beacon lights of history-iii-2-第24章
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!
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 popes themselves were
secular rulers; as well as spiritual dignitaries。 All bishops and
abbots had the charge of political interests。 Courts of law were
presided over by priests。 Priests were ambassadors to foreign
powers; they were ministers of kings; they had the control of
innumerable secular affairs; now intrusted to laymen。 So their
interference with politics did not shock the people of Florence; or
the opinions of the age。 It was indeed imperatively called for;
since the clergy were the most learned and influential men of those
times; even in affairs of state。 I doubt if the Catholic Church
has ever abrogated or ignored her old right to meddle in the
politics of a state or nation。 I do not know; nor do I believe;
that the Catholic clergy in this our country take it upon
themselves to instruct the people in their political duties。 No
enlightened Protestant congregation would endure such interference。
No Protestant minister dares ever to discuss direct political
issues from the pulpit; except perhaps on Thanksgiving Day; or in
some rare exigency in public morality。 Still less would he venture
to tell his parishioners how they should vote in town…meetings。 In
imitation of ancient saints and apostles; he is wisely constrained
from interference in secular and political affairs。 But in the
Middle Ages; and the Catholic Church; the priest could be political
in his preaching; since many of his duties were secular。
Savonarola usurped no prerogatives。 He refrained from meeting men
in secular vocations。 Even in his politics he confined himself to
his sphere in the pulpit。 He did not attend the public debates; he
simply preached。 He ruled by wisdom; eloquence; and sanctity; and
as he was an oracle; his utterances became a law。
But while he instructed the people in political duties; he paid far
more attention to public morals。 He would break up luxury;
extravagance; ostentatious living; unseemly dresses in the hous