeneas Sylvius was not pro-papacy, neither was‘Milan.12 Aeneas Sylvius describes his preparation for the Speech in the Commentaries. He indicates that he was up all night preparing the 13 Speech and reciting its contents. Mansi notes that the substance of the oration is full of zeal and enthusiasm. He suggests that every Shade of opinion was included in flattering detail.14 C. M. Ady observes that " . . . the careful attention to style at once proclaims the author as a disciple of humanism, and the rounded periods of his rhetoric came as a pleasant change from the less polished utterances to which the Fathers were wont to listen."15 129£3 Cecilia M; Ady, Pius II, (London, 1913), p. 36. 13Commentaries, op. cit., I, 6. 14Orationes, edited by J. D. Mansi, (3 vols. Lucca: 1755). The full title of the above cited work is Pi} II_P.'M. olim Aeneae Sylvii Piccolomini Senensis Orationes Politicae g£_ecclesiasticae. Hereafter cited as Orationes, I, 5. 15Ady, 0p. cit., p. 58. 104 The stated purpose of the Speech was not achieved; however, a purpose beyond the immediate one was achieved. So impressed was the Archbishop of Milan with the oratory of Aeneas Sylvius that he bestowed upon the eloquent neophyte the provostship in the Church of St. Lorenzo in Milan. Almost concurrent with this appointment, the Church Commission of St. Lorenzo had made another appointment to the provostship. The delegation from Milan attending the Council of Basle objected to the appointment of Aeneas, and they used as their argument that his appointment was illegal in view of a ruling of March 22, 1436 which declared that Church Commissions are authorized to appoint provosts through elections.16 Aeneas Sylvius needed the authorization of the Council of Basle to make good his appointment. His Speech in defense of his position iS most inter- esting. Before Aeneas Sylvius was to deliver his speech, one of the Milanese delegation, Isidore Rosati, delivered a most impassioned invective against Aeneas Sylvius, arguing that the Council would be nullifying the provision of 1433. He ended his Speech thus: "Unless you confirm the chapter in its rights, your projects will fail and the provision will be a laughing stock."17 Approaching a hostile audience with general Opinions against his anti-pOpe propensities, Aeneas Sylvius began: 16The action of the Archbishop of Milan pre-empted the conciliar theory. One of the early decrees of the Council of Basle provided for free elections when vacancies occurred in cathedral positions. Papal jurisdiction was made subservient to democratic ecclesiastical procedure. Cf, "Ruling of July 13, 1433," Commentaries, I, 24. 17Ibid. 105 I am certainly amazed, your worships, that Isidoro Speaks against me, when only the other day on his return from Milan he brought me a letter from Duke Filippo, in which that prince thanks me for having pleaded his cause here and assures me that he would be pleased to have me accept any benefice in his domain and would be glad to confirm my tenure. Evidently he does not consider me an outsider.18 Thus far Aeneas is developing personal ethos. He is placing himself before the prelates assembled. In his reference to Duke Filippo and the letter, overt appeal to authority is indicated. In terms of appeal factors, Aeneas Sylvius understood the necessity of creating a favorable Opinion in the midst of antagonism. He continues: Nor is it anything new for a man of one state to hold positions of honor in another, provided he knows the language. EVen the Archbishop of Milan came from Bologna. And no one should be influenced by the objection that has been raised on the ground of your decree concerning elections, for that is not binding on the Council, but only on those subject to its autho- rity. Furthermore, election is to be delegated only to chapters which have a number of important canons, not to such as have only two or three and those ignorant and negligible, as is the case with the church of San Lorenzo now under discussion, where the canons, even if they had the right of election, would not exercise it unless bidden to elect a particular candidate. But you, senators, will act as you see fit. I ask nothing in- compatible with your honor. However, if you are in favor of my nomination, I should prefer your good-will without posses- sion to election by the chapter with it.19 The ethical appeal indicated earlier is extended into the con- clusion. Without appearing to be overly anxious for the position, Aeneas simply prefers that the Council act as it feels appropriate under the circumstances. His brief but concise review of Isidoro's logical analysis suggests to the observer that Isidoro had not read the July 13 decree in its finest detail. Finally, his rationale in 18Ibid., pp. 24-5. 19Ibid., p. 25. 106 support of the decree so impressed the Council tha: they interpreted the July 13, 1433 decree hereafter from the position indicated by Aeneas Sylvius. The speech received its intended reSponse. Aeneas Sylvius received confirmation for the provostship and thereafter was regarded as one of the significant voices at the Council of Basle.20 Developments at the Council of Basle were going poorly for Eugenius and the supporters of the papacy. The conciliar theory had gotten appreciably out of hand, and even the anti-papal tenden- cies of Aeneas Sylvius were assuaged by what he saw developing. He observes: "Verily, when wise men take to folly they surpass all fools, even as the finest wine turns to the sourest vinegar."21 From 1438 to 1440 the rise of Aeneas Sylvius was meteoric. Ady confirms this: "Aeneas was now a person of some note in the Council, and during the next two years he rose rapidly."22 Yet the rise of Aeneas was not without its periodic falls. For example, he supported the decree of June 25, 1439 which provided for the deposi- tion of Eugenius IV. He was designated to serve as Clerk for the Conclave which was to elect another pontiff. The announcement of Felix V as the new pontiff was made by Aeneas Sylvius on November 6, 1439. The final coronation of Felix took place at Basle on July 24, 20Aeneas Sylvius was never able to execute fully his reSponsi- bilities as provost. Two successive illnesses had Aeneas at the point of death. It had been rumored while he was in Basle that he was dead. A new provost was elected, and after Aeneas regained his health, other reSponsibilities more important occupied hfls attention. 21Quoted by Ady, op. cit., p. 61. 22Ibid., p. 63. 107 1440 with Aeneas Sylvius serving as historian for the occasion. Later, he was to serve as one of the chief secretaries to the anti- Pope, Felix. During the Schism, Aeneas Sylvius first supported Felix V and the German cause; he later supported Eugenius and legiti- mate papal authority. In Spite of the changes in the thinking of Aeneas, he remained a dominant figure at the deliberation at Basle. The period from June 1442 to August 1443 evidenced a trans- formation in the character and thought of Aeneas Sylvius. Aeneas himself suggests that in 1442 Felix V requested that he accompany a delegation which was to go to the court of Frederick III of Austria. He indicates the following in response: When Felix sent ambassadors to him, he bade Aeneas accompany them, and thus Aeneas, who had frequent conversation with Frederick's counsellors, became friendly with a learned and influential man, Sylvester, Bishop of Chiemsee . . . After he had been introduced to the Emperor's favor by these two men and had received the laurel crown with all the privileges belonging to poets, the Emperor invited him to enter his service and re- main at his court. After requesting release from his responsibilities in the Papal court of Felix V, he went back to Germany and the court of Frederick III. He was impressed by his new position as poet-laureate in the court of Frederick III. C. M. Ady observes correctly that Aeneas . . . was as vain as most humanists and delighted in the outward trappings of glory, while the laurel wreath made him one, not only with the poets and orators of antiquity but with Petrarch, the apostle of humanism, who had been crowned in Rome 23Commentaries, 9p. cit., I, 29. Aeneas Sylvius has a unique style. His use of the third person is interesting and indicative of his humanist efforts. 108 just over a hundred years before.24 The experiences of Aeneas Sylvius in Germany were far from gratifying. He objected to his "exile" from Italy, not because it was in fact an "exile," but rather because he was in a quandary over his future. This quandary is beautifully illustrated in a letter written to a friend (dated March 8, 1446): He must be a miserable and graceless man who does not at last return to his better self, enter into his own heart, and amend his life; who does not consider what will come in the other world after this. Ah, John, I have done enough and too much evil! I have come to myself; Oh, may it not be too late:25 It was not too late, for in the same month he was ordained a priest. Almost immediately after ordination, Aeneas Sylvius had a task to accomplish in the service of Frederick III. He was to go to Rome 24Ady, op. cit., p. 74. 25Voigt, Enea Silvio, (3 Vols: Berlin), I, 438. iM. Creighton does a masterful job of describing the irresolute life of Aeneas Sylvius. "The character of Aeneas at this time was not that of a churchman." Creighton, op. cit., III, 63. His social life was a mixture of youthful fancy and repudiation of moralistic hypocrisy. The interesting fact is that his social affairs little affected his political and humanistic reputation. Creighton observes: "His irregularities were never made a reproach to him later, nor did he take any pains to hide them from posterity. Such as he was he would have himself known -- induced perhaps by literary vanity, more prob- ably by a feeling that his character would not lose in the eyes of his contemporaries by sincerity on his part. In those days chastity was the mark of a saintly character, and Aeneas never professed to be a saint." Ibid., III, 64. In a letter, Aeneas requests that his father tend to his bastard son. AS he writes: "The door was shut, but not bolted. I rushed into bed, and after a little foolish Struggling, got possession of her body . . . This merry scene befell me about the beginning of February; and nine months after my dear lovely bedfellow . . . was delivered of the above-mentioned babe." Thg.WOrks pf_M£, Thomas Brown, (6 vols: London), III, 227. 109 and request the re-convocation of the Council of Basle, but in a different city. The audience with POpe Eugenius IV would be the first since the Council of Basle sessions during which Aeneas had denounced Eugenius. The Speech prepared for the occasion was masterful. F. Gregorivius, in his History pf_the City pf_Rome ip_the Middle Ages, observes: Never, except in ancient Athens, did the goddess of per- suasion exercise such power over men as in the time of the Renaissance. Piccolomini disarmed Eugenius, confessed his errors at Basle in beautiful language, and then Openly went over to the side of the Pope, who thoroughly understood his value and made him his secretary.26 The Speech of apology constitutes a turning point in the career of Aeneas Sylvius. His tone is penitent and humiliating throughout the entire Speech. His manner was motivated by his understanding of the "climate of opinion” current at that time. Aeneas notes: ‘When he reached his kinsmen in Siena, they were unanimous in trying to deter him from going to Rome, because he had been against Eugenius at Basle. For Eugenius, they declared, remem- bered nothing so long as an injury and was both vindictive and cruel. Aeneas on the contrary said that he could not think Rome was unsafe for the Emperor's ambassador and that he must either perform the duty he had undertaken or die in the attempt.27 Fea suggests the following with reference to the climate of Opinion: "Eugenius was cruel, mindful of wrongs, restrained by no conscience, no feeling of pity; he was surrounded by ministers of crime: Aeneas, if he went to Rome, would never return."28 26F. Gregorovius,H mtory_ of the City_ of Rome in the Middle Age S, trans. A. Hamilton, (7 vols. London, 1894-1900), VII, 156. 27Commentaries, 9p. cit., p. 42. 28Fea edition of Commentaries, p. 87. 110 In the introduction to his "apology" Aeneas gives a brief state- ment pertaining to his ethos: "Holy Father, before I discharge my errand for the King, I will say a little about myself."29 (Aeneas Sylvius understood the necessity of indicating Aristotle's three requirements of ethos, logis, and pathos. He also understood the advice of Quintilian: A Speaker must be a "good man Speaking well"; Aeneas Sylvius is interested in suggesting aspects of his "goodness.") He continues: "I know that you have heard much against me; and those who have told you have Spoken truly."30 The remarkable aspect of this statement is suggested by the nature of the audience. Cardi- nals were present who knew his reputation -- not only as a conciliarist and as supporter of Felix, but also as a secular man of the Renais- sance.31 He could not glorify his reputation in their presence for they would understand his caprice. Thus, he immediately begins by suggesting his probity of character: He associates himself with the elevated; he bestows praise upon his cause; he links his Opponent with what is unvirtuous; he ranoves unfavorable impressions; he relies on authority derived from experience; and he creates the impression of complete sincerity.32 He returns to the epitome of 29Creighton, op. cit., III, 69. 30Ibid. The reputation of Aeneas Sylvius as Secretary to Anti- Pope Felix was beyond question. The only real question was his cause, and the vehement hatred which he had for Eugenius. 31Ibid., III, 63. ‘Ef. Pastor, Op. cit., III, 1-44; Ady, op. cit., pp. 1-98. Statement of his character is included above, 9:, p. 108. 32Lester Thonssen and A. Craig Baird, Speech Criticism: The DeveIOpment pf Standards fOr Rhetorical Appraisal, (New York: Ronald Press, 1948), p. 387. 111 penitence in the following: "At Basle I Spoke, wrote and did many things, I do not deny it, not with the intent of injuring you, but of benefiting the Church. I erred, but in the company of many others, men of high repute."33 It is not sufficient to associate one's errors with a group of anonymous sinners, and for this reason he llames the distinguished names associated with error: "I followed Cardinal Cesarini, the Apostolic Notary, Pontano, men who were es- teemed in the eyes of the law and teachers of the truth. I will not mention the universities which gave their opinions against you. In such company who would not have erred?" The use of the rhetorical question is suggested by Aeneas Sylvius frequently prior to his ele- vation to the pontificate. Thereafter he used the reference to authority by quoting scripture at great length. In the next State- ment he continues his apology by qualifying his words: But when I discovered the error of the Basilians, I con- fess that I did not at once flee to you. I was afraid lest I Should fall from one error into another. I went to the neutral camp, that after mature deliberation I might shape my course. I remained three years with the German king, and there my study of the disputes between your legates and those of the Council left me no doubt that the right was on your Side. Hence, when this embassy was offered me, I willingly accepted it, thinking that so I might regain your favor. Now I am in your presence, and ask your pardon because I erred in ignorance. Pope Eugenius did not question the sincerity of his erring chile; he accepted this apology by extending forgiveness to Aeneas Sylvius. The Cardinals in the Curia likewise did not doubt his sin- 33Creighton, op. cit., III, 69-70. 34Ib1d., III, 70. 112 cerity. As Creighton suggests: "After this reconciliation Aeneas was regarded as a person of some importance at Rome, and was well received by several of the Cardinals."35 The Bishop of Bologna, the humanist cleric Tommaso Parentucelli did not accept Aeneas Syl- vius in Spite of his humiliating repentance. Parentucelli, who was to become the next pope (Nicholas V) suspected that Aeneas Sylvius was being Opportunistic in his dealings.36 This Speech d3 apology opened the way to a new career for Aeneas Sylvius. In this sense his repentance may be interpreted as being opportunistic; the fact remains that from this vantage point he could see the papal tiara which he was to wear in 1458. His manner became decidedly more serene. He rejected his prior conciliarist views. He sought to effect an alliance between the Empire and the Papacy. The fact remains that he was the friend to both from this point on. Convened on September 1, 1446 was the Diet of Frankfort. In essence, this Diet was to effect the Papal-Imperial alliance. Aeneas Sylvius distinguished himself at this meeting. When Gregory of Heimburg introduced the impracticality of such an alliance, he appended his comments by describing the Pope as a "harsh, haughty, repulsive . . . old goat."37 Aeneas Sylvius rose to save the nego- tiations. He spoke in language most conciliatory and courteous. He praised Eugenius as being worthy of praise and respect. The 351bid. 36Ibid. 111, 71. 37Ibid. III, 73. 113 Cardinal of Arles desired to know how long it took for Aeneas to change his Opinion of the Pope. After all, he had the reputation of being anti-pope and conciliarist. Aeneas Sylvius replied: "It is not I who have changed, but the Council; they once offered to remove the Council from Basle, now they refuse; as if all truth were contained within the walls of Basle."38 This did not please John de Lysura who, in pointed and provocative language suggested the following: "Are you come from Siena to legislate for Germany? You had better have Stayed at home and left us to settle our own affairs."39 In the final analysis, Aeneas managed both the alliance and the Silencing of his Opponents. This he did through quiet nego- tiations. To reward his persistence and statesmanlike manner, Euge- nius made Aeneas Sylvius Apostolic Sub-Deacon fourteen days prior to his death. It was believed that the pontificate of Nicholas V, the newly elected pontiff, would arrest the meteoric rise of Aeneas Sylvius. Such, however, was not the case. The coronation of Nicholas V is a dramatic event for the history of the papacy. He had a reputation as a distinguished humanist yet a devout churchman -- a rare combination in an age which saw devotion to church or letters, but seldom both. Immediately Nicholas assumed a conciliatory manner toward Papal jurisdiction and Imperial control. As Creighton suggests: "The pacific character of the new POpe made 38Milman, op. cit., pp. 95-6. 39Ibid., p. 98. 114 .40 him generally acceptable.’ Milman notes: "The choice of Nicholas V was one of such Singular felicity for his time that it cannot be wondered if his admirers looked on it as overruled by the Holy Spirit."41 Aeneas Sylvius observed the following prior to the coro- nation of Nicholas V: "AS soon as he had entered the palace of St. Peter, he summoned Aeneas, confirmed him as secretary and subdeacon, and charged him with carrying the cross before him on the day of his coronation. "42 Milman states that Aeneas Sylvius worked closely with Nicholas V to secure Papal strength: Two years had hardly elapsed when Nicholas V (so well had Aeneas Sylvius done his work in Germany) was sole and undis- puted POpe. The Council of Basle, disowned, almost forgotten, had dissolved itself. Felix V was again Amadeus of Savory, in his peaceful retreat at Ripaille. The Council had the wisdom to yield, the Pope the greater wisdom to admit the Council to an honorable capitulation . . . Aeneas Sylvius had still years of busy life before him.43 The Diet of Vienna was the occasion for the next major address of Aeneas Sylvius. He had delivered many eloquent Speeches since his famous "Apology," but none was quite of the magnitude of his Adversus Australes. Austria had revolted from the dominant practices of the Holy Roman Emperor, Frederick III. It was hoped that the Diet of Vienna which convened December, 1452 and ended in April of the following 40Creighton, Op. cit., III, 101. 41Milman, op. cit., p. 100. 42Commentaries, op, cit., p. 49, 43Mi1man, op. cit., pp. 102-3. 115 year would solve the controversy. In Creighton's words: While Frederick was taking counsel with Cusa, the POpe'S legate, Aeneas, and the Bishop of Eichstadt, Albert burst into the room, and noted Aeneas and the rest, exclaiming loudly that he cared little for Emperor or POpe. Aeneas sadly remarks that princes being brought up amongst their inferiors, rarely know how to behave towards their equals, but lose their temper and behave with violence.44 Subsequent to this unfortunate incident, Aeneas Sylvius was to address the Diet of Vienna. His audience was composed of men with varying impressions with reference to the basic controversy between the Austrians and the Imperial negotiators. In the introduction to his Speech the polemical attitude of Aeneas is indicated: "The Austrians exclaim with haughty mien, 'What have we to do with the POpe? Let him say his masses, we will handle arms; if he lays his commands on us we will appeal.' The Waldensians . . . the Saracens themselves, could not say more."45 His introduction suggests the manner in which he will present the substantive details of the speech; quite obviously the manner will be in the form of a reprimand. Aeneas refuses to suggest the alternative to arbitration -- an ecu- menical council. He observes that such councils as have taken place at Constance (1414-1418), and at Basle (1431-1445), were destructive of the precepts of Christianity. He ridicules conciliarism as being hypocrisy. 44Creighton, op. cit., III, 132. 45Ibid., III, 132. 116 I saw at Basle cooks and grooms sitting side by side with bishops. Who would give their doings the force of Law? But the Austrians appeal from an uninstructed to an instructed Pope. What a wonderful thing is wisdom. ‘What a Splendid procedure they suggest. The person of the Pope is divided into him from whom an appeal is made and him to whom it is made. Such a scheme might suit Plato's ideal State, but could be found no- where else. They add to this an appeal to a future Council, which, they say, is due according to the Constance decrees within ten years of the dissolution of that of Basle. I am afraid it will be twenty or a hundred years before a Council is held; since its summons depends on the judgment of the Pope as to its Opportuneness. If they expect one from the Savoyards, it is absurd for them to talk of Councils every ten years, when the last sat for nearly twenty. WOuld that the times were favorable to a Council, as the Pope wishes; it would soon dispel the folly of these dreams. But they appeal to the Universal Church, 1. e., the congregation of all faithful people, high and low, men and women, clergy and lay. In early days, when the believers were few, such an assembly was possible; now, it is impossible that it should come together, or appoint a judge to settle any cause. It were wise to appeal to the judgment of the Last Great Day.4 This Speech articulated papal policy for over two hundred years. Aeneas scorned the conciliar system which remained the object of scorn until the Council of Trent in 1546. The statement eloquently appeased the crisis which had been fomenting. Nicholas V could now turn his attention to his humanistic preoccupations. His pontificate was the first to articulate policies which encouraged continuity rather than chaos. His achievements were not original but they were lasting. The fame of Aeneas Sylvius was not localized from 1450 on; he had travelled extensively and was recognized as a significant Spokes- man for his generation. On December 17, 1456, the successor to Nicholas V, Calixtus III, nominated Aeneas Sylvius to the Sacred 46The complete text of the oration is to be found in Mansi, op. cit., I, 184. Cf, also, Creighton, op. cit., III, 132-3. 