Nio

NIO. - He is the father of Italian historiography. Born at Vignola (Modena) on 21 October 1672 into a family of modest peasants, he died at Modena on 23 January 1750. The desire to devote himself to the ecclesiastical life and to study led him as a boy (1685) to the Jesuit schools at Modena, where in 1694 he obtained his degree in law. The influence of the Benedictine B. Bacchini, who was then reorganizing the ducal Library, awakened in him an ardour for erudite research. In 1695 Bacchini and other admirers proposed him to the Borromeos of Milan as a doctor of the Ambrosian Library. He remained there until 1700, when Duke Rinaldo d'Este offered him the direction of the ducal Archive and Library at Modena. He held this office until his death, rejecting any other offer, such as that of Victor Amadeus II of Savoy, who wanted him as a teacher at the University of Turin.

Equipped with a good humanistic culture - to the Latin of the Jesuit school he had been able to add, on his own initiative, a knowledge of Greek - he found, first at the Ambrosiana, then at the Estense, the greatest opportunity to satisfy his ever-growing erudite curiosity, directing his research along various lines. Already in 1697-98 he published at Milan the two volumes of the Anecdota latina; with another volume that appeared the following year he made known some unpublished poems of St. Paulinus of Nola, and in the Commentarium de Corona Ferrea he sharply attacked the tradition current in Milan concerning that Lombard diadem.

He occupied himself much in these years with literature: he wrote verses, composed novellas, and in 1700 he dedicated a volume to the Rime of C. M. Maggi; in 1706 he published the treatise Della perfetta poesia italiana. Disgusted by the vacuity of the Arcadia, in 1703, under the pseudonym of Lamindo Pritanio, he published the Primi disegni della repubblica letteraria d'Italia, that is, the project of a society of men of letters who would occupy themselves with erudite and serious matters. In 1709 a volume of Anecdota graeca appeared, and in 1713 he completed the Anecdota latina with two new volumes.

His activity, however, was soon to take another direction at Modena. The dispute between the Este, the Empire and the Holy See concerning the rights over the Valli di Comacchio led him to investigate the problems of the Este origins. In 1708 he published the Osservazioni sul dominio temporale della Sede Apostolica sopra la città di Comacchio; in 1712 the Piena esposizione dei diritti imperiali ed estensi sopra la città di Comacchio, and a new treatise appeared in 1720. The origins of the Este were amply clarified in the Antichità estensi of 1717, whose first volume firmly established M.'s fame as a historian. The second volume of the Antichità estensi was then to appear only in 1740.

Meanwhile he was meditating on the project of a collection of medieval Italian historians, already cherished for many long years by Apostolo Zeno since 1699; thus, when Zeno moved to the court of Vienna, M. made the project his own and set about the work with enthusiasm. He succeeded in finding a group of Milanese patricians who agreed to form the Società Palatina to support the undertaking financially; on 23 December 1721 M. signed the contract with Prince Teodoro Alessandro Trivulzio for the printing of the Corpo delle antichità d'Italia. M.'s zealous collaborators were Sassi, prefect of the Ambrosiana, and Argeliti, a Bolognese scholar; in 1723 the first tome of the Rerum Italicarum Scriptores already appeared, that is, of all the historians between 500 and 1500. The undertaking encountered much hostility. More than one owner of codices refused him the loan or even the mere sight of them; not a few governments closed their archives for fear that their rights might be compromised: thus the Holy See, the Republics of Genoa, Lucca and Venice, the duchy of Parma. The Savoy government of Turin at first resisted, then ended by supporting M.'s research. These difficulties and oppositions were not without consequences for M.'s undertaking, which nevertheless found the support of many scholars who became his collaborators. In this way the Scriptores were brought to port: between 1723 and 1738, 27 volumes in-fol. appeared; the XXVIIIth came out posthumously in 1751. With the publication of the Scriptores M. laid the foundations of modern Italian historiography. Certainly the Muratorian work presents notable defects in the face of the demands of modern criticism. M.'s programme was to represent Italian history in its continuity through a series of chronicles arranged as far as possible in a certain chronological and geographical order. That one should not be too demanding with M. appears from the fact that the reprint of the Scriptores, begun by G. Carducci and V. Fiorini around 1900, not only is still not completed after half a century, but reveals deficiencies of method even more serious in the face of the demands of historical criticism, both because of the differences in the methods adopted by the scholars who became editors, and because of the uncertainties and modifications made by the organizers of the reprint during the undertaking.

