Nominally with Bluebeard the Middle Ages cease.  In the parturitions of that curious period order emerged from chaos, language from dialects, nations from hordes, ideals from dirt.  Mediaevalism was the prelude, mediocre and in minor key, to the great concert of civilization of which the first chorus was the Renaissance, the second the Reformation, the third the Revolution, and of which Democracy, the fourth, but presumably not the last, is swelling now.

Meanwhile the world was haggard.  The moral pendulum, that had oscillated between mud and ether, was back again at the starting point.  Death, Fortune, Love, the three blind fates of life, were the only recognized divinities.  But beyond the monotonous fog that discolored the sky beauty was waiting.  With the fall of Constantinople it descended.  The result was the Renaissance.  To the Renaissance many contributed; mainly the dead, the artists of the past, but also the living, the prophets of the future.  Mediaevalism was a forgetting, the Renaissance a recovery.  It was an epoch from which the mediocre, in departing, saw as it went the re-establishment of altars to beauty.  In the midst of feudal barbarism, at an hour when France was squalid, Germany uncouth, when English nobles could barely read, when Europe generally had a contempt for letters which was not due to any familiarity with them, but when Italy-a century in advance of other lands-was merely corrupt, at that hour, the wraiths of Greece mingling with the ghosts of Rome, made the mistress of the old world sovereign of the new.  Not in might but in art and intellect, again the Eternal City ruled supreme.

From the annals of the epoch bravi peer and swarm-soldati di gran diavolo, men more fiendish than animal, artists that contrived to drape the abominable with cloths which, if crimson, were also of gold; poets refined by generations of scrupulous polish but disorganized by a form of corruption that was the more unholy in that it proceeded not from the senses but the mind.

For centuries luxury had been reaccumulating about them.  To it, after the fall of Byzance, an unterrified spirit of beauty came.  In between was a sense of equality, one that a recently discovered hemisphere was to assimilate, but which meanwhile enabled a man of brains to rise from nowhere to anything, permitting a mercer to breed popes and an apothecary Lorenzo the Magnificent.  These factors, generally unconsidered, induced a tone that could change instantly from the suave to the tragic, the tone of a people that had no beliefs except in genius and no prejudices except against stupidity, a tone ethically nul and intellectually great, the only imaginable one that could produce combinations artistic and viperish as the Borgias, aesthetic and vulperine as the Medici.  Monsters such as they, did not astonish.  Columbus, in enlarging the earth, and Copernicus in unveiling the skies, had so astounded that the ability to be surprised was lost.  Men could only admire and create.

These occupations were not hindered by the pontiffs.  What the latter were, diarists and historians-Infessura and Gregorovius-have told.  As their pages turn, pagan Rome revives.  The splendid palaces had crumbled, the superb porticoes were dust.  The victorious eagles of the victorious legions had flown to their eyries forever.  The shouting throngs, the ivory chariots, the baths of perfume and of blood, these things long since had vanished.  There were friars where gladiators had been, pifferari in lieu of augurs, imperias instead of vestals, in place of an emperor there was a pope.  In details of speech, costume and mode there were further differences.  Otherwise Rome was as pagan, murderous and gay.  In the thick air of the high-viced city the poison of the antique purple dripped.

But into the toxic a new ingredient had entered, a fresh element, a modern note.  In the Rome of Nero a sin was a prayer.  In the Rome of Leo X it was a taxable luxury.  Anything, no matter what, was lawful provided an indulgence were bought.  The Bank of Pardons was established for the obvious proceeds, but the latter were sanctified by their consecration to art.  Among the results is St. Peter’s.

It was in a very different light that Luther contemplated them.  The true founder of modern society, radical as innovators must be, dangerous as reformers are, it was with actual fury that he attacked the sale, attacked confession, the entire doctrine of original sin.  The hysteria of asceticism was as inept to him as the celibacy of the priesthood; love he declared to be no less necessary than food and he preached to men, saying, “If women are recalcitrant, tell them others will consent; if Esther refuse, let Vashti approach."