117 College of Cardinals. Ludwig Pastor notes: "Of the six actually nominated, Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini was undoubtedly the most worthy and distinguished."47 For the next few months the public utterances of Aeneas Sylvius, now Cardinal of Siena, were very few. His preoccupation was with serving his native Siena as a worthy Cardinal. It is believed that Calixtus III was so impressed with the tenure of Aeneas Sylvius as cardinal that he designated him as his preference for succession to the Holy See.48 KEYNOTE ADDRESS TO THE CONGRESS OF MANTUA HISTORICAL BACKGROUND49 On September 3rd, 1458, Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini received the Papal tiara and became POpe Pius II. His pontificate began with great expectation and promise. Although Nicholas V had been a humanist POpe, his originality and creative capacity was well below the new pontiff. AS Pastor notes: 47Pastor, Op. cit., II, 458. For added sources Cf, Laffan, op. cit., p. 172; Commentaries, 9p. cit., pp. 75-79. 481bid., p. 77. 49The historical setting which gave rise to the Speeches of Pope Pius II is noteworthy. Ludwig Pastor observes that the new pontiff was bound vis-a-vis a Capitulation to carry out a crusade against the Turk. This bound Pius II in terms of his projected policies. He did not have a free hand to formulate his own objec- tives, though these objectives differed little from those outlined in the Capitulation. His entire pontificate was devoted to organi- zing enthusiasm in support of the ill-fated Crusade against the Turk. Ibid., III, 10. 118 The Papal chair was now filled by a man who really stood- at the head of his age, and who was capable of understanding both its past and its present. Amongst his contemporaries there was not one who even approached Piccolomini in the in- sight he possessed in regard to the moral and physical forces at work in the period.50 C. M. Ady, the biographer of Pius II, suggests that his elevation was momentous for the troubled times.51 His contemporaries were no less enthusiastic at his elevation than were the Sienese whose "favorite son" made the highest calling even more noble. Creighton observes that the Romans in particular and Italy in general welcomed his ele- vation.52 The French Cardinal, de Estouteville (who very likely would have been nominated in lieu of Aeneas Sylvius) Spoke to the new pontiff in the following restrained manner: "we are pleased with your election, which we doubt not comes from God; we think you worthy of the office, and always held you so."53 The new pope was not negligent in acting upon the Capitulation; immediately he petitioned that a congress be convened on June 1, 1459 (later deter- mined to be held at Mantua). He had expected unity to emerge out of political chaos prior to the opening of the Congress. Time was short; ambition great; enthusiasm restrained. The crusading years of Boni- face and Innocent were over. EurOpean political deve10pments were quite different and Pius II knew this only too well. Bound by the Capitulation, he could do nothing other than to support the Crusade. 5OIbid., III, 18-9. 51Ady, op. cit., p. 156. 52Creighton, op. cit., III, 206-7. 5300mmentaries, 9p. cit., p. 30. 119 As indicated above, the Congress of Mantua was convened ex- pressly for the purpose of arousing the Italian peOple against the Turkish menace. Pius II felt strongly for the crusade because he believed in supporting the Capitulation. On October 13, 1458, the Bull Vocavit nos Pius was read in the public consistory. In essence, The Bull diSpatched rulers of Europe, great and small, to send envoys to this congress.54 The climate of Opinion was poor by any standards. Many rulers objected to the principle of a crusade not because of weak faith, but rather because of weak purse. Many realized that a crusade of this nature would cost money and men, and those powers which could afford the most men could afford the least money. On January 22, 1459, Pius II left Rome for Mantua. He expected to make this a slow and leisurely trip. During the trip he main- tained heavy correspondence with the prelates throughout Europe. According to Pastor, Pius was well received throughout the cities of Italy. Assisi, for example, proclaimed a festival day when Pius II came through the city.55 He notes: "The joy of the people was deep and heartfelt."56 On February 24, 1459, Pius II entered the city of his youth, Siena. Pastor notes that "His reception, although not wanting in 54Pastor, op. cit., III, 24-5. 551bid., III, 49. 56Ibid. 120 in suitable magnificence, was cold."57 Before becoming Pope, Aeneas Sylvius was known for his open support of the nobility. Little doubt remained that when he would become POpe, he would continue his pa- tronage. The problem for Pius II was maintaining the support of the nobles; for when this was lost, all was lost. To avert the loss of both nobles and middle class, Pius tried diplomacy. He agreed to give benefits to the nobility and a constitution to Siena. He did neither. The waiting period between the Siena visit and his subse- quent convocation Of the Congress of Mantua did little to aid the cause of the Congress. The POpe and his party proceeded through Florence and Bologna, and on May 27, entered the city of Mantua. Pastor says that the Mantuans gave Pius II a most impressive welcome: "Carpets were laid down in the Streets, the houses were almost hidden by flowers, and the balconies and roofs were filled with richly-dressed ladies. The streets through which the POpe passed to the palace were thronged with peOple shouting — Evviva Pio Secondo."58 On June 1, 1459, the Congress began. The apathy which sur- rounded the Congress is indicated by the numbers present. The Bishop of Coron introduced the purpose of the Congress as being sin- 57Ibid., III, 52. 58Ibid., III, 59. The pomp and ceremony of the Mantuans dis- armed Pius II, for he was led to believe that the results of the Congress would be as impressive as the ceremony. Creighton confirms the above: "So far all things had smiled on Pius II. He had enjoyed to the full the pleasures of pomp and pagentry, and had received all the satisfaction that fair speeches and ready promise could give. He was now anxious to reap the fruits of his journey in the results of the Congress." III, 219. The fruits which he would reap were indeed bitter. In the three days before the opening of the Congress on June 1, 1459, he had hoped to see a swarm of latecomers to the Congress. This did not happen. 121 gular: to organize Christendom against the Turk. The appeal made by the Bishop of Coron was obviously charged with emotion; he realized that the Congress of Mantua appeared a failure from the very beginning. SPEECH TEXT59 Our brethren and our sons, we hoped on arriving at this city to find that a throng of royal ambassadors had preceded us. We see that only a few are here. We have been mistaken. Christians are not so concerned about religion as we believed. we fixed the day for the Congress very far ahead. No one can say the time was short; no one can plead the difficulties of travel. we who are Old and ill have defied the Appennines and winter. Not even mother Rome could delay us, although, beset as she is with brigands, She sorely needed our presence. Not without danger we left the patrimony of the church to come to the rescue of the Catholic Faith which the Turks are doing their utmost to destroy. we say their power increasing every day, their armies, which had already occupied Greece and Illyri- cum, overrunning Hungary, and the loyal Hungarians suffering many disasters. we feared ( and this will surely happen if we do not take care) that once the Hungarians were subdued, a calamity that must bring with it the destruction of our Faith. We took thought to avert this evil; we called a Congress in this place; we summoned princes and people that we might to- gether take counsel to defend Christendom. We came full of hope and we grieve to find it vain. We are ashamed that Christians are so indifferent. Some are given over to luxury and pleasure; others are kept away by avarice. The Turks do not hesitate to die for their most vile faith, but we cannot incur the least expense nor endure the smallest hardship for the sake of Christ's gospel. If we continue thus, it will be all over with us. we Shall soon perish unless we can summon up a different Spirit. Therefore we urge you, who are holy men, to pray God without ceasing that He may change the temper of the Christian kings, rouse the Spirit of his people, and kindle the hearts of the faithful, so that now at least we may take arms and avenge the wrongs which the Turks day after day are inflicting on our reli- gion. Up, brethren: Up, sons: Turn to God with all your hearts. Watch and pray; atone for your Sins by fasting and giving alms; bring forth works meet for repentance; for thus God will be appeased and have mercy on us and if we Show ourselves brave, He will deliver our enemies into our hands. We shall remain 59Commentaries,op. cit., pp. 118-19. The text inéluded above is recognized by the Vatican as the official text. The same is quoted by Pastor and Mansi in their reSpective works. 122 here till we have learned the disposition of the princes. If they intend to come, we will together take counsel for our State. If not, we must go home again and endure the lot God has given us. But so long as life and strength last we shall never aban- don the purpose of defending our religion, nor shall we think it hard, if need be, to risk our life for our sheep. SUMMARY OF SPEECH PURPOSE This Speech has one basic purpose which is developed from three foci. The basic purpose is to suggest the immediacy of the Turkish threat. The three foci pertain first to the nature of religious apathy current in Europe during his day; second, to the effects of this religious apathy upon the ultimate destiny of Europe; and finally, the necessity for religious devotion and dedication to the Catholic Faith. INVENTION The inventional divisions of logos, ethos, and pathos are Sig- nificant for this Speech. In the introduction to this Speech, logical and ethical considerations are suggested by Pius. He develops the logical appeal by referring to the extended time given to the princes of Europe to convene at Mantua: "We fixed the time very far ahead." Then, he implies that the people assembled at the Congress are worthy of praise and are indeed religious: "Christians are not so concerned about religion as we believed." This statement implies that those delegates who did attend the Congress of Mantua were religious and loyal to the Holy See. His ethical appeal is suggested in his reference to his personal devotion and dedication: "We who are old and ill have defied the Apennines and winter.‘ The inventional fac- tors in this Speech are decidedly adaptive to the audience assembled. 123 His logical appeal is in the form of psychological reprimand based on the imminent danger of the Turk subjugating Christianity. His ethical appeal is paternalistic; he Speaks to his audience as an aging Holy Father who would sacrifice his life for the cause of Christianity. His pathos is complimentary to those delegates assem- bled. They constitute the small band of the dedicated. Several additional factors pertaining to the invention of Pius in this Speech are indicated. His logical appeal is to the evident and observable factors pertaining to the Congress of Mantua. He expected to find more people assembled than did appear; he expected the princes of EurOpe to be more religious than in fact they were; he had hoped that the impressive victories of the Turk would Shock Christians into fighting for the Holy cause; and, in Short, he had Inore confidence in Christendom than was evidenced by the numbers pre- sent at the opening session. His development of the "evident and observable" is best seen in his use of the collective pronoun: "We say their power . . . We feared . . . We took thought to avert . . . " Another element We came full of hope . . . We are ashamed . . . of the invention of Pius pertains to his reprimand. He observes that the entire lot of apathetic Christendom is given over to luxury and avarice. When the apathy of Christendom is compared to the aggressive determination of the Turk Pius is left with the unhappy conclusion that the Turk will in the end win in this religious struggle. Another significant factor pertaining to invention concerns the abundant use of pathos. Throughout the Speech one readily observes 124 the repeated use of his personal condition (Pius II) as a model for all Christendom. The Holy Father discussed his aged and infirm condition; the importance of his presence in Rome; the danger of leaving the Holy See -- yet even these could not prevent him from attending to the most important detail of his pontificate, and that is the Turkish question. The most pronounced development of pathos is seen in the dramatic appeal made by Pius to the assembled audience. In current Speech terminology this is designated as the "action Step" in which the audience is roused to determined plans of action. Pius urges his audience first to pray to God that the course of history may be changed; this transformation can be accomplished only as God will transform the hearts of the princes in Europe. The audience is asked to turn to God with all their hearts. Only as brave men and religious men take up the banner of Christ in fighting for the Holy See will the ultimate triumph of Christianity be realized. In the words of Pius: " . . . He will deliver our enemies into our hands . . ." The use of pathos and ethos in the conclusion to this Speech is noteworthy. First, Pius states the policy of the Holy See as regards the Congress: "We shall remain here . . ." Then, in combining pathos and ethos, he articulates final reprimand upon the princes not in attendance: "If they intend to come, we will take counsel for our state." The cold and embittered finality of this statement is pro- nounced, particularly in view of the preceding invective. The alter- native? "If not, we must go home again and endure the lot God has given us." The speech concludes with a Statement charged with 125 ethical appeal: "But so long as life and strength last we Shall never abandon the purpose of defending our religion, nor Shall we thhk it hard, if need be, to risk our life for our sheep." ARRANGEMENT This particular Speech, unlike others which shall be Studied in this project, is divided into three categories: exordium, confu- tatio, and conclusio. In the intnaduction Pius II outlines the cause for the Congress: " . . . to rescue . . . the Catholic Faith which ' He quickly associates the Turks are doing their utmost to destroy.' his alacrity in calling together the Congress with the rationale for the Congress. The date for the Congress was set almost one year previous to its convocation. Although travel to Mantua is precarious, Pius observes that he, old as he is, managed to make the sessions in ample time. He suggests that although Rome needed his presence abundantly, Mantua held priority. The exordium prepared the way for the substance of his holy reprimand. In short, the Turk has had recent success: Greece, Illyricum, Hungary. The tide must be stemmed or all Christendom will fall to the infidel. In his own words: "We feared that once the Hungarians were conquered, the Germans, Italians, and indeed all of Europe will be subdued, a calamity that must bring with it the destruction of our Faith." There is immediacy to the occasion -- the veritable destruction of Christianity. In view of the situation, the apathetic reSponse of the Congress seems unjustified. He suggests at this point that he came to Mantua with hOpe and expectation, only to be disillusioned. 126 "We are ashamed that Christians are so indifferent." One should note that the reprimand is less for those in attendance and more for those who hesitated to attend. For those in attendance, a comparison is drawn in the following: "Some are given over to luxury and pleasure; others are kept away by avarice. The Turks do not hesitate to die for their most vile faith, but we cannot incur the least expense nor endure the smallest hardship for the sake of Christ's gospel." His emotional appeal is still restrained. His venomous reprimand con— tinues in careful logical appeal and select evidence. The conclu- sion is much like a peroration. Pius knew his Cicero and Quintilian, and he couched his peroration in abundant emotional appeal. He re- quests that those present at the Congress pray to God so that the course of events may be changed. " . . . SO that now at least we may take arms and avenge the wrongs which the Turks day by day are inflicting . . ." Then Pius suggests a most emotional appeal: "Up, brethren! Up, sons! Turn to God with all your hearts." This is followed by a catalogue of necessary prerequisites: watchfulness, prayer, fasting, almsgiving, good works, and piety. If the members of the audience prove themselves equal to the necessary prerequisites, "He will deliver our enemies into our hands." Pius follows this with a careful statement of Papal policy toward the question of the Crusade: " . . . so long as life and strength last we shall never abandon the purpose of defending our religion nor Shall we think it hard, if need be, to risk our life for our sheep." So ended the address; but this was only the beginning. Papal policy was stated, and this was the policy toward which the entire pontificate of 127 Pius would be devoted. AS Creighton observes: "They were brave words; and those who heard them thought that they befitted the occasion."60 AUDIENCE AND OCCASION The composition of the audience included the College of Cardinals who at this point numbered fifteen, and incomplete delegations from Burgundy, Venice, Florence, the Holy Roman Empire, and Hungary. Beyond this, the following description of the audience is given in the Commentaries: "The cardinals and bishOps listened with rapt attention to the Pope's words and praised his purpose to the skies. They thought he had made a noble beginning by granting pardon for their Sins to all who had duly cleared their conscience by confession."61 STYLE Because Pius developed Style in Sketchy detail in his rhetorical theory, one can only suggest several factors pertaining to the sty- listic approximations between his theory and practice. Three spe- cific stylistic elements are discernible: (l) Pius uses the embittered approach to suggest his venom toward religious apathy. In flowing language he suggests the historical setting which gave rise to the Congress of Mantua: the Turk was about to overrun Hungary and Bosnia. His response: "We are ashamed that Christians are so in- different. Some are given over to luxury and pleasure; others are kept away by avarice." (2) Pius uses the Turk as the symbol of mikflu 11L 219- 93:. Mansi, 02. cit., II, 192. 61Commentaries, 9p. cit., p. 119. 128 devotion as contrasted to the Christian princes: "The Turks do not hesitate to die for their most vile faith, but we cannot incur the least expense nor endure the smallest hardship for the sake of Christ's gospel." (3) Pius uses the occasion to instill a feeling of urgency as indicated by his approach: "Up, brethren! Up, sons: Turn to God with all your hearts." DELIVERY C. M. Ady has described the voice and manner of delivery of Pius II on this particular occasion thus: "In a weak, faltering voice he began by expressing his deep disappointment . . ."62 Mansi has suggested the same in his volume containing the orations of Pius 11.63 REACTION 0R EFFECT The immediate effect of this Speech was not clearly visible. 62Ady, op. cit., p. 166. 63Mansi, Op. cit., II, 206. On the question of delivery, the reader is cautioned to note the following: Very few records are extant of the members of the audience and their immediate reactions to the several Speeches of Pius. Also, in lieu of extensive jour- nalism, the observable elements of the delivery of Pius or any Speaker of the Renaissance are Sketchy. Pius tells us very little about the manner in which he communicated his addresses. In fact, all we know of the delivery of Pius is that which has survived in tradition. He addressed most of his assemblies while standing in front of the Papal throne. He was always attired in the vestments of his office. What Pastor and Creighton observe with reference to his delivery is at best assumed. The only record we have to rely on is the Commentaries which at times proves useful in describing as— pects of the delivery of Pius. Such phrases as "In a weak voice . . ." or "Haltingly he Spoke . . ." appear in the Commentaries which give certain guideposts to our understanding of the manner of delivery which characterized the several Speeches of Pius. Thus, the Sketchy treatment of the delivery of Pius in this present study is a result of sketch available resources in this aspect of the rhe- torical practice of Pius. 129 One obvious development is Suggested in the Commentaries. PeOple began to abuse the character of the Pope, not because he lacked fore- sight and courage, but rather, because he lacked a useful purpose. A group of Cardinals turned against him arguing that the Holy Father lacked discretion in the development of his Speech. The fact remains that these were the very Cardinals who drew up the Capitulation one year earlier demanding a Crusade against the Turk. The real issue was not the prOposed Crusade, but the lack of comfort while in atten- dance at the Congress. As Pastor correctly observes: "The attitude of a certain number of Cardinals was particularly distressing to the Pope. Those who, on different pretexts, departed from the dreary city, or who engaged in the pursuit of pleasure were by no means the worst."64 Pastor does admit that these were quite bad: boating parties attended by the Cardinals of Colonna, Alain, and Borgia were quite common.65 The Cardinals most abusive to Pius II were from locations hostile to Aeneas Sylvius prior to his elevation: Cardinal Scarmpo and Cardinal Tebaldo. Thus, the general purpose of the Speech was not realized. The assembled audience inclined more to luxury and avarice and less to the lofty ideals articulated in the Speech from this point to the conclusion of the Congress of Mantua. 64Pastor, Op. cit., III, 62. 659:, Letter from the Marchioness Barbara to the Duchess of Milan, dated July 10, 1459, from.Mantua. State Archives, Milan. SECOND ADDRESS TO THE CONGRESS 0F MANTUA HISTORICAL BACKGROUND The climate of Opinion subsequent to the Opening of the Congress of Mantua continually worsened. Frederick III, the friend and patron of Aeneas SYlvius, proved a formidable foe to Pius II. He suggested to Pius that the Congress of Mantua be moved to France, a ridiculous suggestion designed to provoke Pius the more. Pius rejected the pro— posal believing it to be facetious and unfounded. On August 11, 1459, the first distinguished delegate arrived at Mantua, the ambassador from the Duke of Burgundy. Slowly, the dele- gates began to assemble. Admittedly it was a tardy assembly, but it was an assembly and this fact concerned Pius the most. By the 26th of September, it was possible to hold a general session of the Congress of Mantua. Delegates and ambassadors from the major European nations were present, and it became necessary for Pius to establish his program and purpose once more. This provided the setting for his next major public address, and this was to be his finest.66 SPEECH TEXT67 66Creighton notes the following on the speech: "Then Pius delivered a speech, which was regarded as a masterpiece of oratory. Copies were circulated throughout Europe; and if an appreciation of eloquence had borne any practical fruit the Turk would have soon been driven back into ASiS." Creighton, op. cit., III, 224. 67Pastor, Op. cit., III, 79-81; Mansi, op. cit., II, 9-29. These authors derive their texts of this Speech from the Vatican Library. Cf, Pastor, Op. cit., ff. III, 79. 