beacon lights of history-iii-2-第19部分

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





The　Prior　of　St。　Mark　now　appeared　in　a　double　light；as　a

political　leader　and　as　a　popular　preacher。　　Let　us　first　consider

him　in　his　secular　aspect；　as　a　revolutionist　and　statesman；for

the　admirable　constitution　he　had　a　principal　hand　in　framing

entitles　him　to　the　dignity　of　statesman　rather　than　politician。

If　his　cause　had　not　been　good；　and　if　he　had　not　appealed　to　both

enlightened　and　patriotic　sentiments；　he　would　have　been　a

demagogue；　for　a　demagogue　and　a　mere　politician　are　synonymous；

and　a　clerical　demagogue　is　hideous。



Savonarola　began　his　political　career　with　terrible　denunciations；

from　his　cathedral　pulpit；　of　the　political　evils　of　his　day；　not

merely　in　Florence　but　throughout　Italy。　　He　detested　tyrants　and

usurpers；　and　sought　to　conserve　such　liberties　as　the　Florentines

had　once　enjoyed。　　He　was　not　only　the　preacher；　he　was　also　the

patriot。　　Things　temporal　were　mixed　up　with　things　spiritual　in

his　discourses。　　In　his　detestation　of　the　tyranny　of　the　Medici；

and　his　zeal　to　recover　for　the　Florentines　their　lost　liberties；

he　even　hailed　the　French　armies　of　Charles　VIII。　as　deliverers；

although　they　had　crossed　the　Alps　to　invade　and　conquer　Italy。　　If

the　gates　of　Florence　were　open　to　them；　they　would　expel　the

Medici。　　So　he　stimulated　the　people　to　league　with　foreign　enemies

in　order　to　recover　their　liberties。　　This　would　have　been　high

treason　in　Richelieu's　time；as　when　the　Huguenots　encouraged　the

invasion　of　the　English　on　the　soil　of　France。　　Savonarola　was　a

zealot；　and　carried　the　same　spirit　into　politics　that　he　did　into

religion；such　as　when　he　made　a　bonfire　of　what　he　called

vanities。　　He　had　an　end　to　carry：　he　would　use　any　means。　　There

is　apt　to　be　a　spirit　of　expediency　in　men　consumed　with　zeal；

determined　on　success。　　To　the　eye　of　the　Florentine　reformer；　the

expulsion　of　the　Medici　seemed　the　supremest　necessity；　and　if　it

could　be　done　in　no　other　way　than　by　opening　the　gates　of　his　city

to　the　French　invaders；　he　would　open　the　gates。　　Whatever　he

commanded　from　the　pulpit　was　done　by　the　people；　for　he　seemed　to

have　supreme　control　over　them；　gained　by　his　eloquence　as　a

preacher。　　But　he　did　not　abuse　his　power。　　When　the　Medici　were

expelled；　he　prevented　violence；　blood　did　not　flow　in　the　streets；

order　and　law　were　preserved。　　The　people　looked　up　to　him　as　their

leader；　temporal　as　well　as　spiritual。　　So　he　assembled　them　in　the

great　hall　of　the　city；　where　they　formally　held　a　parlemento；　and

reinstated　the　ancient　magistrates。　　But　these　were　men　without

experience。　　They　had　no　capacity　to　govern；　and　they　were　selected

without　wisdom　on　the　part　of　the　people。　　The　people；　in　fact；　had

not　the　ability　to　select　their　best　and　wisest　men　for　rulers。

That　is　an　evil　inherent　in　all　popular　governments。　　Does　San

Francisco　or　New　York　send　its　greatest　men　to　Congress？　　Do　not

our　cities　elect　such　rulers　as　the　demagogues　point　out？　　Do　not

the　few　rule；　even　in　a　Congregational　church？　　If　some　commanding

genius；　unscrupulous　or　wise　or　eloquent　or　full　of　tricks；

controls　elections　with　us；　much　more　easily　could　such　a　man　as

Savonarola　rule　in　Florence；　where　there　were　no　political