Beauty, emerging meanwhile from her secular tomb, had uttered a new Fiat Lux.  Spontaneously as the first creation there resulted another in which art became an object of worship.  Suddenly, miraculously yet naturally, there sprang into being a race of sculptors inferior only to Pheidias, a race of painters superior even to Apelles, real artists who were great men in an epoch really great.  It was said of Raphael that he had resuscitated the corpse of Rome.  Benvenuto Cellini was absolved of a murder by Paul III on the ground that men like him were above the law.  Julius II launched anathemas at any sovereign who presumed, however briefly, to lure from him Michel Angelo.  Charles V, ruler of a realm wider than Alexander’s, stooped and restored a brush which Titian had dropped, remarking as he did so, that only by an emperor could an artist be properly served.

The epoch in which appeared these exceptional beings and with them lettered bandits comparable only to tigers in the gardens of Armide-the age which produced in addition to them, others equally, if differently, great, approached in its rare brilliance that of Pericles.  Even Plato was there.

“Since God has given us the Papacy,” said Leo X, “let us enjoy it.”  In the enjoyment he had Plato for aid.  An estray from Byzance, tossed thence on the shores of the mediaeval Dead Sea, translated in the Florentine Academy, printed in the Venetian metropolis of pleasure and dedicated to the scholar pope, no better aid to enjoyment could he or any one have had.  In the mystic incense of the liturgy to Aphrodite was what prelates and patricians, the people and the planet long had needed, a doctrine of love.

In the Republic Plato stated that those who contemplate the immutable essence of things possess knowledge not views.  That was precisely what was wanted.  But what was wanted Plato did not perhaps very adequately supply.  Hitherto love had been regarded sometimes as the fusion of souls sometimes as that of the senses.  There had been asceticism.  There had also been license.  Plato, from whom something more novel was wanted, seemed to offer but an antidote to both.  In the Symposion love was represented as the rather vulgar instinct of persistence and beauty, one and indivisible, alone divine.  Moreover, from the austere regions of that abstraction came no explanation of the charm which feminine loveliness exercises over man.  On the other hand, Plato had told of two Aphrodites, one celestial, the other common, a distinction which doctors in quintessences utilized for the display of two forms of love, one heavenly, the other mundane, simianizing in so doing, what is human, humanizing that which is divine and succeeding between them in producing for the world the modern conception of platonic affection, which, in so far as it relates to the reciprocal relations of men and women, not for a moment had entered Plato’s sky-like mind.

The doctors were Ficino-a Hellenist whom Cosmo dei Medici had had trained for the sole purpose of translating Plato-and Bembo, a prelate, who already had written for Lucrezia Borgia a treatise on love.  What Ficino advanced Bembo expounded.

Bembo’s commentary was to the effect that earthly loveliness is a projection of celestial beauty irradiated throughout creation.  Falling as light falls it penetrates the soul and repercuted creates love, which consequently is a derivative of divine beauty transmitted through a woman’s eyes.  To man the source of that beauty is, however, not the soul but the flesh.  From this error disillusion proceeds.  For the rightful enjoyment of beauty cannot consist in material satisfaction from which satiety, weariness, and aversion result, but rather in disinterestedness, which is the chief factor in abiding delight.

The theory, casuistic and subtle, appealed momentarily to a society that had no theories at all.  It particularly appealed to women.  Matrimony had not always been propitious to them.  Barring death or annulment the brand of the ceremony was ineffaceable.  In England Henry VIII maintained the brand but, by means of divorce which he prescribed for himself, he rendered it cumulative, a process which Parliament, subsequently petitioned by Milton, regularized.  In Italy meanwhile the pseudo-platonism which Ficino and Bembo were expounding, omitted any interference with it.  In the corpus juris amoris matrimony was held to be incompatible with love and pseudo-platonism, going a step further, eliminated even the possibility of it.  Pseudo-platonism maintained that if happiness consists in love and love consists in yielding, yielding itself has its degrees.  There is the yielding of the body and of the soul, the yielding of the one without the other, the yielding of the second without the first.  Platonism, as interpreted by pseudo-platonists, was the yielding of the second, matrimony the yielding of the first.  But into that yielding it had already shown that not delight but its contrary enters.