130 131 The Holy Land flowing with milk and honey, the soil which brought forth the Saviour, the temple of Solomon, in which He so often preached, Bethlehem, where He was born, the Jordan, wherein He was baptized, the Mount of the Transfiguration, Cal- vary, whereon His Precious Blood was shed, the Sepulchre, in which His Sacred Body had rested, all have long been in the hands of our enemies; without their permission we cannot look upon these Holy places. But these are ancient losses; let us turn to what has happened in our own days and through our own fault. we ourselves, and not our fathers, have allowed Constan- tinople, the chief city of the East, to be conquered by the Turks, and while we sit at home in Slothful ease, they are pressing on to the Danube and the Save. In the royal city of the East they have slain the successor of Constantine and his people, desecrated the temples of the Lord, defiled the noble church of Justinian with their Mahometan abominations. They have destroyed the images of the Mother of God and of the Saints, cast down altars, thrown the relics of the Martyrs to the swine, killed the priests, dishonoured wives and daughters, even conse- crated virgins, and murdered the nobles of the city. At the Sultan's banquet, the image of our crucified Redeemer was dragged through the mire and spat upon, while they shouted: 'This is the God of the Christians!' All these things have been done before our eyes, yet we remain as it were asleep, though indeed we are alert enough in fighting among ourselves. Christians fly to arms and Shed each other's blood for any trifle, but no one will raise a hand against the Turks who blaspheme our God, who destroy our Churches, and seek utterly to root out the Christian name. Truly, 'all have turned from the way; they are become unprofitable together; there is none that doth good, no, not one!’ People say, indeed, that these things are past and cannot be undone, that now we Shall have peace; but can we expect peace from a nation which thirsts for our blood, which has already planted itself in Hungary, after having subjugated Greece? Lay aside these infatuated hopes. Mahomet will never lay down his arms until he is either wholly victorious or completely vanquished. Each success will be only a stepping-stone to the next until he has mastered all the Wes- tern Monarchs, overthrown the Christian Faith, and imposed the law of his false prophet on the whole world. Of that Godfrey, Baldwin, Eustace, Hugh, Boemunch, Tan- cred, and those other brave men who reconquered Jerusalem, were here: Truly they would not need so many words to persuade them. They would Stand up and Shout as they did of old before Our pre- decessor Urban II: 'God wills it! God wills it!‘ You wait in Silence and unmoved for the end of Our discourse. And it may be that there are some among you sho say: 'This Pope exhorts us to fight, and expose our lives to the sword of the enemy; that is the way of priests. They lay heavy burdens on others, and will not themselves touch them with a finger.‘ Do not be- lieve it, my Sons! No one who, within the memory of your fathers, 132 has occupied this chair has done more for the faith of Christ than we, with your help and the grace of God, will do. we have come here, weak enough, as you see, not without bodily risk, and not without detriment to the States of the Church. we have deemed the defence of the Faith of more value than the Patrimony of St. Peter, than our own health and repose. Oh, had we but the youthful vigour of former days, you should not go without us into battle or into danger. We ourselves would bear the Cross of our Lord; we would uphold the banner of Christ against the infidel, and would think ourselves happy if it were given us to die for the Faith. And now, if it seems well to you, we will not hesitate to devote our sickly body and our weary soul to Christ the Lord in this holy enterprise. Gladly, if you advise it, will we be borne in our litter into the camp, and into the battlefield itself. Go and take counsel, and see what may be most profitable to the Christian cause. We do not deal in fine words, hiding a cowardly heart. we will hold nothing back, neither person nor goods. SUMMARY OF SPEECH PURPOSE This Speech has one central purpose: to arouse the assembled princes and prelates to th: emotional urgency of the Turkish crusade. His illustrations are supported by the same emotional appeal which characterized the conclusion to his keynote address convening the Congress of Mantua. INVENTION Unlike the Speech of June 1, 1459, this began with emotional appeal. The pontiff's use of attention-getting devices is unequaled in speeches previous to this one, and he realized that without this appeal he could expect little reSponse. Immediately he focused his attention upon the issue at hand -- defense of the Holy Land. "The Holy Land flowing with milk and honey, the soil which brought forth the Saviour . . ."; with these words he evokes the imploring tenor which was to characterize the substance of the speech. The immediacy of the crusade is suggested in his introduction of the "soil . . ." 133 of the Saviour as the rationale for protecting the Holy Land fran the renegade and infidel Turk. This prefaces a catalogue Of illustra- tions taken from the New Testament: the Temple of Solomon where Christ frequently preached; the town of His Nativity -- Bethlehem; the location of His Baptism —- Jordan; the Mount of Transfiguration; Calvary; the Holy Sepulchre. These, Pius Observes, have been in the hands of the enemy-infidel; "without their permission we cannot look upon these Holy places." The gufll: for these losses is placed upon the preceding generations, so that the Crusade will serve to redress the evils of negligent laxity of previous Christian nations. Then Pius turned the appeal to the present. He suggests that Con- stantinople (which fell to the Turk in 1453) was a loss, not of previous generations, but of the present. "we ourselves, and not our fathers, have allowed Constantinople, the chief city of the East, to be conquered by the Turks, and while we sit at home in Slothful ease, they are pressing on to the Danube and the Save."68 The imme- 68Prior to his elevation as Pope, Aeneas Sylvius Spoke with vehe- mence about the significance of the fall of Constantinople. In a letter he suggested the following: "I prefer to be Silent, and I could wish that my opinion may prove entirely wrong and that I may be called a liar rather than a true prOphet . . . for I could not hope that what I should like to see will be realized; I cannot per- suade myself that there is anything good in prospect . . . Chris- tianity has no head whom all will obey. Neither the pOpe nor the emperor is accorded his rights. There is no reverence and no obe- dience; we look on pOpe and emperor as figureheads and empty titles." Pius II, Opera omnia (Basle, 1571), 656. As quoted in Myron P. Gilmore, WOrld p£_Humanism, op. cit., p. 1. 'Many voices were heard in opposition to the political and religious instability of Europe, but none was quite as articulate as Aeneas Sylvius. Again, prior to his elevation, he observed: "In times past we have been wounded in Asia and in Africa, that is in alien lands, but now we are struck in Europe, that is in our fatherland, our own home. And although some- one may object that many years ago turks crossed from Asis into Greece and that the Mengols established themselves in Europe and that the Arabs occupied a portion of Spain after crossing the Straits of 134 diate historical context which evidenced the collapse Of Constanti- nople is indicated by the aggressive character of the Turk during this vital period of formation for the Ottoman Empire.69 Pius speaks of the successes of the Turkish advance and related these to the necessity of the Crusade. The execution of the Byzantine Emperor, Paleologus, is significant, but not nearly as Significant as the developments which Pius catalogues: "They have destroyed the images of the Mother of God and of the Saints, cast down altars, thrown the relics of the martyrs to the swine, killed the priests, dishonoured wives and daughters, even consecrated virgins, and murdered the nobles of the city."70 Again, through the process of enumeration and de- velopment, Pius suggests the extent of the problem at hand. Insig- nificant factors do not motivate the rhetorical practice of Pius. His perception "embraced the contemporary political, religious, and intellectual scene."71 The height of emotional appeal is developed Gibraltar, yet never have we lost a city or a place in Europe which can be compared to ConstantinOple." Pius II, Op. cit., 678; Cf, Gilmore, op. cit., pp. 19-20. 69Resources on the historical setting which gave rise to the necessity for convening the Congress of Mantua are abundant. Cf. the following: A. Lybyer, The Government of the Ottoman Empire in the Time of Suleiman the Magnificent, (Cambridge, Eng: University Press, 1913); C. Grunebaum,‘Medieval Islam or a Study_ in Cultural Orientation, (Chicago: University Press, 1946); F. L. V. Baumer, "England, the Turk, and the Common Corps of Christendom," American Historical Review, I, (1944); J. A. R. Marriott, The Eastern Question, (Oxford, 1940). 7OThe practices suggested in this Speech are not exaggerated. S. Harrison Thomson corroborates the above in his discussion of Turkish policy toward the Christians. Thomson, op. cit., pp. 306-7; Cf, also, Marriott, op. cit.; The expansion of the Turkish hegemony is suggested by Alexander Bruce-Boswell in "Poland and Lithuania in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries," and Balint Homan, "Hungary, 1301-1490," in The Cambridge Medieval History, Op. cit., Volume VIII. 71Gilmore, op. cit., p. 3. 135 in the following: "At the Sultan's banquet, the image of our cruci- fied Redeemer was dragged through the mire and Spat upon, while they shouted: 'This is the God of the Christians.'" The provocative ele- ment in this statement is accented by the symbolism involved: The highest aspect of religious expression for the Christian, the theo- logy of redemption, is being held in abusive ridicule by the highest official of the Ottoman Empire, the Sultan. Of expected necessity is the emotional appeal. Admittedly, these illustrations are selec- tive; however, the Turk showed no willingness to negotiate his aggression, and as the result, the Crusade became accented in prior- ity. Pius continued his appeal, and its emotional character is no less indicated: All these things have been done before our eyes, yet we remain as it were asleep, though indeed we are alert enough in fighting among ourselves. Christians fly to arms and shed each other's blood for any trifle, but no one will raise a hand a- gainst the Turks who blaspheme our God, who destroy our churches, and seek utterly to root out the Christian name. The alternatives are clear: either Christians will unite in this common cause in defense of Christianity, or they will allow the Turk to draw them asunder. Yet, Pius should have realized that men of the Renaissance would sooner battle over money than religion. Perhaps he did understand this unhealthy omen when he suggested that greed and avarice motivate men of his day.72 He had travelled in Vienna and understood the religious character of the Viennese as contrasted to the money and banking interests in Florence, Milan, Venice, and Antwerp. Religious causes were not in vogue because they brought 72§£, the oration of reprimand which Opened the Congress of Mantua. 136 little in return. Thus, Pius observes that the Ottoman Turk, like a housefly, cannot be expected to eventually leave; he is in Europe to conquer or be conquered. He assesses the argument of those who are in support of a policy of appeasement: Some say, indeed, that these things are past and cannot be undone, that now we shall have peace; but can we expect peace from a nation which thrists for our blood, which has already planted itself in Hungary, after having subjugated Greece? Lay aside these infatuated hopes. ‘Mahomet will never lay down his arms until he is either wholly victorious or completely van- quished. Each success will be only a Stepping-stone to the next until he has mastered all the Western'Monarchies, overthrown the Christian faith, and imposed the law of his false prOphet on the whole world. The causal relationships are quite discernible: with the col- lapse of the Paleologi in 1453 will eventually come the total col- lapse of the Christian west -- this is the disaster which Pius seeks to avert.73 He could almost repeat the substance of a letter which he had addressed to a friend, Leonardo di Bentivoglio, in which he described the "yawning jaw of avarice" and inertia as the rationale for the Ottoman menace and the meteoric Spread of aggression. He summarized his introduction and proceeded to the substance of his address. The substance of the Speech is devoted to a resume of the available strength which could sustain a venture of this sort. Pius observes that Christendom united can certainly overwhelm the Turk. For his conclusion, Pius returns to emotional appeal, yet he seeks to associate emotional appeal with illustrative detail. He 73Many accepted the causal relationship but few reacted to its gloomy consequences: Cf, J. B. Bury, "The Fall of Constantinople," Yale Review III, (1913), 56-77; E. Pears, The Destruction g£_th£_Greek Empire and the Story of the Capture of Constantinople by thg_Turks, (New York, 1903). 137 reflects upon the glorious days of the crusading Spirit: Oh, that Godfrey, Baldwin, Eustace, Hugh, Boemund, Tancred, and those other brave men who reconquered Jerusalem, were here. Truly they would not need so many words to persuade them. They would stand up and Shout as they did of old before our predeces- sor Urban II: 'God wills it! God wills it!’ By associating the cause of the Crusade with historical precedent, Pius did not harm his cause in the least. The period of the Crusades was a glorious period vexed with adventure and accomplishment. Pius II hOped that a certain measure of that past grandeur would assist his cause. You wait in silence unmoved for the end of the discourse. And it may be that there are some among you who say: 'This Pope exhorts us to fight, and expose our lives to the sword of the enemy; that is the way of priests. They lay heavy burdens on others, and will not themselves touch them with a finger.’ Do not believe it, my Sons. Emotional appeal is substituted for ethical appeal. NOW the Pope is concerned with public reaction to his station and devotion. Thus, he speaks of his unrestrained devotion to the Crusade: No one who, within memory of your fathers, has occupied this chair has done more for the faith of Christ than We, with your help and the grace of God, will do. We have come here, weak enough, as you see, not without bOdily risk, and not with— out detriment to the States of the Church. We have deemed the defense of the Faith of more value than the Patrimony of St. Peter, than our own health and repose. 0h, had we but the youthful vigor of the former days, you should not go without us into battle or into danger.74 In the preceding Pius laid the foundation for his impassioned con- clusion. The totality of his concluding remarks centers around his loyalty and devotion. What he would do for the cause of the Crusade is paramount to the essence of the speech. This, in short, is Pius 74This statement is quoted by Pius II from his favorite Latin ‘writer, Virgil. 9;, Aeneid, V, 475. 138 telling his audience why he believes in his projected plans. Beyond this, it is Pius suggesting his direct involvement in the projected plans. This involvement becomes the more significant when one con- siders the description of the Pope given by Platina: He was small of stature; his hari became prematurely gray, which gave him even in the prime of life, the appearance of age. The expression of his countenance was kindly, but grave. In his dress he avoided both negligence and elegance. He had been accustomed to hardships, and bore hunger and thirst with equani- mity. His naturally strong frame had been worn by many journeys, labors, and vigils. Pius suffered from a severe cough which caught him frequently; he also was Stricken with gout. This was the condition of the pontiff who concluded his address in the following: We ourselves would bear the Cross of our Lord; We would? uphold the banner of Christ against the infidel, and would consider ourselves happy if it were given to us to die for the faith. And now, if it seems well to you, We will not hesitate to devote our sickly body and our'weary soul to Christ the Lord in this Holy Enterprise. Gladly, if you will advise it, We will be borne in our litter into the camp, and into the battlefield itself. Go and take counsel, and see what may be most profitable to the Christian cause. we do not deal in fine words, hiding a cowardly heart. We will hold nothing back, neither person nor goods. Thus the Speech ends precisely where it began -- in passionate dedica— tion to the Crusade. Throughout the Speech, Pius makes repeated appeals which are emotional in character but supported with subtle illustrative detail. He uses the "shame appeal" when he compares the crusaders of the past with the persons of his audience. He uses fear in suggesting the hopelessness of life under the Turk. He suggests the appeal to reli- 75"Platina, Vita Pii II," as quoted in Pastor, op. cit., III, 32-3. 139 gious pride by indicating the evil effected by the Turk in the Holy Land. Frequently Pius refers to the loyalty of the Turk to his odious religious expression. By associating his infirm and aged body to the cause, he suggests the absolute and unchanging dedica- tion of the "Leader of Christendom." Finally if religious minded men have any expectation of a future "land of Canaan, flowing with milk and honey," how can they expect to inherit this in heaven when they refused to protect the Holy Land on earth? In Short, Pius evoked the substance of ethos and pathos in support of his projected plans. Logical proof enters briefly into the speech as it relates to substantiating the pontiff's belief that a crusade against the Turk is practicable and feasible. Logical proof in this speech is detailed in the illustrations given by Pius in supporting the Crusade. In truth, the Crusade was feasible, and those assembled at Mantua realized this; what they failed to realize was the Significance of their lethargy for the history of Europe one hundred years hence. The Turk, in truth, did dominate Eastern Europe and retained this domination for over four hundred years. ARRANGEMENT This Speech, unlike the first Speech delivered at the Congress of Mantua, lends itself to the Ciceronian divisions of exordium, narratio, partitio, confirmatio, confutatio, and peroratio. Within the context of the exordium, Pius defines his subject in clear and concise language: "The Holy Land flowing with milk and honey . . ." is now under the exclusive control of the Turk. This is followed with an emotional development of narratio within historical context: 140 "The temple of Solomon where Christ preached; the town of His nati- vity . . ." Again, he returns to his central theme: The monuments of Christianity which have stood for many years in the Holy Land are now being assaulted by the Turk. The curious element regarding his illustrative detail is that Pius selected the most obvious symbols of the Christian faith: the Nativity of Christ, the Cross on which He died, and the tomb in which He was buried. The partitio follows with a most rigid historical division: (1) what policies led to the Fall of Constantinople? (2) what policies can be pursued to restore Constantinople to the Christian fold? (3) what courage is needed to restore the Holy Land to its rightful owners? Both the confirmatio and the confutatio relate to the twofold purpose of the Speech: What wrongs have the Turks executed in the Holy Land? and how may these wrongs be redressed? The strength of the Speech is in the peroratio. The aforemen- tioned details of the Turkish Question were common knowledge. In the peroratio Pius Speaks to the peOple as an equal; this is accomplished by suggesting the nature of his direct involvement: "Oh, had we but the youthful vigor of the former days . . ." The fact that an aging pontiff would even suggest that he would consider leading the Crusade was in itself quite dramatic. The peroratio ends with a final reit- eration of his native courage: "we do not deal in fine words, hiding a cowardly heart. ‘we will hold nothing back, neither person nor goods." STYLE Throughout the speech, Pius uses the style typical of the humanist orator: this style is represented in elegance of approach 141 and adaptation to the audience; reference to antiquity; the arousal of courage and candor; and, identification with the Specific cause in question by the orator.76 Using language which is clear and forth- right, Pius deve10ps his theme within the humanist context. He makes repeated references to the glory of previous Christian Crusaders. He outlines the abusive actions of the Turk and makes him the symbol of distaste and scorn. He portrays the Christian as potentially coura- geous and the Turk as an abomination. In his references to the his- toric past, his imagery is vivid, as seen in the following: Oh, that Godfrey, Baldwin, Eustace, Hugh, Boemund, Tancred, and those other brave men who reconquered Jerusalem, were here. Truly they would not need so many words to persuade them. They would stand up and shout as they did of old before our predeces- sor Urban II: 'God wills it! God wills itl' DELIVERY Virtually no evidence is currently available on how the Holy Father delivered this speech. The only thing that can be said is that the Speech was given while the POpe stood in front of the Papal throne.77 REACTION OR EFFECT To augment the Statement of Pius in defense of the Crusade, Cardinal Bessarion suggested that the Speech was a perfect example of candor and courage. He observed that the Sacred College of Card- inals would do well to support the projected Crusade. As Pastor notes: "In a discourse amply garnished with Christian and classical 75Burckhardt, op. cit., p. 160. 77Commentaries, 9p. cit., p. 137. 142 allusions, he described the deeds of horror perpetrated by the Turks and the danger which threatened religion."78 The General Assembly voted for a Crusade. This resolution was adopted unanimously.79 The unanimous action of the Assembly was a most unfortunate beginning, for Pius was led to believe that the acceptance of his objectives for the Turkish Crusade was unanimously received; this was hardly the case. Pius decided that he would meet individually with each delega- tion for the purpose of determining relative strength and relative support. That the support for the Crusade was negligible was not discernible to the Holy Father at first. 78Cardinal Bessarion wrote, in 1453, a letter to Francesco Foscari, Doge of Venice. The letter dated July 13, is in essence a lament on the aggressive character of the Turk. The tenor of this letter corro- borates the words of Pius: "wretched me! I cannot write this without the most profound sorrow. A city which was so flourishing, with such a great empire, so many illustrious men, the head of all Greece, the splendour and glory of the East, the school of the best arts, the refuge of all good things, has been captured, despoiled, ravaged, and completely sacked by the most vile barbarians and the most savage ene- mies of the Christian faith, by the fiercest of wild beasts. The pub- lic treasure has been consumed, private wealth has been destroyed, the temples have been stripped of gold . . .Men have been butchered like cattle, women abducted, virgins ravished, and children snatched from the arms of their parents . . . " Bessarion has not ended his descrip- tion; he continues to pour venom against the Turk by detailing addi- tional facets of his abuse. He concludes his letter by imploring the Doge of prOSperous Venice, to do something to offset the progress of the Turk. Cf, H. Vast, Lg_Cardinal Bessarion, trans. M. M. McLaughlin, in The Renaissance Reader, (New York, 1948), pp. 72-4. 