M., during the preparatory work for the Scriptores, had been gathering a great quantity of medieval documents for the purpose of illustrating particular questions and various problems, and he used them to write 75 dissertations which appeared in the 6 vols. of the Antiquitates Italicae Medii Aevi published between 1738 and 1743. The Antiquitates are a precious mine of documents and information on palaeographic, diplomatic, numismatic and juridical questions; much there is also concerning popular life and custom.

Contemporaneously, between 1738 and 1743, the 6 vols. of the Novus Thesaurus veterum inscriptionum appeared, also of great importance. M. now felt strong enough to make, as it were, the inventory of all the information that his research offered him for Italian history: from this derived the great work of the Annali d'Italia, from the beginning of the Christian era to his own days. He began printing it in 1743 and closed it in 1749, the year at which the narrative arrives, in 12 tomes in 4°. The Annali set out the vicissitudes of Italian history in chronological order, year by year, without concern for investigating the causes of events and establishing their connections, but the work proves of great interest for the objectivity of the narrative, for the clarity, precision and sobriety of the style. It was the first attempt at a comprehensive Italian history that would surpass the particular interests of the individual States: it was an acknowledgement of fact of the substantial unity of Italian history.

referring to the Castagno of the mosaics in the Mascoli chapel in St. Mark's in Venice. Ridolfi speaks of a BERNARDINO DA M. as the author of an altarpiece of St. Helena, now in the Accademia in Venice. In it the artist shows himself a follower of the late manner of Cima da Conegliano. Another BERNARDO DA M., who signs a Madonna with Two Saints of 1462 in the Museo Correr in Venice, is merely a mediocre painter of votive images (for the glass artists, v. VETRO).

Nello di Carpegna

MURATORI,

LUDOVICO ANTONIO.

Around this gigantic activity, M. spent the ten five-year periods of his industriousness studying a quantity of particular historical questions. After the youthful lives of Maggi and Da Lemene (1708), he wrote the life of Petrarch (1711), of Fr. Segneri the younger (1720), of Castelverro (1727), of Sigonio (1732), of Marquis Orsi (1735), of Tassoni (1738), of Torti (1743), of Blessed Giacobino, holy provost of Varallo Sesia (1747). In the field of letters, after having abandoned poetry, he continued to occupy himself with interest in problems of aesthetics: in the treatise Della perfetta poesia italiana (1706), then in the Annotazioni al Petrarca, in the Riflessioni sopra il buon gusto and finally in the treatise Della forza della fantasia (1745) he investigated what beauty was, established that the artistic true is the verisimilar, counterposed good taste to bad taste, rejected Cartesian rationalism, but subordinated art to morality. M. devoted greater care to the studies of philosophy and morality. Notable is the treatise on La filosofia morale esposta e proposta ai giovani (1735): rigidly faithful to Christian orthodoxy, it shows a serenely optimistic vision of life and urges the young to dedicate their activities to social life; in the treatise Delle forze dell'intendimento umano he battled against Locke and sensualism; in the treatise Della pubblica felicità, his last important writing, of 1749, he indicated to princes the duty of procuring the good of their peoples through wise reforms (as he had already taught in the Rudimenti di filosofia morale written for Prince Francesco d'Este); in the Difetti della giurisprudenza (1742) he criticized modern legislations, showing the necessity of reforms - to be implemented by princes - for the general well-being. In these writings M. appears as the treatise-writer of Enlightenment absolutism.