On fanciful tenets such as these the moral bigamy of Provence returned, with the difference that it enabled a lady to be as intangible to her husband as she had supposedly been to her knight.  A historian has related that a woman of position, married to a man morally inferior and otherwise objectionable, encountered these tenets and coincidentally, in a person of greater distinction, encountered also her ideal.  Together, in the most perfect propriety, they departed and, with analogous couples of their acquaintance, assembled in a villa where, reversing the Decamerone, they philosophized agreeably on the charm of the new distinction between love and love, one of which, the love matrimonial, was worldly and mortal while the other, vivifying to the soul, was divine.

Thereafter spiritual elopements became frequent.  But not general.  It was not every woman that was capable of putting but her soul in the arms of a lover nor was it every lover whom the ethereality of the proceeding pleased.  Dilettantes of crystal flirtations became, like poets, omnipresent and yet rare.  The majority that entered the mazes of the immaterial did so with no other object than that of getting out.  When one of the parties did not lose her head the other lost his temper.

La Bruyere had not then come, but there are maxims which do not need expression to be appreciated and then as since men contended that when a woman’s heart remained unresponsive it was because she had not met the one who could make it beat.  Others, less finely, insisted that a woman who could love and would not should be made to.  Love then had its martyrs, platonism its agnostics.  That, though, was perhaps inevitable.  Platonism, whether real or imaginary, has always been less a theory than a melody; as such unsuited to every voice.  But at the time it was serviceable.  It deodorized, however partially, an atmosphere supercharged with pagan airs.  It turned some women into saints, others into sisters of charity that penetrated the poverties of the heart and distributed there the fragrance of a divine largesse.  In that was its beauty and also its defect.  Being in its essence poetic, it could appeal only to epicures.  To mere kings like Henry VIII, to felons like Henri III, to the vulgar generally, to people incapable of sentiment and eager only for sensations, as the vulgar always are, it was Greek, unapproachable when not unknown.  There were virtuose that drew from it delicious accords, there were others that with it executed amazing pas seuls.  Otherwise its exponents in attempting to convert life into a fancy ball and love in a battle of flowers failed necessarily.  The flowers wilted, the dancers departed, the music ceased.  The moral pendulum swung again from ether to earth.

In the downward trend Venice perhaps assisted.  Venice then was a salon floored with mosaics where Europe and Asia met.  Suspended between earth and sky, unique in construction, orientally corrupt, byzantinely fair, a labyrinth of liquid streets and porphyry palaces in which masterpieces felt at ease, it was the ideal city of the material world, a magnet of such attraction that the hierodules of the renaissant Aphrodite, whose presence Rome had found undesirable, made it their home.  Qualified, naively, perhaps, but with much courtesy, as Benemeritae, they exercised a sway which history has not forgotten and became the renegades of pseudo-platonic love.  To enjoy their society, to sup for instance with the bella Imperia, whose blinding beauty is legendary still, or with Tullia d’Aragona, who had written a tract of the “Infinity of Perfect Love,” princes came and lingered enchanted by their meretricious charm.

Platonism had its renegades but it had also its saints-Leonora d’Este, Vittoria Colonna, Marguerite of France, the three Graces of the Renaissance.

Marguerite of France, surnamed the Marguerite des Marguerites, was a flower that had grown miraculously among the impurities of the Valois weeds.  Slightly married to a Duc d’Alençon and, at his death, as slightly to a King of Navarre, she held at Pau a little court where, Marot, her poet and lackey, perhaps aiding, she produced the Heptameron, a collection of nouvelles modelled after the Decamerone, a bundle of stories in which the characters discuss this and that, but mainly love, particularly the love of women “qui n’ont cherche nulle fin que l’honnestete.”