organizations；　no　caucuses；　no　wirepullers；　no　other　man　of

commanding　ability。　　The　only　opinion…maker　was　this　preacher；　who

indicated　the　general　policy　to　be　pursued。　　He　left　elections　to

the　people；　and　when　these　proved　a　failure；　a　new　constitution

became　a　necessity。　　But　where　were　the　men　capable　of　framing　a

constitution　for　the　republic？　　Two　generations　of　political

slavery　had　destroyed　political　experience。　　The　citizens　were　as

incapable　of　framing　a　new　constitution　as　the　legislators　of

France　after　they　had　decimated　the　nobility；　confiscated　the

Church　lands；　and　cut　off　the　head　of　the　king。　　The　lawyers

disputed　in　the　town　hall；　but　accomplished　nothing。



Their　science　amounted　only　to　an　analysis　of　human　passion。　　All

wanted　a　government　entirely　free　from　tyranny；　all　expected

impossibilities。　　Some　were　in　favor　of　a　Venetian　aristocracy；　and

others　of　a　pure　democracy；　yet　none　would　yield　to　compromise；

without　which　no　permanent　political　institution　can　ever　be

framed。　　How　could　the　inexperienced　citizens　of　Florence

comprehend　the　complicated　relations　of　governments？　　To　make　a

constitution　that　the　world　respects　requires　the　highest　maturity

of　human　wisdom。　　It　is　the　supremest　labor　of　great　men。　　It　took

the　ablest　man　ever　born　among　the　Jews　to　give　to　them　a　national

polity。　　The　Roman　constitution　was　the　fruit　of　five　hundred

years'　experience。　　Our　constitution　was　made　by　the　wisest；　most

dignified；　most　enlightened　body　of　statesmen　that　this　country　has

yet　seen；　and　even　they　could　not　have　made　it　without　great　mutual

concessions。　　No　ONE　man　could　have　made　a　constitution；　however

great　his　talents　and　experience；not　even　a　Jefferson　or　a

Hamilton；which　the　nation　would　have　accepted。　　It　would　have

been　as　full　of　defects　as　the　legislation　of　Solon　or　Lycurgus　or

the　Abbe　Sieyes。　　But　one　man　gave　a　constitution　to　the

Florentines；　which　they　not　only　accepted；　but　which　has　been

generally　admired　for　its　wisdom；　and　that　man　was　our　Dominican

monk。　　The　hand　he　had　in　shaping　that　constitution　not　only　proved

him　to　have　been　a　man　of　great　wisdom；　but　entitled　him　to　the

gratitude　of　his　countrymen　as　a　benefactor。　　He　saw　the　vanity　of

political　science　as　it　then　existed；　the　incapacity　of　popular

leaders；　and　the　sadness　of　a　people　drifting　into　anarchy　and

confusion；　and；　strong　in　his　own　will　and　his　sense　of　right；　he

rose　superior　to　himself；　and　directed　the　stormy　elements　of

passion　and　fear。　　And　this　he　did　by　his　sermons　from　the　pulpit；

for　he　did　not　descend；　in　person；　into　the　stormy　arena　of

contending　passions　and　interests。　　He　did　not　himself　attend　the

deliberations　in　the　town　hall；　he　was　too　wise　and　dignified　a　man

for　that。　　But　he　preached　those　principles　and　measures　which　he

wished　to　see　adopted；　and　so　great　was　the　reverence　for　him　that

the　people　listened　to　his　instructions；　and　afterward　deliberated

and　acted　among　themselves。　　He　did　not　write　out　a　code；　but　he

told　the　people　what　they　should　put　into　it。　　He　was　the　animating

genius　of　the　city；　his　voice　was　obeyed。　　He　unfolded　the　theory

that　the　government　of　one　man；　in　their　circumstances；　would

become　tyrannical；　and　he　taught　the　doctrine；　then　new；　that　the

people　were　the　only　source　of　power；that　they　alone　had　the