79Pastor, Op. cit., III, 33. SPEECH TO THE MALATESTESE PROPOSAL HISTORICAL BACKGROUND In his delegation meetings with the Italians, the question of whether Italy should supply money and_men was raised. The Italians were generally apathetic toward involvement in both arms and finance; for this reason the matter came before the general convocation of the Italian delegations. This issue motivated another public address. It was suggested by Sigismondo Malatesta that those nations bordering upon Turkish controlled land Should be armed only as a last desperate alternative; only those who understood the art of warfare should en- gage in combat with the Turk. He meant that only Italians should engage in direct combat. In his words: If I were to wage this war I should arm Italian cavalry and infantry in such numbers as Should be necessary and I Should have no doubts about victory. For our soldiers and captains are far better than any others . . . therefore, I urge that the others contribute money and the Italians wage the war. The Stated position of Sigismondo became the introductory sentence in the address of Pius replying to the Malatestese proposal. He is addressing an audience generally hostile to his view. The Italians in general and the Florentines and Venetians in particular were cool toward the Crusade because it brought little return for their invest- ment in men and money. Thus, Pius is interested in getting to the basic issue at hand: Should the Italians be expected to contribute money, men, or both? 143 SPEECH TEXT We too, my sons, if it were possible, would fight this war with Italian soldiery, since there is no other nation more dis- tinguished in arms. But this is exceedingly difficult and almost impossible. For who would furnish as much money as would be needed by those forces who would have to go from Italy to Greece? Nor have we generals who would be willing to campaign outside Italy. Here they wage war without risk of their lives and with great profit; battles with the Turk are'bloody and the only prizes to be won are souls, which our soldiers hold very precious while they are within the body but very cheap outside it. Furthermore, it is difficult to hire Germans, Hungarians, and Bohemians to wage war. Unless Italy contributes money, no province will. Barbarians are suSpicious and in money matters always fancy that they are being cheated. They may perhaps furnish armed tr00ps; money they will not give; and even if on this account the Ital- ians Should contribute more, their funds will hardly be enough for the fleet. we must do what we can, not what we wish. we must wage the war with the forces that can be had. The French, English, Germans, Bohemians, and Poles will promise tr00ps and with these we will organize the war on land. Of the Spaniards those called Castilians will send to excuse themselves because they are at war with the Moors. If the Catalans, Aragonese, and Portugese offer anything, it will be naval forces. we do not deny that it will be a hard task to unite in one camp so many different nations, but we can organize several camps under their own captains with the understanding that they will come to one another's aid when necessity requires. All however, will look to one leader, the Legate of the Apostolic See, and will follow one standard, that of the life-giving Cross. But it is still early to discuss these details. NOW‘We must consider from where we shall raise our forces and how many we shall need. After that we will go on to discuss our captains and the harmony of nations. Much has been said here about the power of the Turks. we have ascertained that they cannot put into the field more than 200,000 men and these include peasants, men without arms and a rabble unused to war. The strength of their army is in the Janizaries, who do not number more than 40,000. There is no doubt that the Christians will be victo- rious if even 50,000 go into battle, since they are far superior in arms and courage. But our tr00ps must be largely cavalry, for the district where we shall have to fight is level and the Turks have a strong cavalry force. A larger army cannot easily be controlled or fed. As for the naval war, the Venetians assure us that thirty galleys and eight will give us the victory and this is supported by the opinion of all those who know the Turks. If we add ten galleys more, there is no doubt that our forces will have command of the sea and will be able to prevent the Turk from crossing from Asia, since most of their forces will be scattered to protect the towns along the coast and they will 144 145 have a much smaller army to send to fight battles on land. This is the opinion of those who know the situation. We have said where soldiers are to be raised and how large a land and sea force we need. Now let us Speak of money. It is our Opinion that if you decree that for three years the clergy shall contribute to this object a tenth, the laity a thirtieth of their income, and the Jews a twentieth Of all their possessions, we shall get together ample funds for the war. If any desire to contribute more, it will be so much to the good. If you have any better scheme, Speak out and we will follow your advice.80 SPEECH PURPOSE The initial purpose of the Speech was to answer the Malatesta proposal. This was not the final speech purpose as seen in the finished text: Pius used this opportunity to further expound the intricacies of the Crusade. After the Opening remarks to Sigismondo, he almost ignores the prOposal and proceeds to the deve10pment of the factual details pertaining to the Crusade. AUDIENCE AND OCCASION This Speech was uttered before Sigismondo Malatesta and the assembled Italian delegation at the Congress of Mantua. As suggested above, Pius understood that he was addressing an audience generally hostile toward his position in the Turkish Crusade. The Malatestese proposal was designed by Sigismondo to provoke the wrath of Pius. The fact that soon after his introduction be ignored the Malatestese 80This text is found in three sources: The Commentaries pf_Pius II, Op. cit., pp. 255-256. Mansi also included this in his collected orations of Pius II, Mansi, op. cit., II, 207; Ludwig Pastor has re- printed the oration found in Mansi, Cf, Pastor, op. cit., III, 200-1. The Pastor history of the papacy is recognized as derived from the Vatican sources on the papacy. The collected orations or Pius by Mansi is also derived from the Vatican Archives. 146 prOposal is ample proof that Pius was accenting the similarities between the Italians and the Holy See rather than the differences with reSpect to the Turkish Question. INVENTION The logical analysis of Pius in this particular Speech is note- worthy. He begins by admitting the posture of strength which charac- terizes the Italians. He suggests that -- "were it possible, we too would fight this war with Italian soldiery, Since there is no other nation more distinguished in arms." There is a decided note of agreement in the tone of Pius at the very outset. But, he Observes that this position is unworkable, impracticable, and foolhardy. What Sigismondo suggests is the expedflzion of forces from Italy financed by the other European countries. ‘Morale is at stake, and Pius is not ready to sacrifice cohesion and solidarity at the cost of Italian domination. Yet he recognizes that he is addressing a selective audience composed almost exclusively of Italians; thus he observes that non-Italians are less likely to support a venture dominated and manned by Italians. " . . . It is difficult to hire Germans, Hungarians, and Bohemians to wage war. Uhless Italy contri- butes money, no province will. Barbarians are greedy and suSpiciouS and in money matters always fancy they are being cheated . . . We must do what we can, not what we wish." The question of proportionate bur- den is at stake, and in clear and persuasive logic, Pius plods through the waters of Special interest. His determined objective is unity. He suggests that each nation contribute a force proportionate to the capacity of that nation; further, that each nation finance the expe- 147 dition proportionately: clergy, one tenth of their revenue; Jews, a twentieth of their possessions; laity, a thirtieth of their pos- sessions. In a blending of emotional appeal and logical analysis, Pius recommends that "All however will look to one leader, the Legate of the Apostolic See, and will follow one standard, that of the life- giving Cross. " Pius brushed aside for the moment the question of precise arrangements. He informs his audience that the question of how the forces will be raised and the numbers necessary for victory will con- stitute the next topic of concern. He briefly assesses the power of the Turk by observing that no more than 200,000 men could be put on the field by the infidel. The numbers suggested include men of con- ‘ Siderable age and young lads. The professional Janizaries, trained and disciplined in the art of war, number only 40,000. Pius suggests that in direct combat, 50,000 Christians can defeat 40,000 Janizaries. In naval combat, the Venetians in thirty galleys are a match for any navy; in forty galleys, the number proposed by Pius, they are likely to be invincible. The address ends on a cold, factual detail of strategy. Again, Pius understood his audience. The Italians of this period were business men. They supplied the finance and cmmnerce for the thriving period of growth and expansion. Cold figures meant more to them than emotion, and Pius sought to appeal to their business—like approach . The most distinctive quality of this particular Speech is not in the precise categories of development, but in the evasive manner used by Pius to refute the Malatestese prOposal. AS noted earlier, Pius 148 Spoke little to the actual proposal. He used this Opportunity to expound the logistics of the Crusade. The most obvious quality emphasized throughout the Speech is the polemical attitude of Pius toward those who would argue that the Crusade was impracticable. ARRANGEMENT The arrangement of this Speech lends itself to the divisions Of introduction, content, and conclusionQ1 In the introduction, Pius states the Speech purpose clearly and concisely: " . . . if it were possible" we too would fight this war with Italian soldiery, "since there is no nation more distinguished in arms." By admitting the superiority of the Italian forces, he gains the attention of his audience. The abrupt sequel to the admission of superiority is the denial of practicability. At this point in the Speech, Pius turns his attention to proving that the proposal is in fact impractical by observing the following: (1) Italians dO not have generals in suf- ficient numbers who would campaign outside of Italy; (2) battles with the Turk are bloody and require greater numbers of soldiers than the Italian states can supply; (3) because Italy has the thriving cities of Florence and Venice, they can and Should support the crusade both with money and men. With the statement "we must do what we can, not 81The rationale for departing from the Ciceronian mode of arrangement is prompted by the nature of this particular address. First, Pius introduced his subject in a polemical manner. Second, he catalogued details pertaining to the crusade. These details com- prise a substantial portion of the Speech. Finally, he concluded the speech with little direct reference to the original proposal. In short, Pius did not use Ciceronian arrangement. 149 what we wish," Pius diverts the audience from the odious proposal and caisiders other matters; these matters pertain to the need for unity in the Turkish Crusade. "All however, will look to one leader, the Legate of the Apostolic See, and will follow one standard, that of the life-giving Cross." The specific details of how the forces were to be raised is of paramount consideration to Pius. Thus, the remaining sections of the Speech are devoted to discussing this point. That these forces, when they are raised, can in truth defeat the Turk is quite Obvious to Pius. He makes his statistics Speak to that end. After discussing the question of revenue for the Crusade, Pius concludes by suggesting the following: "If you have any better scheme, Speak out and we will follow your advice." The remarkable aspect of the Speech conclusion is the absence of emotion. In deter- mined finality, Pius turns the question back tO the Italians. STYLE His accommodation of style served him well. First, he Spoke in polemical manner to indicate his determination in refuting the Mala- testa proposal. Second, he advanced the cause of the Crusade by indicating the feasibility of success with united forces.. Third, he permitted the Italians to advance a better prOposal. DELIVERY There is no material available presently which would suggest anything on the question of how Pius delivered this particular Speech. REACTION 0R EFFECT At the conclusion of the Speech, a resolution was passed which almost unanimourly accepted the POpe'S plan of action. The reader is cautioned: In the fifteenth century, the acceptance of a reso- lution meant very little; the follow—up in reality determined the sincerity of the signatories of any given resolution.82 82Cf. Edward Hutton, Sigismondo Pandolfo Malatesta: Lord pf_Rimini, (London: J. M. Dent, 1906), pp. 200-291. 150 FINAL ADDRESS TO THE CONGRESS 0F MANTUA HISTORICAL BACKGROUND Relations between the Papacy and the Venetian delegation forms the perplexing backdrop to the final address at the Congress of Mantua. That the relations between the Venetians and the Holy See reached the breaking point is best illustrated in the manner in which they approached the Pope: they never came to the Papal palace but by appointment; their bearing was pompous and haughty; they knelt reluc- tantly before the Pope; if they were kept waiting for any length of time for an audience with the Pope they complained.83 The basic issue between the POpe and the Venetian delegation revolved around the question of the financial burden to be borne by the Venetians. Business-minded as they were, their concern was for the least amount of expenditure and the best possible return. Pius reputedly told the Venetians that they had more to lose by not supporting the crusade be- cause the Turkish menace would ultimately challenge their commercial superiority.84 Venice, following the confrontation with the Holy Father, acceded to support the crusade with the resources at her diSposal. Fortified with the power of Venice, Pius could conclude 83Commentaries, 9p. cit., pp. 137-8. 8‘iLHistory proved Pius correct in this observation. As S. Harrison Thomson notes: "The Republic of Venice, with a pOpulation of almost 200,000 around 1500 spread among the city of the lagoons and its main- land dependencies, was not apparently aware of her imminent decline. Her stations in the Levant suffered from the rerouting of trade around Africa and to the New WOrld as well as from the growth of Ottoman power which drove her from some points in the Eastern Mediterranean. When the competition of western powers . . . broke on the Venetian momOpOlies, the proud city did not adjust to the new situation." S. Harrison Thomson, op. cit., pp. 648-49. 151 152 the Congress of Mantua on a most Optimistic tenor. SPEECH TEXT My brothers and sons, we have for eight months awaited those who have been summoned to the Congress. You know who have come. To hope longer for the arrival of anyone who could con- tribute anything to our cause is vain and therefore we may now disperse. we have done what had to be done here. We pray that God's cause has been well pleaded. Though we dreamed of more than we have found, nevertheless, we cannot think that nothing has been accomplished nor is all our hope gone. We must now expound the present situation that all may know what prOSpects we have and what kings and peOple have been ready to protect the Faith or indifferent. If the Hungarians receive aid, they will attack the Turks energetically with all their forces. The Germans promise an army of 42,000 fighting men, Burgundy 6,000. The Italian clergy with the exception of the Venetians and the Genoese will contribute a tenth and the laity a thirtieth of their income; the Jews a twentieth of their possessions. With this sum naval forces can be maintained. John, King of Aragon, promises like aid. The Ragusans will furnish two galleys, the Rhodians four. So much has been promised by princes and ambas- sadors in solemn and explicit agreement. The Venetians, al- though they have promised nothing publicly, when they see the crusade actually ready, will surely not fail us nor endure to seem inferior to their ancestors. We can say the same Of the French, the Castilians, and the Portugese. England, now racked with civil war, holds out no hopes nor does Scotland, remote as it is as Ocean's farthest bounds. Denmark, Sweden, and Nor- way are also too far away to be able to send soldiers and they have no money to contribute, as they are content with fish alone. The Poles, who border the Turks along Moldavia, will not dare to desert their Own cause. The Bohemians we shall be able to hire; they will not fight outside their country at their own expense. Such is the situation of the Christian cause. Italian money will equip a fleet, if not at Venice then at Genoa or in Aragon, and it will not be Smaller than the occasion requires. The Hungarians will arm 20,000 cavalry and as many infantry. These with the Germans and Burgundians will make 68,000 soldiers in the field. Does any one think the Turks will not be con- quered with these forces? They will be joined by Georg Skander- bery and a very Strong force of Albanians and many all over Greece will desert from the enemy. In Asia, Charamanus and the Armenians will attack the Turks in the rear. we have no reason to despair if only God Himself will favor our undertaking. Go and tell those at home what has been done here; admonish your masters to fulfill their promises promptly; and by your words 153 anngorks strive that the Divine Mercy may be propitious to us. SUMMARY OF SPEECH PURPOSE Pius presented five necessary elements in the concluding speech. Briefly stated these elements pertained to the necessity of Christian solidarity in the Turkish venture. First, he nullified any notions of despair,though he admitted that support was not as extensive as anticipated; second, he detailed the strength of Chris- tendom as promised during the Congress of Mantua; third, he encouraged the uncommitted nations to support the cause by subscribing to the principle Of cooperation; fourth, he minimized the strength of the Opposition by observing that the program of the Turk has been "divide and conquer"; fifth, he urged that all nations present Speak well of the Congress of Mantua and that they actualize their commitments speedily. INVENTION The Speech which concluded the Congress of Mantua blended the logos, ethos and pathos of Aristotle into a useful framework. 85This text is derived from the Commentaries, op. cit., pp. 143-144. The reader should Observe the following with respect to the speech: The promises discussed by Pius were promises made before the occasion of his presentation of the Speech. The promises were ‘made public before the Sacred College of Cardinals and thus were binding upon the delegation making the promise. Because the Vene- tians had not had sufficient time to confer with the Doge of Venice, they could make no public Offer consequent to the confrontation with Pius cited on page 151 above. AS L. C. Gabel Observes: "The atti- tude of Venice was to refuse to associate in any move hostile to Mahomet II until the Christian powers of Europe gave willingness to unite in a common effort against the Turk. Venice did not wish to bear the onus of such an enterprise alone . . ." Ibid., p. 140. 154 Delivering the speech in the church of St. Peter before all the dele- gates and ambassadors, Pius spoke to the issue at hand -- is a Cru- sade necessary? He introduced his Speech by stating the Obvious -- the support which he anticipated was hardly actualized. His use of pathos is indicated in the following: "we have done what had to be done. we pray that God's cause has been well pleaded. Though we creamed of more than we have found, nevertheless we cannot think that nothing has been accomplished nor is all our hope gone." With this, Pius focused the remaining portions of his address upon the analysis of the projected crusade. The Hungarians are to initiate the attack upon the Turks. The Armenians will attack from the east. Thus, the Turk will be fighting a war on two fronts, the European and the Near Eastern. Pius continues his analysis by observing that nations which remain uncommitted will support the venture after observing the magni- tude and relative support of the crusade. The crusade will have 88,000 soldiers, and galleys in excess of Turkish sea strength. He concludes the address by returning to his use of pathos. In contem- porary Speech parlance, this is the action step of the "motivated sequence." "we have no reason to deSpair if only God Himself will favor our undertaking. Go and tell those at home what has been done here; admonish your masters to fulfill their promises promptly; and by your words and works strive that the Divine mercy may be propitious to us." ARRANGEMENT This Speech is divided into three categories: introduction, con- tent, and conclusion. In the introduction Pius details the results 155 of the Congress of Mantua, suggesting "We have done what had to be done here." When he begins to expound "the present situation that all may know what prOSpects we have . . ." he catalogues the strength of Christendom as pledged at the Congress. He suggests that these numbers can defeat the Turk. His conclusion is indeed a "call to action"; "Go and tell those at home what has been done here." STYLE The style of Pius in the concluding Speech at the Congress was without venom or bitterness. He gave an abundance of factual informa- tion, but did so in a manner of Optimism. Generally Speaking, the style was not typical of the flowing eloquence which characterized his other Speeches. Four elements pertaining to the style of Pius in this Speech are evident: First, he made the delegates aware of the magnitude of their accomplishments during the Congress. Second, he discussed the relative strength of Christendom. When this strength is compared to the Turkish potential, Pius is led to the Optimistic conclusion that Christ will defeat Mahomet. In his words: "Does any one think that the Turk will not be conquered by these forces?" A third element in the Style of Pius is his use of the rhetorical question. Finally, Pius appeals in the conclusion to God's good- ness and mercy as the only means of triumph: "we have no reason to despair if only God Himself will favor our undertaking." Yet, God's goodness and mercy is conditional: " . . . by your words and works strive that the Divine Mercy may be prOpitious to us." DELIVERY In the Commentaries, the only information given pertaining to delivery is the following: "A few days later . . . before the senators and all the ambassadors of princes, after mass had been celebrated the Pope commanded silence and from his throne Spoke as follows . . ."85 The fact that the Speech was given while the Holy Father was seated would suggest that his bodily movements were restricted. All that can be said is mere conjecture. REACTION OR EFFECT The immediate effect of the Speech was impressive: those who promised support gave added pledge to actualize their promises. The emotional character of the concluding session is indicated by the jubilant manner of the prelates in support of the Crusade. The effect which the speech had upon those uncommitted cannot be determined. The only suggestion is given in the Commentaries: " . . . those who had Offered nothing sat silent and confused." After the jubilant outbursts, . . . the Pope bade all the cardinals, bishops, abbots, and priests present don their sacred robes. He himself came down from his throne and knelt at the steps of the high altar. There with sighs and tears for a long time he intoned in a voice of supplication verses of the Psalms apprOpriate to the occasion, while the prelates and all the clergy made the re- sponses. Then he Spoke to the peOple and blessed them. On January 19, 1460, the Congress of Mantua Officially ended. It was not the triumph for the Papacy and the Crusade which Pius anticipated. If anything, it suggested that Pius had a considerable 86Ibid., p. 144. 