M., ordained priest in Milan in 1695, was a model priest. In 1716 he was glad to become provost of S. Maria della Pomposa in Modena, a church that he restored, cared for, and in which he wished to be buried (a desire that was satisfied only in 1922). He exercised the ministry with profound devotion, regularly celebrating Mass, zealously attending to the duties of the confessional and of catechism. He was not a mystical spirit; placid, calm, con-

he cherished and defended the merits of the active life. He collaborated ardently in the missions of Fr. Segneri junior in the Modena area, organized courses of spiritual exercises for priests, took pleasure in visiting and assisting prisoners; for the care of the sick and unfortunate he founded in Modena the Compagnia della Carità. M.'s religiosity is attested by several writings of piety of great value, such as the treatise Della regolata divozione de' cristiani (1747) or the treatise Della carità cristiana (1723). Very widespread in the eighteenth century was Il Cristianesimo felice nelle missioni dei Padri della Compagnia di Gesù nel Paraguay (1743-49), in which, on the basis of the missionaries' reports, he reconstructs and extols the work of Christianization and "community" life of the Jesuits in South America. In the treatise De ingeniorum moderatione in religionis negotio (1714) he examines historical-religious problems publicly discussed at that time; he criticizes opinions and beliefs not historically based, censures exaggerations in the popular cult of the Virgin and the saints, but declares that he believes in the possibility of a dogmatic definition of the Assumption of the Virgin (l. I, cap. 17). The treatise De superstitione vitanda, published under the pseudonym of Antonio Lampridio (1742), aims to combat every form of superstition, false ecstasies and revelations, false miracles.

His profound religious sentiment, simple, modest, his deference to the Church of Rome, for which he nourished a deep obedience, did not stifle in M. the critical sense of the severe and dispassionate historian. He judged the history of the Church as a historian; he stigmatized the bad morals of certain popes, observing that criticism brought no offense to the Church; writing to Tanucci he recognized the necessity of limiting the number of ecclesiastics and monks; he noted the decadence of the mendicant Orders, for which he showed little sympathy, while he had great sympathy for the Jesuits. His tendencies toward the reform of the Church were very moderate: he knew the weaknesses of man, he feared reforms that were too serious and even more so radical ones, and he never let himself be deluded by the mirage of a return to the origins. If some of his demands coincide with Jansenist ones, he never had anything in common with Jansenism, whose doctrines he rejected.

His works show how M. was always prudent in his expressions, nor obstinate in his judgments; he often submitted his writings to the judgment of friends, accepting their corrections, yet always preserving his attitude of independence and impartiality: thus in the question of the iron crown of Monza he maintained his negative attitude despite the favorable opinion of Rome; in the question of the sanguinary vow for the Immaculate Conception, he declared the thing superstitious and drew upon himself the wrath of some group of the clergy; he clashed with Card. Querini on the question of the reduction of holy days of obligation; he criticized with prudence the choreographic excesses of the religious preaching of the time. Yet he was not a polemical spirit; he would have wished to be in agreement with everyone, provided the truth were respected. His personal qualities, the great prestige he acquired, his rigid orthodoxy, the blamelessness of his morals, soon placed him in such a position that, although attacked from various quarters, he was never the object of ecclesiastical censures. Pope Benedict XIV had the greatest reverence for him. Indeed M. is to be regarded as the prince of the Italian encyclopedic scholars of the 18th century. His various activities, however, were always in the service of his mission as a historian. He felt that the true historian, in order to understand the true nature of historical reality, must master all fields of knowledge. M. sees history as the fulfillment of a design established by Divine Providence. Hence the optimism that pervades his entire work: everything happens for the best; even evil has its historical function; punishment for the wicked, the purification of peoples from evil. It is useless to discuss human facts, which find their explanation only in the mind of God. From this comes the sense of great modesty, of profound humanity, of tolerance that transpires from M.'s entire work. He condemns war if provoked by ambitions, by pride, by caprice: he admits it only for reasons of defense. He has faith in civil education, he asks