A striking difference can be found in comparing the English embassies sent to Rome in the sixteenth century with what they had been in former years. During the earlier ages, diplomatic relations with the Vatican had been transacted almost exclusively by churchmen. Adrian de Castello, Ghinucci, Giovanni and Silvestro Gigli, were among the better known Italian prelates in the king's service, most of them holding English benefices. A change, however, was gradually effected, largely owing to the royal divorce and its consequences. Although churchmen were employed until the first quarter of the new century was over, courtiers were by degrees filling their places. Men like the Earls of Bedford and Wiltshire, Sir Francis Bryan, Sir Thomas Wyatt, and Sir Philip Hoby were beginning to conduct for England the new diplomacy of the Renaissance. Italians often accompanied them on their missions; Sir Thomas Spinelli, Sir Gregory and John da Casale, Peter Vannes, and others, were all in the English service, but they were for the most part laymen, as were also the numerous Italian agents employed by Cromwell, and later by Cecil. The progress of the Reformation in England had naturally for its effect the withdrawal of all diplomatic charges from the Roman clergy, while at the same time it ended in breaking off direct intercourse with Rome. Courtiers were therefore more and more intrusted with the conduct of diplomatic affairs. This had been the case for some time already in Italy, although there the true reason lay rather in the Papacy being considered an Italian principality, so that those owing it allegiance could not well be in the service of other states. In advance of the rest of Europe, the eareer of the courtier as a diplomat had long been foreseen in Italy. In addition, however, his main function was thought to be as the adviser of his prince, informing him of the truth on every matter, and warning him when about to do wrong. Just as music, sports, and pastimes were held to be the flower of courtliness, so its fruit was in the proper advice to a prince, and in guarding him from evil. It was the courtier's place to see to it that his prince should not be deceived by liars or flatterers; to this end he ought to advise him, and spur him on to win further greatness. Regarding his personal relations to his lord, the courtier ought neither to flatter him, nor repeat scandal nor idle talk; never to be forward and pushing, nor ask favors; nor do such service as would put him to shame, nor even obey his master in "dishonest matters." If his prince was wicked, he should leave his service.3 For the courtier to be able to properly advise his prince, he ought to possess "readiness of wit, pleasantness of wisdom, and knowledge in letters." This last was the great change effected by the Renaissance, which. made the courtier wish to excel in branches which he had formerly despised. In Italy, men like Castiglione and Navagero, who were courtiers, diplomatists, and poets at the same time, had set a personal ex 1 Castiglione, p. 297. 8 Ibid., pp. 130, 339. • Ibid., p. 297. ample. The former not only bid his courtier speak well, having great care in the selection of words, but also cultivating and polishing his own language, to write "both rhyme and prose." In addition, he should be able to play on several instruments, and know also how to draw and paint. Most of all he ought to cultivate learning; a knowledge of history would teach him many things of value. 2 In studying the lives of great men, he would himself desire greatness, for who could read the mighty deeds of Cæsar or Alexander, of Scipio and Hannibal, and not desire to be as they were, preferring the everlasting fame, which is attained even by death, to ordinary life ; "but he that savoreth not the sweetness of letters cannot know how much is the greatness of glory." courtier should also be learned in the humanities, reading the poets no less than the orators and historians. The This new conception of learning as a necessary part of a gentleman's education had first obtained root in Italy. It was otherwise in France, where letters were long disparaged, and men thought it "a great villany when 114 of them is called a clerk.' any one Castiglione looked forward to an improvement with the accession of Francis to the throne, but even later it was said that "learning is so little accounted of that a gentleman though he be scarce able to maintain himself, thinketh scorn to apply his mind to the study either of the laws or of physic."5 In the Middle Ages, skill at arms was 1 Castiglione, pp. 69 et seq., 85. 8 Ibid., p. 84. 2 Ibid., p. 89 et seq. • Ibid., p. 82. 5 Guazzo, f. 84. indeed the only necessary part of the gentleman's education, nor did this old ideal disappear altogether in the Renaissance. The courtier might still be a soldier, but he must be learned as well. The Italian courtly ideas can be seen reflected in England in the books of William Segar, who expressed himself forcibly on this subject. "Very rarely doth any man excel in arms that is utterly ignorant of good letters. . . . This only I say that the endeavor of gentlemen ought to be either in arms or learning, or in them both. And in my poor conceit, hardly deserveth he any title of honor that doth not take pleasure in the one or the other."1 It was hardly to be expected that those brought up in the old system would look with favor on the importance now assigned to learning. One of the favorite questions of the age, around which stormed a controversy, regarded the two rival professions of arms and letters. Since books, however, were mainly written by scholars, the arguments ended generally in their favor. Learning was said, first of all, to increase gentry. Letters being no less esteemed than martial feats, it followed that the gentry of the one was no less than of the other. But learning was superior to arms, since it might of itself achieve immortality, which arms could not do without its aid. Hence it followed that "the deeds of famous captains and worthy soldiers died with. them, if they have not some to set them forth in writing;" unless they happened to join to their prowess in 1 Honor, Military and Civil, p. 200 et seq. Cf. Spenser, Faerie Queene, II, iii, 40. 2 Guazzo, f. 86 b. arms a knowledge of polite letters. A fierce discussion raged in Italy on this subject; such writers as Muzio who concluded in favor of the scholars were attacked by others who held the profession of arms to be the nobler because the older, and also because in many countries letters were unknown. Saviolo, who gave an English echo to the controversy, yielded precedence to arms, since princes obtained their titles and dominions merely by virtue of them, and only afterwards were able to foster learning. The courtier, however, in addition to being a scholar, should also be a soldier. As such his very conduct in war was outlined for him. In battle, for instance, he ought to separate himself from the crowd and undertake his feats alone, or with as few around him as possible. He was thought a fool if he exposed himself in such undertakings as capturing a flock of sheep, or even to be the first to scale the walls of a battered town. His deeds of valor he ought to perform in the presence of superiors, and if possible, before the eyes of the king, for while it was wrong to seek undeserved praise, it should yet be looked for when due.3 There was, however, a quite different side to the Italian military influence in England. The Italians of the Renaissance have not commonly been regarded as a martial nation. Their achievements in other directions obscured their feats in arms; on the one hand, 1 Guazzo, f. 104. 2 Cf. Muzio, Il Gentilhuomo, and Mora, Il Cavaliere. |