156 157 task confronting him: the Unification of Christendom around the leadership of the Holy See. H. C. Lea has Observed the following: . . . at the Congress of Mantua in 1459, the overwhelming danger to EurOpe from the Turkish advance failed to stimulate the princes to action; for they asserted that the papal purpose was to get their money, and not to fight the infidel. In this some injustice was done to . . . Pius II who at heart was earnest in the crusading Spirit. . .87 87Henry C. Lea, "The Eve of the Reformation," The Cambridge Modern History, I, 666. V. A RHETORICAL STUDY OF SELECTED SPEECHES 0F PIUS II FROM 1462-1464 A full two years had passed Since the last session of the Con- gress of Mantua was concluded. During this period, the diplomats for the Holy See were hoping to lay the groundwork for a solidified offensive against the Turk. Political unity was absolutely neces- sary; any ambitious effort comparable to the Turkish Crusade demanded all the military prowess of Western Europe. Furthermore, the Turkish advance became more formidable in 1462 than it had been in 1460. As Pastor suggests: . . . the infidels had brought nearly the whole Archi- pelago into subjection. Almost immediately after the fall of Sinope and Trebizond, Mahomet had sent a powerful fleet to the Aegean Sea. The objective of this expedition was to put an end to the Genoese rule in Lesbos, to extort a higher tri- bute from the Maona of Chios and the Duke Of Naxos, and, if possible, to expel the Knights of St. John from Rhodes and its independent islands.1 The imminent danger of Muslim advance to Bohemia, Moravia, and Germany made the Turkish Crusade loom as a necessary alternative to ignominious subjugation. This gave rise to an offer by Pope 1Pastor, Op. cit., III, 263. Voigt corroborates the above. He suggests that the devastations reached serious proportion. The Muslim advance in Eastern Europe included the subjection of the Slavs. Bosnia fell with little resistance. wallachia, Herzogovina and much of present day Yugoslavia came under the jurisdiction of the Turkish Ottoman empire whose expansion was indeed phenomenal for even the casual Observer. Cf, Voigt, op. cit., III, 548. 158 159 Pius to lead the crusade.2 SPEECH TEXT My brethren, perhaps you, like almost everyone else, think that we are neglecting the commonweal because since our return from Mantua we have neither done nor said anything toward repulsing the Turks and protecting religion, and that too though the enemy has pressed us harder every day. We have been silent; we do not deny it. We have done nothing against the enemies of the Cross; that is evident. But the reason for our silence was not indifference but a kind Of despair. Power, not will, has been lacking. Over and over again we have pon- dered as to whether we could muster the strength Of Christians against the Turks in one way or another and take measures to prevent the Christian peOples finally falling a prey to them. we have Spent many sleepless nights in meditation, tossing from Side to side and deploring the unhappy calamities of our time. Our heart swelled and our Old blood boiled with rage. we longed to declare war against the Turks and to put forth every effort in defense of religion, but when we measure our strength against that of the enemy, it is clear that the Church of Rome cannot defeat the Turks with its own resources. NO man of sense provokes a stronger foe to fight. The challenger must be superior or at least equal to the challenged. we are far inferior to the Turks unless Christian kings should unite their forces. We are seeking to effect this; we are searching out ways; none practicable presents itself. If we think of convening a council, Mantua teaches us that the idea is vain. If we send envoys to ask aid of sovereigns, they are laughed at. If we impose tithes on the clergy, they appeal to a future council. If we issue indulgences and encourage the contribution of money by spiritual gifts, we are accused of avarice. People think our sole Object is to amass gold. No one believes what we say. Like insolvent tradesmen, we are without credit. Everything we do is interpreted in the worst way and since all princes are very avaricious and all prelates of the Church are slaves to money, they measure our diSposition by their own. Nothing is harder than to wring gold from a miser. we turn the eye of the mind in all directions. We find nothing certain, nothing solid, nothing that is not utterly unsubstantial. What are we to do in such difficulties? Shall we rush into certain danger and have ourselves to thank for surrender- ing to the enemy? Or shall we embark on an undertaking that 2Mansi, op. cit., II, 93. 160 will make us ridiculous? To labor in vain and for our pains get infamy would be the extreme Of folly. Our mind has long been perplexed and sorely anxious and our soul could not be comforted, since we saw everything growing worse and no slightest hope of success. But while, during our silent days and nights, we have been coming more and more to this decision, that we must seek out some plan for the common salvation, one remedy has at last occurred to us. In our Opinion it is most effective and perhaps there is no other. Listen and we will expound it briefly. Then you Shall judge of our plan. In the year when Constantinople was lost Philip, Duke of Burgundy, publicly made a vow that he would go against the Turks and wage war with them and challenge Mahomet to single combat, if the Emperor Frederick or Charles Of France or Ladis- laus of Hungary or any other great prince whom it would not be beneath him to follow would set out for the same war. Thus far no one has been found among those named who has girded himself for so great a contest. Philip believes himself excused, since the terms of his vow have not been met. He is excused but not absolved. His Obligation still stands. His vow Speaks and his oath is not Silent. The condition may Still be fulfilled. Some great prince may still gird himself for this crusade and summon Philip to follow him. If he does not obey, he will be guilty of breaking his oath and his vow, which we are certain he could not endure. We are resolved, old and ill as we are, to undertake war against the Turks in defense of the Catholic Faith. we will set out on the crusade. we will summon Burgundy to follow us who are both king and pontiff and we will claim the fulfill- ment of his vow and oath. No excuse will be Open to him. A greater than king or emperor, the Vicar of Christ, will declare war. It will not beseem a duke bound by a vow to stay at home. If Philip accedes to our desires, he will not come without a great and mighty army. Many will follow SO noble a prince. The King of France, who publicly promised 70,000 men, will be ashamed to send fewer than 10,000. From Germany, England, Spain, many will enlist voluntarily. The Hungarians, whose own cause is at stake, cannot fail us. Nor will the Venetians, when they see such great preparations, refuse a fleet. Who does not know that the Pope of Rome with the Venetians and Hungarians followed by the Duke of Burgundy and aided by the King of France can wipe out the Turkish race? But first of all we must be certain of the Venetians and we must get their advice, since they are acquainted with the habits and the power of the Turks and know what strength and what Strategy it will take to conquer them. It would be use- less to persuade the Burgundians and the French to this expe- dition without the assistance of the Venetians, to whom the seas are open. They must first Of all be told our purpose. 161 If they do not approve, all our planning has been in vain. If they applaud it, we will send an embassy to exhort France and Burgundy not to fail the Christian religion. We will call on France for trOOps. Burgundy we will hold to his vow. When they agree, as they must, we will proclaim our purpose and our crusade. we will command a five year truce between all Christians now at variance. On those who Obey we will bestow Heaven's blessing; those who rebel we will smite with anathema. we will bid the bishOps, abbots, and men of every ecclesiastical rank to aid this task with all means at their command. The disobe- dient we will excommunicate and consign to the devil as slaves of everlasting fire. The others, who are faithful to Christ, we will induce to aid us to the extent of their powers by in- dulgences and Spiritual graces, and who will there be who will not move when he hears the POpe has moved? Unless we are mis- taken, this is the one way we can rouse the sleeping Christians and stir the hearts of kings and peoples. When this resolve is Spread abroad it will shatter sleep as with thunderclap and rouse the hearts of the faithful to protect religion. Not arms or horses or men or ships will be lacking. On land and sea we shall easily equip the war when it once becomes known that the Pope of Rome with the holy senate is marching straight on to win-salvation for all and desires no man's silver since he is resolved to risk not only his own gold but his own person for Christ's sake. This is what has come to us; whether of our own wit or God's inspiration it is for you to judge.3 SUMMARY OF SPEECH In reality, this speech had one basic purpose: to remind Philip, the Duke Of Burgundy, of the promise he had made ten years earlier. Beyond this, the Speech articulated the ambitions of the Holy See in view Of Burgundy's co-0peration; apart from Philip of Burgundy, the Holy Father realized that little hope remained for the crusade. 3The Speech text is found in the following: Commentaries, pp, cit., pp. 189-91; Creighton, op. cit., III, 312-13; Mansi, Op. cit., II, 168-90 INVENTION The subject of the Speech is introduced by statement Of the Obvious: My brethren, perhaps you, like almost everyone else, think that we are neglecting the commonweal because since our return from Mantua we have neither done nor said anything toward re- pulsing the Turks and protecting religion, and that too though the enemy has pressed us harder every day. To a learned audience composed as it was of cardinals and ranking prelates of the church, the only sensible approach was to admit the obvious and proceed to the projected program. This is precisely what Pius did. In submissive manner, he admits his error, but not without ample reason. "We have been silent; we do not deny it. We have done nothing against the enemies of the Cross; that is evident." This statement forms the curious backdrop for a series of qualifica- tions forwarded by Pius: But the reason for our silence has not been indifference, but a kind of despair. Power, not will, has been lacking. Over and over again we have pondered as to whether we could muster the strength of Christians against the Turk in one way or another and take measures to prevent the Christian peOples finally falling a prey to them. The substantial references to ethos further the reputation of Pius as the "protector of the Holy See" rather than the Slothful and negligent "Lazy Pope." No clearer statement of this is indi- cated but in the following: "we were ashamed to sit inactive while the Turks were besetting more and more closely now Pannonia, now Balmati in unremitting war and ranging with ever increasing inso- 1ence wherever they would." An indication Of the "climate of Opinion" is summarized in the above. Based largely on the histo- rical record, Pius suggests that he is less reSponsible for the 162 163 apathy in western EurOpe toward the Turkish Crusade than those who lead the armies and manage the public treasuries. Indeed, this is a kind of ethical appeal based on logical development. Pius has noted that he lacks the power necessary to launch a massive offen- sive. The only thing at his disposal is zealous will and fortitude, and this he has in abundant supplies. Thus, in the first section of this Speech, Pius has two objectives: to recite the historical record which led to the imminent crisis; to exonerate the Holy See from any responsibility in the apathy toward the Turk? Pius con- tinues: we seemed to see the eyes of all turned upon us, to hear them barking at us as Sluggards who did not go to the aid of the perishing evangelical law, but, as if we were enfeebled by sloth, were allowing all Christendom to go to destruction. Our hearts swelled and our old blood boiled with rage. we longed to declare war against the Turks and to put forth every effort in defense of religion, but, when we measure our strength against that of the enemy, it is clear that the Church of Rome cannot defeat the Turks with its own resources. No man of sense provokes a stronger foe to fight. The challenger must be supe- rior or at least equal to the challenged. 4Unfortunately for Pius, he relied on information pertaining to the climate of Opinion from an impostorous source. A Franciscan Friar, Ludovico of Bologna, requested an audience with the Holy Father in order to expound the deve10pments in Persia which he said he had seen while travelling through the area. Ludovico told Pius that the Christians in Persia were ready to revolt from the domina- tion of the Sultan. To make his audience with the Pope more im- pressive he brought with him embassies from the Emperor Of Trapezus, the King Of Persia, the King of MeSOpotamia, the Duke of Greater Iberia, and the Lord of Armenia Minor. Although these rulers paid tribute to Mahomet, they professed willingness to risk their thrones for the Holy See. As Creighton notes: "when admitted to an audience they set forth, through Fra Ludovico as interpreter, that their kings had heard from him of the Congress of Mantua, and were willing to attack the Turks in Asia, while the Christians attacked them in Europe: for this purpose they would raise an army of 120,000 men; they begged the Pope to make Ludovico Patriarch of the Eastern Christians." Creighton, Op. cit., III, 309-10. Later, Pius learned that Ludovico was an impostor and that the sources of his information were impostorous. Cf, Commentaries, Op. cit., p. 127. 164 Pius fully realized that the cause of the Crusade had suffered appre- ciably as the consequence of the political chaos of the day; king- dom pitted against kingdom, not for the glory of the Holy See, but as the vindication of the decline of the Papal Universalism which had predominated two centuries earlier. This was not the generation Of the Bonifaces, Urbans, or Innocents.5 The Renaissance had so secularized society that Pius himself, prior to his elevation, was a most zealous conciliarist and the epitome of anti-papal jurisdic- tion. The developments catalogued by Pius in the following state- ments clearly suggest the thorough secularism which predominated in politics and religion, in art and literature, in economics and philosophy: "NO one believes what we say. Like insolvent trades- men, we are without credit . . . Nothing is harder than to wring gold from a miser." 5The most extraordinary element in the diplomacy of Pius was a lengthy letter which he sent to Mahomet. As Creighton notes: "Pius II actually attempted to convert the Sultan by his eloquence. As rhetoric was the only contribution to a crusade which the Pope saw his way towards making, he seems to have resolved to try its effects to the uttermost . . . It is no less characteristic of the temper of the early Renaissance that Pius should have thought that all subjects admitted of reasonable discussion." Creighton, Op. cit., III, 310. The substance of the letter is interesting: He discussed the conse- quences and devastations of war; he expressed Christian love for the Sultan, and suggested that his soul was of more importance than his possessions. He observed that the conquest of EurOpe would be far more difficult than the conquest of Asia. He urged the Sultan to be baptized in the Catholic Faith. Using Constantine and Clovis. as examples, he observed that EurOpean history has had rulers who left their old faiths for new ones. He would be numbered with Con- stantine and Clovis as a Christian, indeed a tribute to greatness. The letter ends with a comparison of Christian belief to Muslim doctrine. In essence, Christ is pictured as the Son of God. The letter was circulated throughout Europe and produced a momentary effect which aided the cause of the crusade. Pius II, Epistolae, (ed. Basle), No. 396. There was no reply to the letter from the Sultan. 165 After noting that "we are inferior to the Turks . . ." Pius suggests a curious aggregate of alternatives; each alternative, however, is vexed with some glaring problem: " . . . we are searching out ways"; so Pius introduced the pitiable alternatives which came to his mind: (1) Another Congress similar to the one held at Mantua? "Mantua teaches us that the idea is vain"; (2) Direct communication to the prelates in Europe via the Papal Ambas- sadors? These envoys " . . . are laughed at" by the rulers of EurOpe; (3) Impose tithes on clergy estates for the purpose of raising money? This will burden a future Papal Administration and further debase the already debased Papal Office; (4) Issue indul- gences. Should Pius do that he would be criticized for being avaricious. The hopelessness of the situation is best expressed in the eloquence of Pius: People think our sole object is to amass gold. NO one believes what we say. Like insolvent tradesmen we are without credit. Everything we do is interpreted in the worst way and since all princes . . . are very avaricious and all prelates of the church are slaves to money, they measure our disposition by their own . . . We turn the eye of the mind in all directions. we find nothing certain, nothing solid, nothing that is not utterly unsubstantiated. What are we to do in such difficul- ties? . . . To labor in vain and get for our pains infamy would be extreme folly.6 6Ibid., p. 516. Much of this is strangely reminiscent of the letter written to a friend by Pius after the Fall of Constantinople. In this letter he outlined the demoralized condition of all Europe and debased infamy of the Papacy. "Christianity has no head whom all will obey. Neither the pope nor the emperor is accorded his rights. There is no reverence and no obedience; we look on pope and emperor as figureheads and empty titles. Every city-state has its king and there are as many princes as there are households." Pius II, Opera omnia, (Basle, 1571), 656. 166 Richard Garnett has observed that the diversity of political division within the context of political and national centralism made the Papal Office almost impossible; this was the epitome of ecclesiastical centralism and papal universalism.7 Pius proceeds to the presentation of his proposal for the Cru- sade. This signals the second important section of his address. With precise logical analysis, Pius reminds his audience of a promise made by Philip, Duke of Burgundy. In substance, the promise involved participation in the Holy Crusade. The promise was made, however, in the pontificate of Nicholas V when Constantinople fell to the Turk. Pius observes that he would glory to see a gallant Christian prince turn his attention to the issue of religious de- fense: Thus far no one has been found among those named who has girded himself for so great a contest. Philip believes himself excused, since the terms of his vow have not been met. He is excused but not absolved. His obligation still stands. His vow Speaks and his oath is not silent. The condition may still be fulfilled. Some great prince may Still gird himself for this Crusade and summon Philip to follow him. If he does not Obey he will be guilty of breaking his oath and his vow, which we are certain he cannot endure. Couched in emotional appeal, Pius declares that he will assume the reSponsibility of leading the Crusade. We are resolved, old and ill as we are, to undertake war against the Turks in defense of the Catholic Faith. we will set out on that crusade. we will summon Burgundy to follow us who are both king and pontiff and we will claim the fulfillment of his vow and oath. NO excuse will be Open to him. A greater than king or emperor, the Vicar Of Christ, will declare war. 79:, Richard Garnett, "Rome and the Temporal Power," The Cam- bridge Modern History, (Cambridge, Eng: University Press, 1934), Vol. I, 219-22. 167 It will not beseem a duke bound by a vow to stay at home.8 The unfortunate aspect of the logic Of Pius II is that is is the logic of the Middle Ages articulated by a Renaissance Pope. Philip would break vow and oath without impunity. The expectations Of Pius outdistanced his resources. He hOped that Philip would follow. He believed that Philip would come with a sizeable force of Burgun- dian soldiers. He expected many to follow the example of pontiff and duke. His eloquence, based largely on supposition, concludes: "Who does not know that the Pope of Rome with the Venetians and Hungarians followed by the Duke of Burgundy and aided by the King of France can wipe out the Turkish race?" The program which Pius outlined was based on several necessary conditions: (1) that the Venetians would supply a fleet; (2) that the Burgundians will follow the image of Pius II; (3) that a five year truce will be enforced among warring Christians; (4) that the clergy would extend financial assistance; (5) that EurOpe could be united in this risky and costly venture. Unfortunately, these con— 8The‘willingness of Pius to lead the crusade was sincere. He believed that the example set by the Holy See would inSpire others to support the Turkish venture. He was correct in his assumption. AS Pastor notes: "Pius II hoped . . . to recover the direction of the whole scheme, and by the Offering of his own person, the last means at his disposal, to regain the leadership of the enterprise." Pastor, op. cit., III, 321. Initially, Pius succeeded in his appeals: Carvajal reflected the sentiments of the College of Cardinals when he exclaimed: "It is the voice of an angel. I follow, for it is to heaven that you are leading us." Commentaries, 9p. cit., p. 341. To further indicate the sincerity of the Holy See, a commission of Cardinals was appointed to carry on the preparations in the States of the Church. Pastor suggests that " . . . a general Opinion began to gain ground that if the POpe and the Duke Of Burgundy were Spared, the enterprise might be both successful and glorious. The Milanese Envoys concluded their report with the words: 'May God, whose cause is at stake, grant long life to the POpe and the Duke.'" Pastor, 2p, g}£,, III, 333. 