right　to　elect　their　magistrates。　　He　therefore　recommended　a

general　government；　which　should　include　all　citizens　who　had

intelligence；　experience；　and　position；not　all　the　people；　but

such　as　had　been　magistrates；　or　their　fathers　before　them。

Accordingly；　a　grand　council　was　formed　of　three　thousand　citizens；

out　of　a　population　of　ninety　thousand　who　had　reached　the　age　of

twenty…nine。　　These　three　thousand　citizens　were　divided　into　three

equal　bodies；　each　of　which　should　constitute　a　council　for　six

months　and　no　meeting　was　legal　unless　two…thirds　of　the　members

were　present。　　This　grand　council　appointed　the　magistrates。　　But

another　council　was　also　recommended　and　adopted；　of　only　eighty

citizens　not　under　forty　years　of　age；picked　men；　to　be　changed

every　six　months；　whom　the　magistrates　were　bound　to　consult

weekly；　and　to　whom　was　confided　the　appointment　of　some　of　the

higher　officers　of　the　State；　like　ambassadors　to　neighboring

States。　　All　laws　proposed　by　the　magistrates；　or　seigniory；　had　to

be　ratified　by　this　higher　and　selecter　council。　　The　higher

council　was　a　sort　of　Senate；　the　lower　council　were　more　like

Representatives。　　But　there　was　no　universal　suffrage。　　The

clerical　legislator　knew　well　enough　that　only　the　better　and　more

intelligent　part　of　the　people　were　fit　to　vote；　even　in　the

election　of　magistrates。　　He　seems　to　have　foreseen　the　fatal　rock

on　which　all　popular　institutions　are　in　danger　of　being　wrecked；

that　no　government　is　safe　and　respected　when　the　people　who　make

it　are　ignorant　and　lawless。　　So　the　constitution　which　Savonarola

gave　was　neither　aristocratic　nor　democratic。　　It　resembled　that　of

Venice　more　than　that　of　Athens；　that　of　England　more　than　that　of

the　United　States。　　Strictly　universal　suffrage　is　a　Utopian　dream

wherever　a　majority　of　the　people　are　wicked　and　degraded。　　Sooner

or　later　it　threatens　to　plunge　any　nation；　as　nations　now　are；

into　a　whirlpool　of　dangers；　even　if　Divine　Providence　may　not

permit　a　nation　to　be　stranded　and　wrecked　altogether。　　In　the

politics　of　Savonarola　we　see　great　wisdom；　and　yet　great　sympathy

for　freedom。　　He　would　give　the　people　all　that　they　were　fit　for。

He　would　make　all　offices　elective；　but　only　by　the　suffrages　of

the　better　part　of　the　people。



But　the　Prior　of　St。　Mark　did　not　confine　himself　to　constitutional

questions　and　issues　alone。　　He　would　remove　all　political　abuses；

he　would　tax　property；　and　put　an　end　to　forced　loans　and　arbitrary

imposts；　he　would　bring　about　a　general　pacification；　and　grant　a

general　amnesty　for　political　offences；　he　would　guard　against　the

extortions　of　the　rich；　and　the　usury　of　the　Jews；　who　lent　money

at　thirty…three　per　cent；　with　compound　interest；　he　secured　the

establishment　of　a　bank　for　charitable　loans；　he　sought　to　make　the

people　good　citizens；　and　to　advance　their　temporal　as　well　as

spiritual　interests。　　All　his　reforms；　political　or　social；　were

advocated；　however；　from　the　pulpit；　so　that　he　was　doubtless　a

political　priest。　　We；　in　this　country　and　in　these　times；　have　no

very　great　liking　to　this　union　of　spiritual　and　temporal

authority：　we　would　separate　and　divide　this　authority。

Protestants　would　make　the　functions　of　the　ruler　and　the　priest

forever　distinct。　　But　at　that　time　the　po