The name is absent

REVIVAL OE LEARNING IN ITALY.

what was well known, and this they treated with care, but they
were unconcerned about that which was not known. These
facts account for all the frailties of the middle ages. Had not
the glossatores been in the same predicament, they might have
obtained very different sources, from which they might have
explained the laws of Justinian just as well as we do. I ven-
ture to assert, that no direct quotations from Livy are to be
found after the time of Priscian, not even from those books of
Livy which have come down to our time. Johannes Sarisbe-
riensis alone forms an exception, but even he refers only to the
books which are still extant. Those books of Livy which are
now lost were probably never read by any one during the whole
of the middle ages, except perhaps by some grammarians in
Italy. In the fourteenth century, however, a new zeal arose
among the Italians, and people again began to read Livy, as
we see from a singular story of Francesco Sacchetti, which states
that an eccentric citizen of Florence, who was engaged in
building a house, was, on Saturday, at the time when his
workmen came to receive their wages, so deeply absorbed in
reading Livy’s account of Cato, that he did not at once attend
to them. While they were waiting, they began to quarrel
with one another ; on hearing which he hastened out, and in-
veighed against them as if they had been partizans of the Roman
tribunes. Petrarch read the history of the second Punic war
in Livy, and the Commentaries of Caesar, with a zeal and a
passion, with which they had certainly not been read since the
days of the great Boethius, i. e. for a period of 800 years. He
in vain desired to have more of Livy; it was perhaps he that
discovered the Epitome. This zeal gradually dispelled the
darkness and barbarism of the age. Few centuries can boast
of a greater genius than St. Bernard ; but he had not been able
to effect anything against the reigning spirit of barbarism. In
the fourteenth century, the Italians began to look upon them-
selves with pride as the direct descendants and heirs of the
ancient Romans.³ Ancient manuscripts were eagerly collected ;
and he who was so lucky as to find an author yet unknown or
a fragment of another, was held in high estimation. The let-
ters addressed to Poggius on this subject are really moving:
he is zealous and anxious to make discoveries, and his contem-
poraries, such as Leonardus Aretinus, Bartholomaeus and others,

³ Compare vol.ii. Pref, p.xxi.

glarkλnxts—sxgonius—panvinius.

felt the greatest delight in receiving copies of Ins books. Bo-
man history was then read with incredible interest, but all kept
to what, was transmitted to them; a few only ventured to make
some critical observations here and there, and began to sec that
it was impossible to understand Roman history with the means
they had at their command. Thus originated the study of
archaeology, which received a great impulse from Pomponius
Laetus, who, however spoiled much, because he treated Itis
subjects too carelessly. At the beginning of the sixteenth
century, the study of Roman antiquities made rapid progress;
collections of inscriptions and ancient monuments were made
in Italy and France, first by Mazocchi and some others. In
Italy, scholars applied with the same zeal to the study of ancient
jurisprudence, which, strange to say, did not flourish there,
although the interpretation of the Roman law proceeded thence.
Learned jurisprudence was then in the hands of the French,
while the Italians devoted themselves to history and the criti-
cal examination of ancient authors for that purpose. Some
began to make historical observations here and there. Glare-
anus, a man of strange character, but of refined judgment and
great intellect, was the first who looked at Livy as an inde-
pendent investigator. Sigonius, a layman of Modena, and
Panvinius, an Augustin monk of Verona, acquired considerable
reputation by an arrangement of the Fasti, and by their
writings on Roman antiquities, in which field their merit is
indescribable and their progress gigantic. They dwelt especi-
ally upon the age of Cicero and Caesar, for which contemporary
writers furnish abundant materials; but they did not penetrate
into the earliest periods of Roman history: they cultivated the
tree but neglected the root. Both, though Pauvinius more
particularly, were but slightly acquainted with Greek literature,
and their knowledge of Greek life was very imperfect. Archae-
ological and antiquarian knowledge was advanced by them in
a bɪilliant manner; and the Fasti in particular are much in-

e ted to Panvinius⁴; but they were deficient in practical
tɪnoweɑge: the living organism of a state was unknown to
t cm, although i∏ numerous respects they might have found
^t θd'^{r W} uʃ ^{more eas}ily than foreigners, as many things still existed
cle T ^{t е}*^{Г anc}^^{ent naι}∏es; but they did not perceive things
e ear y defined, and generally went wrong in their explanation

⁴ SeevolJi. page 559, note 1239.

9 2

<<   224   225   226   227   228   229   230   >>

More intriguing information