168 ditions were far from granted. Pius, in order to enforce his pro- posed offensive, suggested the following alternatives to the dis- obedient: The disobedient we will excommunicate and consign to the devil as slaves of everlasting fire. The others who are faith- ful to Christ, we will induce to aid us to the extent of their powers by indulgences and Spiritual graces, and who will these be who will not move when he hears that the Pope has moved? Admittedly, this initiated the backdrop of fear to the prO— jected crusade; however, this was only a prOposal, and as subse- quent developments suggested, the importance of the fear of excom- munication had little or no effect upon the decision to support or not to support the Crusade. ARRANGEMENT With respect to the arrangement of the speech, several Observa- tions are appropriate: first, Pius Stated the cause for the negli- gence on the part of the Holy See; second, he stated the necessity for action; third, he observed the political and religious climate in EurOpe and the chance of success for the Crusade; fourth, he reminded the delegation Of prelates of the promise made by the Duke of Burgundy in 1453; fifth, he fulfilled the conditions of the pro- mise by indicating that he would lead the Crusade if this were the only means by which Philip would involve his forces; sixth, he gave reprimand to those who objected to the crusade by holding out the threat of excommunication. Pius appealed generally to dramatic transitions between the historical analysis and his proposed program. He persisted in suggesting two significant categories: apathy and prOposal. His 169 method of suggesting these categories was indeed plodding, apolo- getic, and at times, even abrupt. Generally, his logic is Open to question. This is largely true because of his preponderance of supposition and hypothetical appeal. His historical analysis was accurate and well-integrated with illustrative detail; however in his discussion of the vow made by Philip, Duke of Burgundy, Pius assumed a decidedly vindictive tone. STYLE The imagery and language both conform with the basic tenor of the speech. He discussed at length the horrors of hell and damna- tion for those who refuse to accede to his program. He portrays Philip, not as a man of expedience, but rather as a Duke Of noble devotion to a vow, an oath, and above all, a Pope. DELIVERY The Commentaries gives no indication of how the POpe delivered this Speech. It only suggests that he called a consistory and there addressed them on the plan. REACTION OR EFFECT The following suggests the nature of the reSponse: The Cardinals listened to the Pope with wonder and Stupe- faction. They did not doubt that words which pleaded God's cause were of God, but in a situation so critical and strange and unheard of they begged time for consideration. This was granted and after conferring together for a number of days they returned to the POpe and said that his purpose was worthy of the Vicar of Christ, who like a Shepherd did not 170 hesitate to lay down his life for his sheep. Nothing could be said against so praiseworthy and noble a plan, though there seemed to be some difficulties in the way.9 Letters followed the speech to the Venetians asking for the advice suggested in the Papal address. The reSponse of these letters was indeed remarkable: "They replied that their state would do all the Pope desired to defend the faith."10 9Commentaries, op. cit., p. 239. loIbid. THE EULOGY 0F PHILIP OF BURGUNDY HISTORICAL BACKGROUND In the fall of 1463 there came to the Papal Court a delegation from Philip, Duke of Burgundy. This delegation came in response to the vow which was revived by Pius in his Speech before the Sacred College Of Cardinals. Philip was too ill to make the journey him- self, so he decided that his envoys could do a better job of plead- ing his cause. Guillaume, the Bishop of Tournai, delivered a most eloquent plea before the Holy Father which was concluded by an appeal to all Christians to join the Crusade. AS noted in Pastor: "The political condition of Christendom seemed at this time to promise well for tn: Crusade."ll The Commentaries notes the following: . . . Philip, Duke of Burgundy, who had sent him, had determined to lead a fleet against the Turk the next Spring and prosecute the war with all his might in defense of the Holy Religion. Though an Old man he would not Spare his own person; he would march with the army and perform the duties not only of a captain but of a soldier unless he were prevented by illness; in that event he would sent a substitute.1 This address prompted the most eloquent eulogy given by Pope Pius. He was relieved to know that finally his diplomacy was reaping harvest. The Crusade now had the backing Of the most illus— trious of those French families -- the Burgundians. The Crusade was close to actualization. Within this context came the eulogy of Pius. 11Pastor, Op. cit., III, 321. 12Commentaries, op. cit., p. 809. 171 SPEECH TEXT Reverend brethren and most beloved sons, having heard the Ihugundian envoys I suppose you are awaiting with eagerness our answer in which we Shall praise as he deserves our most loving mun Philip, Duke of Burgundy, and speak of his exalted merits. YOur desire is more just than attainable. we have not the elo- quence to satisfy your expectations. ‘Many fine things ought to be said about Philip which could not be adequately set forth ex- cept by the most eloquent of orators. ‘Mention should be made of the exalted rank of his family which traces its origin back to Ilium, of his physical and mental endowments, his justice, cour- age, temperance, humanity, and all the other virtues which are always found in the noblest degree in the noblest man. ‘Mention should be made too of his glorious exploits alike in time of peace and war. His victories have been as many as his battles, yet he has fought with his country's foe more often than any other man of our day has quarreled with his private enemy. All France is filled with trOphies erected by him and he has set up monuments of victory even across the Rhine among the Germans. Such things as these our discourse could not touch upon, much less fully set forth. They call for subtle genius and noble rhetoric. Our old man's dry style is not equal to so great a task. Nor does Philip wish this. His true virtue is content with itself and desires no flattering words. His great and noble deeds have been done not from desire for praise but to please God. He looks for his reward from Him, not from man, who can bestow nothing that is not mortal. But granted that we cannot praise Philip as he deserves and that he does not want such praise, shall we therefore ignore this most august embassy and Show it no honor? Never in the world. Some answer must be made to the proposal laid before us and so distinguished an embassy for us. What are its instructions? What does it Offer? It says that the Turkish arms are threaten- ing our lives. It calls attention to the disasters which the Christian religion has suffered and seems destined to suffer. It urges us to go to meet the enemy before they grow stronger. It says that if war is declared on the Turks, if a sufficient army is raised, Philip will take part in this crusade and will ‘not Spare his person in order to consult for the safety of the holy religion. What do you think Of all this, brethren? Who would not say that these are great and Splendid words? Who could ade- quately extol this prince? NO Christian has less reason to fear the Turks than Philip, yet he is the first to promise to march against them and wage war for the Holy Gospel. 0 purpose worthy of a prince! O peerless Spirit! 0 most noble blood. A long, long journey is before him; the frozen Alps must be traversed frrxn the west to the east. He has the courage to surmount all difficulties. He thinks no toil is to be refused in God's cause, 172 chm—r—I' 1: F .i i _ < 173 madanger avoided. This has long been Philip's purpose. On thaday that the Turks stormed ConstantinOple he made this vow amihe has never departed from it. For almost ten years he has Inusisted in this aim. Now perhaps God will have pity on us and atlong last will grant that a strong army under fair ausPices shaU.be marshaled against the Turks, since the flourishing re- pdflic of Venice too has equipped a very powerful fleet and sent it against the enemy. And Matthias, King of Hungary, now that helms attained the crown and peace in his kingdom, will be able maarm such forces as he desires, and this exalted prince pro- ndses that he will come to the war with a picked company. The other potentates of Italy will, we hope, join us, and the wes- tern sovereigns will not refuse aid. Holy Jesus will show that the vileness of Mahomet is hateful to Him and fighting on our side will crush the enemy before our eyes. But, to address our words at last to you, most distinguished ambassadors, you have brought us comfort today by your speech and Philip's magnificent promise, which is indeed worthy of his blood and his name. When you urge us to put forth every effort in the defense of the Holy Faith you are Spurring a running steed. Nothing is so dear to us as the defense of the holy religion. At the Congress of Mantua all the Church heard our plans and our yearnings. we were unheeded. We toiled in vain. Nevertheless we were not therefore discouraged. we are resolved not to desist from our purpose till we rouse Christian princes and peoples to defend the most Holy Gospel and the divine law. On this account during these last days we have summoned to our presence the princes of Italy. You see their embassies here that we may consult with them and with you in regard to pro- tecting religion. And if the aid of the faithful and especially of the Italians does not fail us, not Rome only but all Italy and all Christendom itself shall soon know that we have not been lacking in solicitude and courage to take thought for the Chris- tian state. May the Grace of Almighty God and of our Lord Jesus Christ be with us and may He weigh His mercy rather than our iniquities.13 SUMMARY OF SPEECH itithin the context of this eulogy, Pius accomplished the follow- ing: (1) he pictured Philip as the symbol of Christian candor and (2) he encouraged all Christendom to model the courageous devotion; and virtuous actions of Philip. 13The Speech appears in the Commentaries, g. cit., pp. 348-50. -IJJTI'fl-fi ———.‘ ’ I Fkh' INVENTION Pius introduces his eulogy with pointed but precise words: "Reverend brethren and most beloved sons . . ." The introduction suggests the conciliatory manner in which Pius will praise Philip and support his Turkish Crusade. . . . having heard the Burgundian envoys I Suppose you are awaiting with eagerness our answer in which we Shall praise as he deserves our most loving son, Philip, Duke of Burgundy, and Speak of his exalted merits. Your desire is more just than attainable. We have not the eloquence to satisfy your expecta- tions. Many fine things ought to be said about Philip which could not be adequately set forth except by the most eloquent of orators. Pius has indicated his modesty with considerable restraint. He is not the "most eloquent of orators," and is thus incapable of praising Philip appropriately. He then proceeds to suggest things which Should be mentioned in any eulogy of Philip: (1) his exalted family which traces its origins back to the Trojan War of Homer; (2) his physical and mental endowments; (3) his various traits as a man -- justice, courage, temperance, humanity, and all other virtues which are always found in the noblest degree in the noblest of men. Mention should be made of his exploits: ". . . alike in time of peace and war. His victories have been as many as his battles, yet he has fought with his country's foe more often than any other man of our day has quarreled with his own private enemy." Thus, in his opening remarks, Pius has pictured Philip as a coura- geous warrior worthy of the support of all Europe. Although Pius has not pictured the Holy See in direct relationship with Philip, he has suggested that the Holy See is enthusiastically behind the venture anticipated by Philip. Again, Pius did not mention the 174 175 speech delivered before the Consistory. It would be detrimental to his best interests to suggest that the envoy from Philip came in reSponse to the gentle reminder from Pius of the promise made in 1453 by the Duke. The unrestrained praise for Philip of Burgundy is Specifically designed to augment his greatness throughout Europe. In praising Philip, Pius of necessity must indicate the importance of France among the community of nations: All France is filled with trOphieS erected by him and he has set up monuments of victory even across the Rhine among the Germans. Such things as these our discourse could not touch upon, much less fully set forth. They call for subtle genius and noble rhetoric. Our old man's dry style is not equal to so great a task. Besides elaborating upon the victories of Philip throughout France and Germany, Pius debases his own eloquence as being inadequate for such an awesome subject as Philip. This in itself is a most subtle form of praise. Pius, recognized throughout EurOpe as the most articulate humanist, confesses incompetence. Pius associates humility with the person of Philip by suggesting: "His true virtue is content with itself and desires no flattering words. His great and noble deeds have been done not from desire for praise but to please God. He looks for his reward from Him, not from man, who can bestow nothing that is not mortal." To this point in his address Pius has given his audience the impression that Philip is virtuous, pious, honorable, and above all, humble. Pius now turns to the evaluation of the proposal made by the Frency envoy. His approach is most curious: 176 What has Philip's embassy for us? What are its instruc- tions? What does it offer? It says that the Turkish arms are flueatening our lives. It calls attention to the disasters wflfich the Christian religion has suffered and seems destined to suffer. It urges us to go to meet the enemy before they get stronger. It says that if war is declared on the Turks, if a sufficient army is raised, Philip will take part in this cru- sade and will not spare his person in order to consult for the safety of holy religion. Thus,in the preceding summaries, Pius has clearly stated his own projected ambitions with reference to the Turkish Crusade. By the use "What oftflnee rhetorical questions he has disarmed his audience: does it offer? What has Philip's embassy for us?" and "What are its instructions?" These form the basis of the program of Pius widh respect to the Turkish expedition. The unreserved praise which is heaped on the program suggested by Philip suggests the diSposition of the Holy Father. "What do you think of all this, brethren?" This question is one of a series of rhetorical questions designed to elevate Philip in public esteem: "Who would not say that these are great and Splendid words? Who could adequately extol this prince?" The elegant rhetoric of Pius reaches a high point when he pictures Philip as a lover seeking to please his beloved: O purpose worthy of a prince! O peerless Spirit! 0 Inost noble blood! A long, long journey is before him; the frozen Alps must be traversed from the west to the east. He has the courage to surmount all difficulties. He thinks no toil is to be refused in God's cause, no danger avoided. For :3 lover all things are easy. To a prince who loves God nothing 145 so horrible that it ought not to be endured for God's glory. The effect of the rhetorical eloquence of Pius II is suggested by his nuances in style and his shades of interpretation. Whereas Philip was portrayed in the Speech before the Sacred College of 177 (mrdhwds as a prince who might not turn back on a vow, he is pic- UHedzuithis speech as a prince who would never turn back on a vow nude hIgOOd faith. Philip is pictured as a man of unlimited afflu- ence: The richest Of princes, the equal of kings, who has wealth and luxury in abundance, who is lord of so many broad provinces, illustrious cities, strong states, rich peoples, who has all thatlnortals value most, does not hesitate to leave his splen- did palace, his cherished wife, his dearest son, his beloved sister, his sweet nephews, his loyal friends to serve God. Furthermore, he has reached that advanced age which needs rest. This too he postpones. In his eyes nothing is more important than to please God. He despises everything except God. After having praised the virtues basic to Philip, Pius turns to laud the steadfastness and perseverance of this noble but aged prince. He observes that since the Fall of Constantinople in 1453, the vow was made to avenge the ruinous actions of the Turk. Although he does not note to his audience the fact that Pius reminded Philip "On the day that the Turks stormed ConstantinOple Of the pledge. he made his vow and he has never departed from it. For almost ten years he has persisted in this aim." To give support to this belief, Pius cites the fact that Philip was present at all the Diets held by jErederick.of Germany pertaining to the Turkish question. At them all Philip was present in person or had envoys. bk; ourselves saw him at Ratisbon on the Danube making the same prxnnises which you have just heard from his ambassadors. At tine Congress of Mantua you saw Jean, Duke of Cleves, whom he had sent, and you have not forgotten, we think, his Splendid prrnnises. To march against the Turks has long been the fixed purpose of this high-souled duke. Philip has been resolute in his vow to avenge the abusive behavior of? the {Turk toward the Christians. This point is abundantly indicated throughout the eulogy. The reason for Philip's delay is also sug- 178 gested: He has not set out, because the other princes were not sufficiently agreed to make so great an expedition possible. New perhaps God will have pity on us and at long last will gnant that a strong army under fair auspices Shall be mar- shaled against the Turks, since the flourishing republic of venice too has equipped a very powerful fleet and sent it a- gainst the enemy. The suppositions advanced by Pius in his Speech before the College cHECardinals now are close to actualization. The Turkish Crusade seemed nearer than ever before since the Fall of ConstantinOple. Pius concludes his address by speaking of his own efforts with respect to the Crusade. The defense of the Holy Religion was upper- most in the thinking Of the Holy Father. To support this he refers to his efforts at the Congress of Mantua: We toiled in vain. Nevertheless we were not therefore discouraged. We are resolved not to desist from our purpose till we rouse Christian princes and peOpleS to defend the most Holy GOSpel and the divine law. On this account during these last days we have summoned here to our presence the princes of Italy. You see their embassies here that we may consult with them and with you in regard to protecting religion. And if the aid of the faithful and especially of the Italians does not fail us, not Rome only but all Italy and all Christendom itself shall soon know that we have not been lacking in solici- tude and courage to take thought for the Christian state. May the Grace of Almighty God and of our Lord Jesus Christ be with us and may He weigh His mercy rather than our iniquities. Tfluus concludes the eulogy to Philip. The importance of this eulogy is evident in what deve10pments followed. The closeness of the Crusade became evident when Venice, Genoa, and Hungary joined in the proj ected enterprise. 1'4 141lith reSpect to this Speech, two observations can be made which would be of considerable value: (1) in terms of the histori- cal setting, Pius was graSping at what vestiges of support were Philip extended relative support; in response, Pius gave available. The Congress of Mantua unrestrained praise, blessing, and adulation. ARRANGEMENT The structure Of the discourse conveniently falls into three separate divisions: itemization of the qualities of Philip, Duke of Burgundy; discussion Of the plan of action to be pursued against the Turk; synthesis of his Speech by focusing upon his own devotion and dedication to the cause of the Turkish Crusade. Pius accomplished several useful things in this eulogy: first, he elevated Philip to a lofty plateau of greatness and made him the symbol of the Turkish cause; second, he articulated his Own policies and made them Speak for Philip; third, he reviewed the past devotion of Philip to the cause of the Crusade (even suggesting that Philip's ambition with reSpect to the Crusade precedes his own pontificate); finally, he contrived a feeling of European solidarity which later proved to be his undoing. Pius failed in several areas with reference to his eulogy: first, in his praise of Philip was the praise of a man de- cidedly infirm and aged. Philip could do little for the cause of the Turkish Crusade. Perhaps Pius should have praised one in his had evoked little response. As suggested in an earlier Speech, the convocation of another congress was difficult, and the convocation of a general council was out of the question. Pius found himself in a most unusual bind: the support he might get would be treas- ured as gold once its assurance was indicated. Philip's envoy became the substance of the assurance Pius long sought after. (2) the greatness of this particular speech is not in its admission of defeat, but rather, in its grandiose portrayal of Philip. Pius *was largely incorrect in his belief that he lacked a noble rhetoric Tflith which to praise Philip. Conversely, Pius was among the few of his generation.who could deliver such a glowing eulogy. His in- 'heritance was humanistic, and the finest orators Of the Renaissance iwere in.fact the humanists. He outlined the characteristics of greatness and personified Philip within this context. 179 180 youdirather than Philip. Second, he returned to suppositional lines cflfanalysis. He expected to receive more assistance than he did in achufl.fact receive. Third, he associated Philip's personality and program with too many elements Of his own personality and program. Unfortunately, Pius had previously published his views regarding Philip and the two accounts hardly correSpond: The Duke of Burgundy, who though an old man was given to a life of pleasure, forgot all about religion while he amused himself with dancing and wrestling and elaborate banquets that lasted till midnight. Furthermore, his courtiers thought that a crusade against the Turks would be ruinous.1 Philip came very close to death and revised his manner; however, reference to the sporty years of Philip does not enter into the guarded eulogy. Pius was seeking support for a vital cause. The principaled humanist-scholar now becomes the man of petty praise. STYLE This Speech flows with an elegant style. Pius relished in his use of metaphor and symbolism: Philip is the devoted son of the Church, the messenger of truth. The cause that Philip supports is labelled as a most "worthy cause." In short, Pius gives full force to the eloquence at his diSposal to maintain the support of Philip. DELIVERY The Speech was delivered from the Papal Throne in the Papal IBalace. The Commentaries suggests the following in addition to the above: "With these words he dismissed the audience while all 15Commentaries, 9p. cit., p. 792. 181 praised to the skies Philip's name and Spirit."16 REACTION OR EFFECT On September 18, 1463, Venice, Hungary, and Burgundy had un- animously pledged support to the Turkish Crusade. The attitude of Pius from this point becomes Optimistic. On the surface, his diplomacy of persuasion had succeeded. All Opposition in the Papal States was resolved. The tide began to turn. Unfortunately for the Holy Father, what appeared to be victory became in time bitter defeat. It was this defeat that saw Pius to his grave. 16Ibid., p. 350. PIUS REFUTES THE FLORENTINE PROPOSAL HISTORICAL BACKGROUND The historical situation which gave rise to the Florentine Pupposal to be discussed presently suggests a Spirit of rivalry between Venice and Florence for commercial hegemony. This is further indicated in the following: The conduct of Venice at this crisis in Italian history is . . . doubtless actuated by the hope that the French might help her against the Turks as well as against foes nearer home. Her commercial prOSperity and her maritime power were still very great, but the discovery of America (1492) and that of the Cape route to India (1498) were soon to undermine her trade, and the ceaseless advances of the Turks to dissolve her empire. Her proud aloofness, her receptivity for Oriental culture, her great overseas empire, her maritime hegemony, her aggressiveness, and her arrogance -- all this excited jealousy and hatred o O 017 One of the Florentine delegates, thus pointed out to the Holy Father that the Venetians were in the Crusade not for God or glory, but for gold. As Boulting observes: " . . . if Venice triumphed she would conquer Italy and the Holy See would become her bound-slave."18 The envoy continued his speech: Venice, not the TUrk is the real lnenace. The Pope curtly rejected the request of the Florentines. jEurope was in peril of losing her religious autonomy, and Pius sug- gested that he was not the one to preside over such an ignoble Inolicy. Pastor has correctly summarized the situation: As time went on the duplicity of the Florentines became Inore and more apparent, and thy proved the most cunning and obstinate Opponents of the Crusade. Their conduct was promp- ted by their jealousy of the projects of political aggrandise- 17COtterill, 93. cit., p. 226. 