was then esteemed the duty of a vigorous human being to assert his honour by taking the lives of men who had insulted or wronged him in his own judgment, or the lives of sisters and wives who had disgraced his family. The universal records of the age support this statement; and long after Cellini's death theological casuists defended homicide on both these counts, arguing that honour was a man's life, and that an assault upon his honour was equivalent to an assault with violence upon his person. They justified murder when the member of a religious order vindicated its reputation. They justified infanticide when a girl sought to defend her good repute. The casuists did but formulate social customs too prevalent to be suppressed, with the pious view of keeping men whom we call criminals within the pale of Holy Church. Small blame was it then to Cellini if he practised what the doctors preached! His acts of violence fell under what were then considered honourable categories. He speaks with satisfaction about them, because he plumed himself on their commission, and reckoned upon gaining credit with society. This curious self-complacency reaches its climax in some lines addressed to Bandinelli, who had cast Cellini's murders in his teeth. Cellini answered: "At any rate, the men I have killed do not shame me so much as your bad statues shame you; for the earth covers my victims, whereas yours are exposed to the view of the world." Little did he imagine how he would be arraigned, after the lapse of full three centuries, by English criticasters for what, at the very worst, he reckoned splendid crimes!
[ 38 ]