Honnestete was what Marguerite also sought.  In days very dissolute, a sense of exclusiveness which whether natural or acquired is the most refining of all, suggested, it may be, her device:-Non inferiora secutus.  She would have nothing inferior.  One might know it from her portraits which bear an evident stamp of reserve.  In them she has the air of a great lady occupied only with noble things.  All other things, husbands included, were to her merely abject.

The impression which her portraits provide is not reflected in the phraseology of the Heptameron.  The fault was not hers.  She used the current idiom.  Prelates at the time employed in the pulpit expressions which to-day a coster would avoid.  Terms that are usual in one age become coarse in the next.  But, if her language was rude, her sentiments were elevated.  In her life she loved but once and then, idolatrously.  The object was her brother, the very mundane Francois I{er}, who, on a window-pane wrote with a diamond-the proper pen for a king-Toute femme varie, an adage to which legend added Bien fol est qui s’y fye and Shakespeare variously adapted.

Neither the adage nor its supplements applied to Marguerite.  The two loves of pseudo-platonism she disentangled from their subtleties and, with entire simplicity, called one good, the other evil.  Hers was the former.  She was born for it, said Rabelais.

In the Heptameron it is written:  “Perfect lovers are they who seek the perfection of beauty, nobility and grace and who, had they to choose between dying and offending, would refuse whatever honor and conscience reprove.”

There is the Non inferiora secutus expounded.  The device may have appealed to Leonora d’Este.  Tasso said that when he was born his soul was drunk with love.  Leonora intoxicated it further.  Of a type less accentuated than Marguerite she was not more feminine but more gracious.  At Ferrara, in the wide leisures of her brother’s court, Tasso, Stundenlang, as Goethe wrote, sat with her.

“Vita della mia vita,” he called her in the easy rime amorose with which in saluting her he saluted the past, Dante and Petrarch, and saluted too the future, preluding behind the centuries the arias wherewith Cimarosa, Rossini and Bellini were to enchant the world.  A true poet and a great one, Byron said of him: 

     Victor unsurpassed in modern song
     Each year brings forth its millions but how long
     The tide of generations shall roll on
     And not the whole combined and countless throng
     Compose a mind like thine?

The treasures of that mind he poured at Leonora’s feet.  The cascade enraptured her and Italy.  Rome that for Petrarch had recovered the old crown of pagan laurel saw there another brow on which it might be placed.  Before that supreme honor came Leonora died and Tasso, who for fifteen years had served her, was insane.

Beauty may be degraded, it cannot be vulgarized.  With the beauty of their lives and love, time has tampered but without marring the perfection of which both were made and to which at the time the love of Vittoria Colonna and Michel Angelo alone is comparable.

Michel Angelo, named after the angel of justice, as Raphael was after the angel of grace, separated himself from all that was not papal and marmorean.  Only Leonardo da Vinci who had gone and Ludwig of Bavaria who had not come, the one a painter, the other a king, but both poets were as isolating as he.  He was disfigured.  Because of that he made a solitude and peopled it grandiosely with the grandeur of the genius that was his, displaying in whatever he created that of which art had hitherto been unconscious, the sovereignty not of beauty only but of right.

Balzac wrote abundantly to prove the influence that names have on their possessors.  In the curious prevision that gave Michel Angelo his name there was an ideal.  He followed it.  It led him to another.  There he knelt before Vittoria Colonna who represented the soul of the Renaissance as he did the conscience.  The love that thereafter subsisted between them was, if not perfect, then almost as perfect as human love can be; a love neither sentimental nor sensual but gravely austere as true beauty ever is.

Since the days of Helen, love had been ascending.  Sometimes it fell.  Occasionally it lost its way.  There were seasons when it passed from sight.  But always the ascent was resumed.  With Michel Angelo and Vittoria Colonna it reached a summit beyond which for centuries it could not go.  In the interim there were other seasons in which it passed from sight.  Meanwhile like Beauty in the mediaeval night it waited.  From Marguerite of France it had taken a device:-Non inferiora secutus.