to Italy in search of the new learning. The first devoted themselves only to individual study. Their scholarship, however, was neither so profound nor so broad as that of their successors, who were teachers as well as students. The first had failed when they tried to encourage the new learning by offering only their own. individual example. The others succeeded because they built on a surer foundation. In both instances nearly all concerned in the movement were churchmen; but the secular tendency was gradually growing, and when Linacre took orders in his old age, it was rather to enable him to obtain preferment than for any other reason. Both groups were composed entirely of Oxonians, but while the first (excepting John Tiptoft) kept up their connection with the university only through gifts and bequests of books, the latter showed in their life work a far greater academic devotion. Their task was not only to bring back but actually to teach their countrymen the studies of Greek and science, medicine and Biblical criticism, which Italian humanism had opened to the world. By their instruction, as well as by their personal example, they created the new type of English scholar, who was to equal his Italian model in learning, while he surpassed him in purity of life. The efforts of this small band of scholars succeeded at last in firmly establishing the new learning at Oxford. Before them, it had been almost impossible to place it on the secure foundation necessary. Englishmen lacked interest in humanism so long as civil anarchy, desolation and lawlessness conspired to forbid the necessary repose for scholarly labors. All that could be hoped for, and had in fact been accomplished, was to preserve what little learning was left from earlier generations. The day came, however, when the strong arm of the Tudor monarchy made itself felt through the land, and people realized that the age of civil strife was over, and the arts could now be practised in peace. Amid the novel feeling of quiet and repose, the new learning developed and prospered. Just as in Italy scholars had lived under the patronage of princes, who granted them adequate rewards for their labors, so humanism, newly introduced into England, was fostered and encouraged by Henry the Seventh, first of a new race of English monarchs. V Already in the early days of English humanism, a definite growth can be traced, marked by separate stages of development. This growth coincided for a time with the extension of Italian influence, and was in part its result. To the very end of the fifteenth century, and even later, Italy remained the fountainhead of the new learning. Yet England, as a whole, was still strangely insensible to Italian scholarship, which flourished only at Oxford. During the sixteenth century however, a great transformation took place. On the one hand, the silent preparatory work of previous years was to spread beyond the narrow limits of the university. On the other, the single dominant in fluence of Italy, which had been till then the living breath of the new learning, was greatly to diminish, while other countries in part took its place. This change was neither so sudden nor so unexpected as might appear. The diffusion of the new learning beyond the college halls, was largely the work of Oxford men trained in the methods of Italian scholarship. The decay of learning in Italy at the same time, caused Grocyn and Linacre to be regarded by the Italians themselves as the successors to their own great humanists. The foreign scholars who had been trained in Florence, Bologna and Padua were now to take up the work where it had left off in Italy, and spread the Renaissance learning in their own countries. The desire to move in a broader sphere than the narrow world of Oxford can be observed in Linacre. The great connecting link, however, between court and university was to be Sir Thomas More. His task was to foster the desire for learning in circles where hitherto it had been unknown. His training and nature had fitted him for this work. As a young boy he had been sent to Oxford by Archbishop Morton, and had there learned Greek from Grocyn and Linacre, with both of whom he formed enduring friendships. "Grocyn is in your absence the master of my life; Linacre, the director of my studies," he wrote Colet.2 Still other links than the affection he 1 Erasmus, Epist., DXI. 2 T. Stapleton, Tres Thoma, p. 23. bore his masters bound him to Italy. Not only had Colet and Lily, with both of whom he was intimate, studied there, but he himself conceived a hero-worship for Pico della Mirandola, whose life he translated into English. Among his best friends, moreover, was the Luccan merchant, Antonio Bonvisi, to whom before being led off to execution he wrote in most affectionate terms, saying he had been a son rather than a guest in his house. The opportunity soon arose for More to prove himself a friend of the new learning. Its very success had stirred up a violent opposition in Oxford itself. The contest came over Greek, as being the most important of the new studies brought from Italy. To know Greek was the next thing to heresy in the minds of many who regarded its literature as unorthodox.1 Others, skilled in dialectics, were hostile, because unwilling to take up a new study in which their former work would prove of no use. Some, too, regarded all innovations as dangerous. The opponents of the "Grecians " united, therefore, under the name of Trojans," and ridiculed in the streets those who pursued the new learning. A priest who should have delivered a Lenten sermon preached in its place an invective against Greek and other polite literature.3 William Tyndale, writing only a few years later, recalled the fact that the disciples of Duns Scotus "raged 2 1 Jebb, Erasmus, p. 41. 2 Maxwell-Lyte, History of Oxford, p. 435 et seq. in every pulpit against Greek, Latin and Hebrew,"1 and proclaimed openly that if there existed only a single copy in the world of Terence or Virgil, they would burn it, though it cost them their lives. At this point, More wrote a letter to the university authorities, directed against medieval scholasticism, which severely censured those who desired it once more. After presenting strong arguments in favor of the new learning, he warned them that further opposition would alienate the favor of their chancellor Archbishop Warham, their patron Cardinal Wolsey, and even the king, who was much interested in the progress of letters. For More, besides awakening the court to the new learning, was also high in the royal favor, the king often sending for him to converse on learned subjects. It was through the influence, too, of More and Pace that the king took up the matter and finally silenced the Trojans. Erasmus and Colet were among the other famous pupils of Grocyn and Linacre. The former went to Oxford because he thought it no longer necessary to proceed to Italy for classical learning, which could then better be obtained in England than anywhere else. There were fewer good scholars in Italy, he wrote, than in the days of Latimer's youth. In his own judgment whoever was really learned was an Italian, even though born among savages.3 It was not till later 2 1 Tyndale, Works, III, 75. Erasmus, Epist., CCCCXIII. 8" Mihi Italus est quisque probe doctus est etiamsi fit apud Juvernos natus." Ibid. |