Known for his cheerful disposition (and his spending of the Church's coffers), Pope Leo X is an interesting figure within the period known as the Renaissance. Simultaneously a genuine holy man, a luxurist and a politician, Leo has become a controversial figure in this modern era. The most infamous reason, of course, was his excessive spending. Two years of his papacy had led to every florin and ducato that his predecessor Julius II had ever obtained vanishing into thin air. His own personal income would make most company CEO's jealous, with a recorded income of 580,000 ducats one year, which translates into the modern US dollar as 102.5 million. When finally realizing how quickly money was going down the drain, he resorted to such measures as selling the robes and hats of cardinals, pawning off items of the church and even statues of the apostles themselves. It is hardly surprising, then, that his successor Pope Adrian VI became known as a severe penny pincher.The Benefits?
Just because he spent enormous sums of money does not mean he did no good. In 1513 he reformed the University of Rome such that all of the faculties which had been shut down due to budget cuts were restored, all of the professors teaching there had their pay increased as well as hiring teachers from across the continent. His donations helped establish the first Greek printing-presses within Rome, and he gave stable jobs within the clergy to important artists and poets at the time, the most famous of whom being Raphael. He donated millions of modern dollars annually to hospitals, war veterans as well as many other sick and inflicted. The highest salaries paid at that time were given to Musicians to lend their voice (or their instrument) to the Church Choir, and it was under his guidance that the common folk, regardless of language, could join the Choir in song.
Regardless of whether or not he was truly a hedonist as some accused him of being, Leo was a significant factor in the development of music and other arts during his time.
There always seems to be a dilemma between handling money responsibly and supporting the arts. It seems the balance would have been particularly difficult to maintain during the renaissance when the arts became such a focal point of society. We're still doing the same balancing act today as people determine budgets for music programs in schools and communities, and even in our own lives as we decide whether or not to spend money on products such as pieces of art, concert tickets, and movies. It's obviously irresponsible, at best, to recklessly spend all your church's money, but I can see where it would be difficult for Leo to balance his duty and desire to support the arts, at least.
ReplyDeleteCicero once said that each man had a number of talents and that he should try to be the best he could with what he was given. Some people are meant to be lawyers while others are meant to bake bread. Whatever your position, rise to the top. I appreciate that Leo X, while being unwise with his spending, used a lot of that money to help artists (despite the fact that some claim the arts are unnecessary to society). The second section seems to redeem Leo X to some degree.
ReplyDeleteWhen admiring great works of European art during the days of "Big Monarch" (and "Big Church", for that matter), this is a dilemma which I always face: I appreciate how this patronage propelled the arts, but think of the people from whom the monarchs were robbing! Peasants and farmers scraped the ground for food while Kings offered gold-plated dowries for their daughters. This was true well after the Renaissance. How can we approach this sort of behavior in an understanding mind?
ReplyDelete