The extraordinary versatility of this man’s intellectual and social gifts, his participation in all the literary and philosophical interests of his century, his large and liberal patronage of art, and the gaiety with which he joined the people of Florence in their pastimes—­Mayday games and Carnival festivities—­strengthened his hold upon the city in an age devoted to culture and refined pleasure.  Whatever was most brilliant in the spirit of the Italian Benaissance seemed to be incarnate in Lorenzo.  Not merely as a patron and a dilettante, but as a poet and a critic, a philosopher and scholar, he proved himself adequate to the varied intellectual ambitions of his country.  Penetrated with the passion for erudition which distinguished Florence in the fifteenth century, familiar with her painters and her sculptors, deeply read in the works of her great poets, he conceived the ideal of infusing the spirit of antique civility into modern life, and of effecting for society what the artists were performing in their own sphere.  To preserve the native character of the Florentine genius, while he added the grace of classic form, was the aim to which his tastes and instincts led him.  At the same time, while he made himself the master of Florentine revels and the Augustus of Renaissance literature, he took care that beneath his carnival masks and ball-dress should be concealed the chains which he was forging for the republic.

What he lacked, with so much mental brilliancy, was moral greatness.  The age he lived in was an age of selfish despots, treacherous generals, godless priests.  It was an age of intellectual vigour and artistic creativeness; but it was also an age of mean ambition, sordid policy, and vitiated principles.  Lorenzo remained true in all respects to the genius of this age:  true to its enthusiasm for antique culture, true to its passion for art, true to its refined love of pleasure; but true also to its petty political intrigues, to its cynical selfishness, to its lack of heroism.  For Florence he looked no higher and saw no further than Cosimo had done.  If culture was his pastime, the enslavement of the city by bribery and corruption was the hard work of his manhood.  As is the case with much Renaissance art, his life was worth more for its decorative detail than for its constructive design.  In richness, versatility, variety, and exquisiteness of execution, it left little to be desired; yet, viewed at a distance, and as a whole, it does not inspire us with a sense of architectonic majesty.

XIII

Lorenzo’s chief difficulties arose from the necessity under which, like Cosimo, he laboured of governing the city through its old institutions by means of a party.  To keep the members of this party in good temper, and to gain their approval for the alterations he effected in the State machinery of Florence, was the problem of his life.  The successful solution of this problem was easier now,