18Boulting, Op. cit., p. 343. 182 183 ment in Italy cherished by the Republic Of St. Mark, and the rivalry between the two powers for the possession of the trade of the Levant.19 Florence was concerned over the seafaring prowess of the Venetians. They did in time falter, but Florence did not realize that this would happen. She feared that a resounding defeat of the Turks by the Venetians would lead to the domination of the Italian peninsula by the "pearl of the Adriatic" -- Venice. As Pastor concludes: "Pius II pronounced such a policy to be Short-Sighted, ignoble, and unworthy the Vicar of Christ."20 SPEECH TEXT If we were in your position and neither in holy orders nor honored with the vicariate of Jesus Christ we should per- haps feel as you do and should succumb to your specious rea- soning. But the mind of a prince is not that of a private individual nor the Spirit of ecclesiastics that of the laity. Many things are tolerated in the people which no one would listen to in the clergy. Sins venial in the populace are held to be mortal in a priest. The princes Of this world and gover- nors Of cities care not by what means soever they protect their power so long as they protect it, and therfore they often vio- late the law of nations and act contrary to honorable prac- tises. The people praise the victors and do not count it base to have conquered through trickery and fraud provided that he who has laid low the enemy is of the laity; but if a priest has destroyed a foe by guile, nay, if he has slain one who was manifestly plotting against him, he is held to be in the wrong. The pe0ple expect the clergy to be so much more right- eous than the laity! DO not be surprised then, my very dear Otto, if in regard to the matters now in hand our Opinion differs from yours and that of the Florentines. If their own state is safe they will let the Christian state go to ruin. If they neglect religion and the faith although they are guilty of a heinous crime before God yet they keep their place among men. But if we are the least remiss in anything con- cerning the Faith we are at once torn to pieces by the cries 19Pastor, Op. cit., III, 322. 20Ibid., III, 323. 184 of all Christendom. 'See,' they say, 'is it becoming that Christ's Vicar should thus postpone the defense of the Faith? we must have a council to punish his negligence and elect a better man.' In a pope no fault is so small that the nations do not think it enormous. They expect him to be an angel not a man. Listen then to our words, Otto, words, though not of an angel at least of a cleric and one raised above the common lot of mankind. We admit that the Venetians, as is the way of men, covet more than they have; that they aim at the dominion of Italy and all but dare to aSpire to the mastery of the world. But if the Florentines Should become the equals Of the Vene- tians in power, they would also have an equal ambition for empire. It is a common fault that no one is satisfied with his lot. No state's lands are broad enough. If the Venetians conquer the Turks and become masters of Illyria and Greece, they will perhaps try to subdue Italy, (we do not deny it) pro- vided only they are free from fear of barbarians and are not distracted by foreign wars. Suppose they do subdue Italy which would be very difficult to do; what then? Would you rather Obey Venice or the Turks? No Christian who deserves the name would prefer the rule of the Turks under which the sacrament of the Church must finally be doomed and the gate to the other life be closed to those who desert the GOSpel. You will admit that the worst thing of all would be to become Slaves of the Turk and the best to serve neither Turks nor Venetians. You desire the latter and you think it will come to pass if we do not aid the Venetians now that they are involved in war with the Turks. Your plan is neither expedient nor honorable. We went to Mantua. We exhorted all Christendom to arm against the Turks and not allow the enemies of the Faith to advance further against Christians. The Venetians Spurned our exhortations. Almost everyone else also Spurned them to the great detriment of the Christian religion. Now the Venetians have changed their minds. They have listened to our Legate and declared Open war upon the Turks. They have equipped a great fleet and put fear into the enemy. They ask help from us, having no doubt that they are not a match for their foe. We urged the Venetians to wage war in defense of religion. They have obeyed. Now when they ask aid shall we refuse? Who that bears of this will approve it? God may put it into the hearts of the enemies of the life-giving Cross to abandon their brethren in time of war. we may not for any reason withhold aid from those who are fighting for the Holy GOSpel. You will say that the Venetians have been brought into this war not by any desire to defend the Faith but by greed for power; that they were seeking the Peloponnese not Jesus. So be it. It is enough for us that Venice conquers, Christ will conquer. The victory of the Turks means the overthrow 185 Of the Gospel, which we are bound to try with all our might to prevent. You have asserted that if the Turks and Venetians fight each other, both will collapse, assuming that the re- sources of the Turks are no greater than those of the Venetians. You are mistaken. Venice is far inferior to the Turks, though her fleet is judged to be superior. It can harass the islands and coast towns. It can do very little in the Mediterranean. But if the Turkish captains should lead land armies against the shores of Dalmatia, as they seem to have planned, they could finally make it impossible for the Venetians to man their fleet, since they get their rowers and naval allies from Dal- matia. It is not so easy to get control of the land as of the sea. History tells us that the Rhodians and various other peoples whose power on land was very Slight once ruled the sea. But to those who have had broad dominions on land the neighbor- ing seas have usually been Open. We must not think then that the Turkish empire, which is far flung in EurOpe and in Asia can be wiped out by the Vene- tians even though they range the seas at will; since if they must fight on land they cannot match armies with armies, being as they are so inferior in numbers and strength of cavalry and infantry. If they are not aided by us and other loyal Chris- tians they will soon break down to the disgrace and ruin of our religion. It costs a great deal to maintain a large fleet in the east and it cannot be done for long. But if the fleet is withdrawn, everything that has been won there must at once go over to the enemy whose army will be on hand, unless indeed the Turks are compelled to move out of Europe. There is very little in Greece that the Venetians can take or keep. Your plan therefore is not advantageous, since it neither saves the Venetians nor destroys the Turks. But if the Venetians are destroyed it will be vain to think of saving Italy. They have engaged in a great and perilous war in which their defeat would mean the destruction of the Christian religion. They must receive aid in their difficulties. They must have added strength and reinforcement of troops and we must make every effort that they may not be forced to yield to the enemy. The war is our common war. We must put forth all our energy to win it. We for our part together with Philip, Duke of Bur- gundy, shall not fail the Venetians. we will join fleet to fleet and make all the coast cities hostile to the Turks. In the other direction Mathias, King Of Hungary, will harry Upper Moesia, Macedonia, and the neighboring districts with a land army. It will be hard for'Mahomet, who has powerful enemies in Asia too, to resist on all fronts at once. He will, in our Opinion, be conquered and utterly driven out of Europe unless a just and merciful God, offended by our iniquities, judges otherwise - which may Heaven forbid! - concerning His people. 186 Nor do we think that on this account the Venetians are going to put a yoke on Italy when they have triumphed over the Turks. Not all the Turkish possessions in Europe will be theirs. Peloponnese will fall to them and perhaps Boeotia and Attica and numerous maritime districts of Acarnania and Epirus. In Macedonia Georg Scanderberg will claim the chief role. In other parts Of Greece there will be no lack of Greek nobles to seize the power when the Turks are expelled and they will have to be allowed their independence. The other regions bordering on the Danube (namely Bulgaria, which used to be called Lower Moesia, and Rascia, once called Upper Moesia, and Serbia and Bosnia; and beyond the Danube wallachia in Sarmatian, or as some say Scythian, territory, called Dacia by the ancients) right up to the Euxine will all come into the hands of the Hun- garians to whom they once belonged. NO one will profit more by the defeat and expulsion of the Turks than the Hungarians who will be far more powerful than the Venetians. With added wealth and power they will demand Dalmatia of the Venetians. It will be refused. war will then break out between them which will free Italy at long last from the tyranny of the Venetians. Meantime one hope after another will Spring up. Now the Hun- garians and the Venetians are allies against a common foe whom they fear more, and nothing is said about the Dalmation quarrel which will be stirred up again the minute the fear of the Turk is dispelled. There is no occasion for our being so frightened about Italy and we need not fear the precedent set by the Romans. The Venetian character is very different from the Roman. we Shall see many snows before the Venetians bridle Italy. But un- less we put up strong resistance to the Turks, it will not be long before both the Hungarians and the Venetians give way and then our liberty too is doomed. We must meet the immediate dan- ger that threatens us from the Turks. About the Venetians we will plan at the proper time if necessary and we shall not fail to find potent remedies. We have been taught from boyhood that the Florentines are shrewd men and foresee events far ahead and this is your pro- phecy about the Venetians, but it is a strange phenomenon in- deed that those who foresee distant events should be unable to see those near at hand. To buildings already in flames you bring no water but you are in a hurry tO plan for those that may someday catch fire. You resent any increase of Venetian power in Greece and do your best to cause it to grow greater and greater, when by rejecting a military alliance you leave to the Venetians spoils that might have been yours. This is not good sense. Your state will act more wisely if it equips the best fleet it can, joins us and goes after a share of the plunder of the east. In this way it will have regard to both honor and expediency. But if the Florentines stay idly at home while the Pope goes to war and all the rest of Italy rushes to arms, the city's name will be dishonored. God Him- self will be angry with it and no one will blame the Venetians 187 when they march against you or will come to your aid. You will experience God's righteous judgment and you who have abandoned Christians in their peril in war against the Turks will your- selves in your hour of need be deserted by all.21 INVENTION The substance of the speech of Pius to the Florentines is worthy of note. It is unquestionably the most polemical of the Speeches uttered by Pius. He introduced his venom in the following: If we were in your position and neither in holy orders nor honored with the vicariate of Jesus Christ we Should perhaps feel as you do and should succumb to your specious reasoning. But the mind of a prince is not that of a private individual, nor the spirit of ecclesiastics that of the laity. MBny things are tolerated in the people which no one would listen to in the clergy. Sins venial in the populace are held to be mortal in a priest. The princes of this world and governors of cities care not by what means soever they protect their power so long as they protect it, and therefore they Often violate the law of nations and act contrary to honorable practises. In the introduction which Pius develops further, he seeks to establish two basic objectives: (1) that the aggressive character- istics of Venice, when devoted to a noble cause such as the Turkish Crusade, are justified; (2) that Florence is as guilty Of the "crimes" which they accuse Venice of practicing. Venice, contrary to Flo- rence, has not withheld the support necessary to make the crusade possible. Pius admits that religion does not animate the Venetian aspirations, yet they are supporting the Crusade, and this is what matters the most. The forthright honesty with which Pius pursues his subject is refreshing, particularly in view of the fact that the Florentines 21Mansi, op. cit., III, 103-112. Commentaries, Op. cit., pp. 336-344. 188 are so supercilious in their negotiations with Pius. He criticizes the sham which characterized the diplomacy of the Florentines to this point. In his own words: "If their own state is safe they will let the Christian state go to ruin." The fact that the F10- rentine state was not safe suggests their insistence that the entire Turkish venture be cancelled. Pius compares the Papal State with the republic of Florence: If they neglect religion and the faith although they are guilty Of a heinous crime before God yet they keep their place among men. But if we are in the least remiss in anything con- cerning the Faith we are at once torn to pieces by the cries of all Christendom. 'See,' they say, 'is it becoming that Christ's Vicar should thus postpone the defense of the faith' In a pope no fault is so small that the nations do not think it enormous. They expect him to be an angel not a man. Pius is correct in his basic assumption that the Holy Father is sub- ject to lapses with respect to the commonweal. He incorrectly com- pared two elements which cannot be compared -- monarchs, who rule for the good of the state irreSpective of moralistic consideration; and popes, who are bound to the moralistic directives Of the Catholic Canon Law, Holy Scripture, and tradition. The "ought" for rulers is the imperative "must" for pontiffs. At any rate, Pius has used this as ample proof that even pontiffs rarely please all the people. The Venetians may regard Papal action in the Turkish Crusade as courageous and gallant; the Florentines may regard the same action as impetuous and foolhardy. Pius a3eaks to the divergent views by suggesting that the Holy Father must use his own powers of leadership in consultation with Divine directive in pursuing a course of action. The preceding suggests the importance of ethical appeal to the Holy Father. 189 The next section in the address involves the admission of Pius that the Venetians are in the Turkish venture for money and not religion. Listen then to our words, Otto, words though not of an angel at least of a cleric and one raised above the common lot of mankind. [note ethical appeal] We admit that the Venetians, as is the way of men, covet more than they have; that they aim at the dominion of Italy and all but dare to aspire to the mastery of the world. But if the Florentines Should become the equals of the Venetians in power, they would also have an equal ambition for empire. It is a common fault that no one is satisfied with his lot. At this point, the logical appeal of Pius turns to the comparison of the Turk with the Venetian. He asks in rhetorical form whether the Florentines would rather have the Turk as overlord or the Vene- tian. He portrays Turkish rule as abominable: they deny the vali- dity of the sacraments, they inhibit freedom of religion, and they reduce conquered peoples to slavery. In pointed language Pius ob- serves: "Your plan is neither expedient nor honorable." The use of historical detail within the context of the speeches of Pius is pronounced. Historical detail adds support to the logi- cal and ethical appeals evident throughout the speech. Thus, Pius returns to the question of precedent: we went to Mantua. We exhorted all Christendom to arm against the Turks and not allow the enemies of the Faith to advance further against Christians. The Venetians spurned our exhortations. Almost everyone else also Spurned them -- to the great detriment of the Christian religion. Now the Venetians have changed their minds. They have listened to our Legate and declared Open war on the Turks. They have equipped a great fleet and put fear into the enemy. At this point the logical thought of Pius seems to follow a rather rigid course: The Venetians, who previously refused participation in the Crusade, have launched out against the enemy. They now 190 petition for help from the Holy Father who is primarily interested in the Crusade and not its politics. Because they battle in defense of Christian principles, they must be assisted. "We may not for any reason withhold aid from those who are fighting for the Holy Gospel." Pius continues his logical appeal by admitting for the second time the reason which brings the Venetians into the Crusade: "You will say that the Venetians have been brought into this war not by any desire to defend the faith but by greed for power; that they were seeking the Peloponnese not Jesus. So be it. It is enough for us that Venice conquers, Christ will conquer." Pius is speaking from the depths of religious devotion; he does not see the political and economic nuances which the Florentines envision. Pius is the protector of the Holy See, not a Florentine banker. The Florentines have suggested that both Venice and the Turk would exhaust each other if aid were withheld. To this Pius replies in the negative. He calculates that Venice is far inferior to the Ottoman Empire. Again, his logos is correct: Venice is far inferior to the Turks, though her fleet is judged to be SUperior. It can harass the islands and coast towns. It can do very little in the Mediterranean. But if the Turkish captains should lead land armies against the shores of Dalmatia, as they seem to have planned, they could finally make it impossible for the Venetians to man their fleet, since they get their rowers and naval allies from Dalmatia. It is not so easy to get control of the land as of the sea. History tells us that the Rhodians and various peoples whose power on land was very slight once ruled the sea. But to those who have broad dominions on land the neighboring seas have usually been Open. Pius has correctly noted that the Ottoman Empire has the advantage: they have better infantrymen than the Venetians, and sea warfare is 191 secondary to the vital test of battle which is combat. Pius turns now to the practical evaluation of the question: can a city-state comparable to the size Of Venice expect to subdue an empire. The Florentines either under-estimated the capacity of the Turk to wage war or, they over-estimated the potential of the Vene- tians to win war. "If they are not aided by us and other loyal Christians they will soon break down to the dngrace and ruin of our religion." This is the ignominious conclusion to the first portion of the address of Pius. The ignominy is in the odious plan forwarded by the money-minded Florentines. Your plan . . . is not advantageous, since it neither saves the Venetians nor destroys the Turks. But if the Venetians are destroyed it will be vain to think of saving Italy. They have engaged in a great and perilous war in which their defeat would mean the destruction of the Christian religion. In essence, Pius has dealt a deathly blow to the Florentine proposal. He asserts his belief that the crusade must continue and that the Holy See will join with Philip, Duke Of Burgundy, and Mathias, King of Hungary in aiding the Venetians in their moment of peril. In referring to Mahomet the Conqueror he Observes: "It will be hard for Mahomet, who has powerful enemies in Asia too, to resist on all fronts at once. He will, in our Opinion, be conquered and utterly driven out of Europe unless a just and merciful God, offended by our iniquities, judges otherwise . . ." Pius believes firmly that in the ultimate victory over the Turk, Venice will not turn to subdue Italy. Nor do we think on this account the Venetians are going to put a yoke on Italy when they have triumphed over the Turks. Not all the Turkish possessions in Europe will be theirs. Pelo- ponnese will fall to them and perhaps Boeotia and Attica and 192 numerous maritime districts of Acarnania and Epirus. Then Pius proceeds to suggest that the real victor will be Hungary and not Venice. They will receive Dalmatia and thereby expand south- ward toward Venice. Because Venice owns Dalmatia, the war which will break between Venice and Hungary (after the Turk is subdued) will prevent any immediate Venetian designs upon Italy. We shall see many snows before the Venetians bridle Italy. But unless we put up strong resistance to the Turks, it will not be long before both the Hungarians and the Venetians give way and then our liberty tOO is doomed. we must meet the imme- diate danger that threatens us from the Turks. About the Vene- tians we will plan at the proper time if necessary and we shall not fail to find potent remedies. The conclusion to this Speech is most interesting. It appears to be in the form of a reprimand: We have been taught from boyhood that the Florentines are shrewd men and foresee events far ahead and this is your pro- phecy about the Venetians, but it is a strange phenomenon in- deed that those who see distant events should be unable to see those near at hand. To buildings already in flames you bring no water but you are in a hurry to plan for those that may someday catch fire . . . Your state will act more wisely if it equips the best fleet it can joins us and goes after a share of the plunder of the east.22 ARRANGEMENT The structure of this discourse is decidedly Ciceronian. From the exordium, which is a direct statement to the Florentine pro- posal, to the peroration, the rigid organization Of the address is evident. Perhaps the most interesting element in the structure of the Speech is the remarkable use of transitions. 229E, Niccolo Machiavelli, History p£_Florence, trans. H. A. Rennert, (London: Dunne, 1901), pp. 327-342. 193 The exordium begins with a reprimand: "If we were in your position . . . we should succumb to your specious reasoning." Thus, in the exordium Pius indicts the Florentine prOposal as being spe- cious in logical construction. His transition from the exordium to the narratio is constructed to give added prestige to the Holy See: "But the mind of a prince is not that of a private individual nor the spirit Of ecclesiastics that of the laity." Throughout the narratio the contrasts between a prince and a private individual are indicated; these contrasts suggest that the Holy See must be perfect, though private individuals may err in their dealings with people. In a direct statement to Otto, Pius exhorts him to follow the Vicar of Christ: "Listen then to our words, Otto, words though not of an angel at least of a cleric and one raised above the common lot of mankind." This statement introduces the confutatio. Three elements pertaining to the confutatio are evident: (l) Pius admits that the Venetians are in the crusade for financial reasons; (2) he recounts the successes of the Turk; (3) he reviews the strength of Christen— dom. In view of these, Pius is lead to the following conclusions: (1) that Venetian aid is more important than the reasons for which the aid is given; (2) that the Turkish advance must be thwarted at all costs; (3) that thwarting the Turk will take more than Venetian military strength: "We must not then think that the Turkish empire . . . can be wiped out by the Venetians . . ." That the Turkish empire can be wiped out by a united offensive from all Christendom is indicated by Pius throughout the confimatio. He observes that a united offensive under the Holy See will defeat Mahomet with little difficulty: 194 We will join fleet to fleet and make all the coast cities hostile to the Turks. . . It will be hard for Mahomet, who has powerful enemies in Asia too, to resist on all fronts at once. He will, in our Opinion, be conquered and utterly driven out of Europe . . . In the conclusio and the peroratio, Pius returns to the original "Venetian threat" suggested by the Florentines in their proposal. In the conclusio he summarizes the reaa)ns for believing that the "Venetian threat" was contrived by the jealous Florentines. In the words of Pius: "We must meet the immediate danger that threatens us from the Turks.’ The peroratio, like the exordium, is abundant in its reprimands: "To buildings already in flames you bring no water . . ." "You resent . . . the Venetian power." The Florentines are cautioned by Pius from pursuing the policy recommended in the proposal: "This is not good sense. Your State will act more wisely if it equips the best fleet it can . . ." STYLE Four elements characterize the style of Pius in this speech: (1) the polemical approach is used to indicate the impracticality Of the proposal; (2) illustrative details are introduced to portray the Florentine proposal as a document conceived in jealous rage; (3) the Florentines are described as the only delegation not sup- porting the cause of Christendom; (4) the Holy See is represented as the defender of the cause Of Christ. DELIVERY None Of the sources on Pius suggests anything that would assist in analyzing the delivery Of the speech. Even the Commentaries 195 ignore factors pertaining to the delivery of this Speech. REACTION OR EFFECT The jealousy of Florence toward Venice was too pronounced; it could not be diminished by one Speech regardless how eloquent or logical that speech might be. Thus, the Florentines suggested overt Opposition to the crusade in public statements and letters published throughout Europe. As Pastor notes: Hatred of Venice was so deeply rooted in the City that the tidings of disaster which came from Greece were joyfully wel- comed. A Florentine chronicler even declared that his country- men handed over to the Sultan intercepted letters from the Vene- tians, explaining the plans Of the Signoria.23 HISTORICAL SUMMARY Pius experienced a series Of setbacks from 1463 to 1464. These contributed to his death and the eventual collapse of the crusade. First, Philip of Burgundy delayed his participation in the crusade because the king Of France (who was the overlord Of Philip) and Pius had a quarrel on the feasibility of the crusade; in respect to Louis XI, Philip retreated from the Turkish venture. Pestilence in Venice made it difficult for the Venetians to launch an offen- sive. The College of Cardinals, in view of the difficulties which developed, urged Pius to cancel his plans. Diplomats from Milan, Venice, Burgundy, and France tried to persuade Pius from launching a crusade that would surely end in defeat. Pius refused. As Heineman observes: 23Pastor, op. cit., 314; Voigt, Op. cit., III, 711. Cf. also a letter from Nicodemus to Fr. Sforza, dated 1464, June 13, Flo- rence. State Archives, Milan. 196 It might have been thought that the failure of so many efforts, and the disappointment of so many hopes, would have been enough to cool the zeal of the most ardent soul, and to wear out the patience of the most constant mind. But it was not so with Pius II. As difficulties multiplied, his un- wearied diligence kept pace with them, and in proportion to the disregard of his exhortations, his voice grew louder and his tones more penetrating.24 On the 18th of June, 1464, Pope Pius stated that "it was abso- lutely necessary that he should set forth himself, in Spite of his age and failing strength." After a brief ceremony, Pius left Rome. As he departed he exclaimed: "Farewell, Rome! Never will you see me again alive." By August 11th, Pius had reached Ancona where he was joined by the Venetian fleet. Upon his arrival he found no Venetian ships and only a handful of crusaders. Three days after his arrival at Ancona, Pius was dead. With his death came the col- lapse of the Turkish crusade. Pastor notes that the eloquence of the Holy Father was evident even on his death-bed. In his words: He gathered up his failing powers once more to impress upon their minds the holy work to which he had devoted his life. 'My well-beloved Brethren,‘ he said in his gentle and often‘ broken voice, 'my hour is drawing near: God calls me. I die in the Catholic Faith in which I have lived. Up to this day I have taken care of the sheep committed to me, and have shrunk from no danger or toil. You must now complete what I have begun but am not able to finish. Labour therefore in God's work, and do not cease to care for the cause of the Christian Faith, for this is your vocation in the Church. Be mindful of your duty, be mindful of your Redeemer, who sees all, and rewards every one according to his deserts. Guard the States of the Church also, that they may suffer no harm. Beloved Brethren, as Cardinal and as Pope I have committed many faults in my dealings with you. I have offended God, I have wounded Christian charity. For those offences may the Almighty have mercy on me; for that in which I have failed towards you, for- 24V. Heineman, Aeneas Sylvius, (Berlin, 1855), p. 24. 197 give me, beloved brethren, now, in the presence of death. commend to you my kindred, and those who have served me, they prove worthy. Farewell, Brethren! and heavenly grace be with you.‘25 I if May the peace of God ZSPastor, o . cit., III, 369. .lL_____ VI. CONCLUSIONS There are two worlds represented throughout this study, the world of Renaissance secularism as seen in Aeneas Sylvius, and the world of Papal policy as seen in POpe Pius II. The factors which molded both perspectives are basic to the oratory and the rhetorical theories of the Piccolomini who became Pope. The world of Aeneas Sylvius as represented in this Study would suggest the following conclusions: (1) it was a world of transition from the ecclesiastical bases which had governed the late Middle Ages to the emerging secularism of the early Renaissance; (2) it was a world of complex political developments throughout Europe; (3) it was a world of commerce and industry as represented by the dominance of the Florentine banking enterprises and Venetian commercial exploits. In summary, the world of Aeneas Sylvius presents a curious blend of [nalitics and religion, war and peace, education and ignorance. {The world of Pope Pius II differed from that of Aeneas Sylvius because of the divergent perSpectives which evolved from the secularism of the latter to the universalism of the former. AS Holy Father, Pius was expected to protect the Holy See from the rising Turkish menace. His eloquence was marshalled to advance the cause Of the Turkish ven- ture. The Significant fact for the present study is not that Pius failed in his Turkish venture, but that he secured for the Papacy a position of strength. As Wallace K. Ferguson notes: 198 199 After their final triumph over the Conciliar Movement in mid-century, the popes were able to restore the theory of papal monarchy within the Church and to centralize still further their fiscal and administrative bureaucracy . . . Having thus adjusted their relations with the major secular states, the popes of the second half of the fifteenth century concentrated their atten- tion on the political problems arising from their position as Italian princes.1 The rhetorical theories of Aeneas Sylvius which are studied in the third chapter are part of the Renaissance disciplines of educa- tion. His theories have decisive borrowings from classical Roman rhetoric and are a product of the fifteenth century discovery of Quintilian. Qg_Liberorum Educatione is a useful guide to the rhetori- cal theories of the early Renaissance. Its lack of originality does not detract from its value. Like much of the literature of the early Renaissance, it was a composite of the "veneration of antiquity" and the emergence of literary individualism. The Speeches studied in this thesis are the unique products of a man who taught and practiced rhetorical excellence. These Speeches represent the historical perSpective of which Aeneas Sylvius or Pope Pius was a part. The conclusions to this study are fourfold: (1) In spite of the emergence of humanism, the investigation of rhetorical theory remained of secondary importance. (2) Although Aeneas Sylvius knew the intricacies of persuasion as a humanist, he failed to per- suade Christendom on the most significant program of his pontificate after he became POpe. This does not suggest that he failed as a Speaker; it means that his audiences were not receptive to the signi- 1Wallace K. Ferguson, Europe ip_Transition, 1300-1520, (New York: Houghton-Mifflin, 1962), p. 452. 200 ficance of the Turkish peril. Three generations after his death, his predictions were actualized: the Turk became firmly entrenched in eastern Europe; Venice lost her supremacy as master Of the'Medi- terranean Sea; the intensification Of the Turkish domination in the Near East necessitated a commercial and political realignment in Europe.2 It would be correct to conclude that the priority which Pius gave to the Turkish Question was well-founded in Spite of the fact that few believed in the urgency Of this priority. (3) The rhetorical theories of Aeneas Sylvius are part of the tradition of rhetoric from Quintilian to the Renaissance. (4) The Speeches of Aeneas Sylvius lend themselves to the rhetorical categories of invention, arrangement, style, and delivery. Although it is diffi- cult to suggest specific similarities between the theories of rhe- toric propounded by Aeneas Sylvius and his practice, there are general areas which would suggest that he did practice what he taught. The following general areas are indicated: his use Of classical quota— tions for the purpose of supporting an argument; his clear arrange- ment of materials generally according to the Ciceronian order; his use of imagery in the development of an idea; his use of Eghpg, pathos, and lpgp§_-- these general areas are part of the rhetorical practice of Aeneas Sylvius even after he became POpe. Throughout this study, the present author became increasingly aware of the neglect of scholarship in Renaissance rhetorical prac— tice. The Renaissance could become a most significant area of 21bid., p. 479. 201 scholarship, particularly in View of the fact that in this period, the treatises of Cicero and Quintilian were being rediscovered. Far from being barren in terms of rhetorical criticism, the Renaissance does afford the names of humanists, scholars, and public orators for future examination. As Burckhardt notes: The growing Study of Cicero's speeches and theoretical writings of Quintilian and of the imperial panegyrists, the appearance of new and original treatises, the general progress of antiquarian learning, and the stores Of ancient matter and thought which now could and must be drawn from -- all combined to shape the character of the new eloquence.3 3Burckhardt, op. cit., p. 142. A SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY Primary Books Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologicae. Translated by Daniel F. Sullivan. New York, 1952. Aristotle, The Rhetoric. Translated by w. Rhys Robert. New York: Random House, 1954. Cassiodorus. Institutiones. Translated by R. A. B. Mynors. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1937. Cusa, Nicholas. 22 Docta Ignorantia. Translated by J. B. Ross. New York, 1958. Piccolomini, Aeneas Sylvius. 2E_Liberorum Educatione. Translated by Brother Joel S. Nelson. washington, D. 0.: Catholic University Press, 1940. . History pf_BOhemia. Translated by C. E. Maurice. Basle, 1918. Pius II. The Commentaries of Pius II. Translated by Florence A. Gragg. New York: G. P. Putnam, 1959. . Pii II_P.'M. Olim Aeneae Sylvii Piccolomini Senensis Ora- tiones Politicae g£_ecclesiasticae. Edited by J. D. Mansi. 3 Vols. Lucca, 1755. Secondary Books Ady, Cecilia M. Pius I}, London, 1913. Argegni, C. Condottiere. Rome: Tosi, 1946. Artz, Frederick B. The Mind p£_tha‘Middle Ages. New York: Alfred Knopf, 1962 o 203 ‘11.! .l' 5.17 I‘lll‘ Auerbach, Erich. Romance Languages and Literature. New York: Norton, 1961. Baldwin, Charles S. 'Medieval Rhetoric and Poetic. Gloucester, Mass.: Peter Smith, 1959. . Renaissance Literary Theory and Practise. New York: Columbia University Press, 1939. Baron, Hans. The Crisis pf the Early Italian Renaissance: Civic Humanism and Republican Liberty ip_§p_Age p£_C1assicism and Tyranny. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1955. . The Humanistic and Political Literature ip Florence and Venice. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1955. Bayley, C. C. War and Society 12 Renaissance Florence. Toronto: University Press, 1963. Bloch, Marc. Feudal Society. Translated by L. A. Manyon. Chicago: University Press, 1961. Boulting, William. Aeneas Sylvius: Orator, Man pf_Letters, Statesman, POpe. London, 1908. Brehaut, Ernest. Ap_Encyclopaedist pf the Dark Ages. New York: Columbia University Press, 1912. Bossenbrook, William J. The German Mind. Detroit: wayne State University Press, 1961. Brooks, Van wyk. John Addington Symonds: A_Biographical Study. New York, 1914. Browning, Oscar. The Age f the Condottiere. London. Methuen, 1895. Brucker, G. A. Florentine Politics and Society, 1343-1378. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1962. Bryant, Donald.(ed.). The Rhetorical Idiom. Ithaca: Cornell Uni- versity Press, 1956. Buonanni, Scipione. Orazione Funebrale. Rome: Maacardo, 1613. Burckhardt, Jacob. The Civilization pf the Renaissance ip_Italy. Translated by S. C. G. Middlemore. New York: Random House, 1954. Burdach, Konrad. Deutsche Renaissance: Betrachtung uber unsere kunftige Bildung, Berlin, 1920. 204 fifiag n Burdach, Konrad. (ed.). Vom Mittelalter zur Reformation, Forschungen zur Geschichte der deutschen Bildung. 6 vols. Berlin, 1912-39. Cassirer, Ernst, et. al. The Renaissance Philosophy pf Man. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1956. . Individuo §_Cosmo. Italy, 1927. Clark, Donald L. Rhetoric ip_Graeco-Roman Education. New York: Columbia University Press, 1955. Cotterill, H. B. Italy from Dante £2_Tasso. London: Harrap, 1918. Creighton, M. A_History p£_the Papacy from the Great Schism £2 the Sack pf Rome. 6 Vols. New York: Longmans, Green, 1897. Curtius, Ernst Robert. European Literature and the Latin Middle Ages. New York: Harper, 1963. Elton, G. R. Renaissance and Reformation. New York: The Macmillan CO., 1963. Ferguson, wallace K. Europe 13 Transition, 1300-1520. New York: Houghton-Mifflin, 1962. . The Renaissance ip_Historical Thought. New York: Houghton- Mifflin, 1948. Galletti, Alfredo. L'Eloquenza. iMilan: Corticelli, 1904. Gentile, Giovanni. I_Problem della scolastica g_il_pensiero Italiano. Bari, 1912. Gilmore, Myron P. The WOrld p£_Humanism. New York: Harper, 1952. Gregorovius, F. History pf_the City pf Rome 13 the Middle Ages. Translated by A. Hamilton. 7 Vols. London, 1894-1900. Grillo, Giacomo. Poets at the Court Of Ferrara. Boston, 1943. Grunebaum, 6. ‘Medieval Islam p£_A_Study ip_Cu1tura1 Orientation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1946. Haskins, Charles H. The Renaissance p£_the 12th Centuyy, New York: Harper, 1963. Heer, Friederick. The Medieval WOrld. Translated by the author. London: weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1962. Heineman, V. Aeneas Sylvius. Berlin, 1855. Hutton, Edward. Sigismondo Pandolfo Malatesta: Lord p£_Rimini. London: J. M. Dent, 1906. 205 Huizinga, Johann. Men and Ideas. New York: Meridian Books, 1959. . The Waning 2f the Middle Ages. London: Arnold, 1948. Hyma, Albert A. Renaissance £2 Reformation. Grand Rapids: Erdmans, 1951. Jacobs, E. K. Essays ip_the Conciliar Epoch. Manchester: University of Manchester Press, 1953. Kennedy, George. The Art Lf Persuasion in Greece. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1963. Kristeller, Paul O. Renaissance Thought: The Classic, Scholastic, and Humanist Strains. New York: Harper, 1961. Landon, Edward H. A Manual of Councils Of the Holy Catholic Church. London: Rivington, 1846. Machiavelli, Niccolo, History g£_Florence. Translated by H. A. Rennert. London: Dunne, 1961. Madden, Marie R. Political Theogy and LaW'ip,Medieval Spain. New York: Fordham University Press, 1933. Manetti, Gianozzo. Dg_Dignitate Hominis. Basel: 1532. Marriott, J. A. R. The Eastern Question. Oxford: University Press, 1940. Medieval and Historiogr_phical Essays in Honor Lf James Westfall Thompson. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press, 1938. pp. 269-301. Momigliano, Arnaldo. Cassiodorus and Italian Culture gngis Time. London, 1955. Mundy, John H. (ed.). The Unification pf the Church. New York: Columbia University Press, 1961. Olschki, Leonardo. The Genius p£_ltaly. New York: Oxford University Press, 1949. Pare, G. et. al. La Renaissance Lu XII g_Siec1e: Les Ecoles pp L'Enseiggement. Ottowa,1933. Pasquazi, Silvio. Rinascimento Ferrarese. Caltanissetta: Sciescia, 1957. Pastor, Ludwig. History pf the Popes. Translated by F. I. Antrobus. 37 Vols. St. Louis: Herder, 1923. 206 Burdach, K. "Sinn und UrSprung der WOrte Renaissance und Reformation," Sitzungsberichte der preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Jahrgang 1910, pp. 594-646. "Die seelischen und geistigen Quellen der Renaissancebewe- gung," Historische Zeitschrift, CXLIX (1933—34), 477-521. Burr, G. L. "How the Middle Ages Got Their Name," American Historical Review, xx (1914-15), 813-15. Caplan, Harry. "Henry of Hesse on the Art of Preaching," Publications of the Modern Language Association, XLVIII, (1933), 340-61. . "Rhetorical Invention in Some Medieval Tractates on Preaching," Speculum, II (1927), 284-295. Durand, D. B. and Baron, H., "Tradition and Innovation in the Fif- teenth Century Renaissance," Journal of the History gf_Ideas, IV (1943), 1-49. Figgis, J. Neville. "Politics at the Council of Constance," Trans- actions 9£_the Royal Historical Society, XIII, pp. 103-115. Gebhart, E. "La renaissance italienne et la philosophie de 1'histoire," Revue des deux mondes, LXXII (1885), 342-79. Gentile, G. "Umanesimo e Rinascimento," Rivista di culture, I (1920), 145 '57 0 Gilbert, F. "Political Thought of the Renaissance and Reformation," The Huntington Library Quarterly, IV (1941), 443-68. Goetz, W. "Mittelalter und Renaissance," Historische Zeitschrift, XCVIII (1907), 30-54. Gordon, G. D. Medium Aevum and the Middle Ages, S. P. E. Tract, No. XIX (1925). Jacob, E. F. "The Fifteenth Century: Some Recent Interpretations," Bulletin g£_the John Rylands Library, XIV (1930), 386-409. . "Changing Views of the Renaissance," History, N. S. XVI (1931-32), 214-29. Koht, H. "Le Probleme der Origines de la Renaissance," Revue d2. Synthese Historique, XXXVII, (1924), 107-16. Kristeller, P. O. and Randall, J. H. "The Study of the PhiloSOphies of the Renaissance," Journal 2£_the History g£_Ideas, II (1941), 449-96. Kunstmann, J. G. "German Literature,‘Modern Language Quarterly, II (1941), 421-38. 207 Rashdall, Hastings. iMedieval Universities. 3 Vols. Oxford: University Press, 1936. Schevill, Ferdinand. 'Medieval and Renaissance Florence. New York: Harper, 1961. Sismondi, J. C. L. History p£_the Italian Republics. Translated by William Boulting. London, 1920. Strayer, Joseph R. and Dana C. Munro. The Middle Ages. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1959. Symonds, J. A. The Revival p£_Learning. New York: G. P. Putnam, 1960. Thompson, James W. Ag_Introduction Ep_M£dieval EurOpe. New York: Norton, 1937. Thomson, S. Harrison. Europe ip_Renaissance and Reformation. New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1963. Thonssen, Lester and A. Craig Baird. Speech Criticism. New York: Ronald Press, 1948. Tierney: Foundations of the Conciliar Theo_y. Cambridge, Eng.: University Press, 1955. Toffanin, Giuseppe. History p£_Humanism. New York, 1954. Valois, Noel. Lg_Pope g£_lg_Concile. Paris, 1909. West, A. F. Alcuin and the Rise pf the Christian Schools. New York: Charles Scribners, 1892. Woltmann, Ludwig. Die Germanen und die Renaissance ip_Italien. Leipzig, 1936. WOOdward, William H. Vittorino d3 Feltre and other Humanist Educators. Cambridge, Eng.: University Press, 1897. wylie, James H. The Council of Constance to the Death of John Huss. New York: Longmans, Green, 1900. Articles and Periodicals Allen, D. C., "Latin Literature," Modern Language Quarterly, II (1941), 403‘20 o Baron, Hans. "Cicero and the Roman Civic Spirit in the Middle Ages and Early Renaissance," in Bulletin p£_the John Rylands Library at Manchester, XXII (1938), 72-74. 208 Langlois, V. "1'Eloquence Sacree au Moyen Age," in Revue des Deux Mondes, No. 115 (1893). Lockwood, D. P. and Bainton, R. H. "Classical and Biblical Scholar- ship in the Age of the Renaissance and Reformation," Church History, X (1941), 3-21. Luzzatto, G. "The Study of Medieval Economic History in Italy: Recent Literature and Tendencies," Journal pf Economic and Business Histogy, IV (1931-32), 708-27. McKeon, Richard. "Rhetoric in the Middle Ages," Speculum, XVII (Jan. 1942), 12-13. Mommsen, T. "Petrarch's Conception of the 'Dark Ages'," Speculum, XVII (1942), 226-42. Nelson, N. "Individualism as a Criterion of the Renaissance," The Journal of English and Germanic Philology, XXXII (1933), 316-34. Nussbaum, F. L. "The Economic History of Renaissance EurOpe; Problems and Solutions during the Past Generation," Journal pf_Modern History, XIII (1941), 527-45. Panofsky, E. "Renaissance and Renascences," Kenyon Review, VI (1944), 201-36. Seton, K. E. "Some Recent Views of the Italian Renaissance," Report pf the Annual Meeting pf the Canadian Historical Association, 1947, pp. 5-34. Thorndike, L. "Renaissance or Prenaissance?," Journal pf the History pf Ideas, IV (1943), 65-74. Turbeville, A. S. "Changing Views of the Renaissance," History, N. S. XVI (1931-32), 289-97. Tuve, R. "A Critical Survey of Scholarship in the Field of English Literature of the Renaissance," Studies ip_Philology, XL (1943), 204 '55 o Volpe, G. "La Rinascenza in Italia e 1e sue origini," in his Momenti di_storia italiana (Florence, 1925), pp. 95-127. Weisinger, H. "Renaissance Theories of the Revival of the Fine Arts," Italica, XX (1943), 163-70. "The Self-Awareness of the Renaissance as a Criterion of the Renaissance," Papers pf_the‘Michigan Academy pf Science, Arts, and Literature, XXIX (1944), 561-67. 209 Weisinger, H. "Who Began the Revival of Learning? The Renaissance Point of View," Ibid. XXX (1944), 625-38. . "The Renaissance Theory of the Reaction against the Middle Ages as a Cause of the Renaissance," Speculum, XX (1945), 461-67. Wilkinson, W.'W. J. "The Meaning of the Renaissance," Thought, XVI (1941), 444-56. Unpublished Material Abelson, F. "The Seven Liberal Arts: A Study in Medieval Culture," Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Columbia University, New York, 1906. Clark, V. S. "Studies in the Latin of the Middle Ages and Renaissance." Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Columbia University, New York, 1900. LaRusso, Dominic A. "Rhetoric and the Social Order in Italy 1450- 1600." Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, 1956. McBurney, James H. "The Place of the Enthymeme in Rhetorical Theory." Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1936. 210 A x ‘a_ . 1' 4 .- U , ,_ u l ' P 1 , A .1 hi"%' .th 1;}. fkei f I A v 11"«15-‘1‘1': .. WA ‘ , “.4; J .- - ~‘ '7‘. ’1‘. Fa- , fin-iammimmfl ‘1‘