Acknowledgements
IndeliveringthisbooktothepressIhaveseveraldebtsofgratitude.My firstand foremostthanksgotoMartinMcLaughlin,mysupervisorand,mostimportantly, myinvaluableguideinalltheseyearssincethe firststagesofmyDPhilatOxford. WithouthimthisbookwouldnothavebeenpossibleandIwillbealwaysdeeply gratefultohimforallhiscontinuousadvice,alwaysgivenwithafriendlysmile abletosupportmebeyondtheacademicwork.Iwouldalsoespeciallyliketothank NicolaGardini,whogavemethechancetosharewithhimnotonlymyresearch (andinparticularmyloveforPoliziano)butmythoughtsonlifeandmuchmore. EverytimeIhavehadtheopportunitytotalkwithhimduringmytimeinOxford itwasaveryenrichingmoment.IamalsogratefultoBrianRichardson,the externalexaminerofmyDPhilthesis,forhiscrucialsuggestionsthathelpedme toimprovetheoriginaldraftofthisbook.
AftermystudyatOxfordIcontinuedmyacademicworkthankstofellowships thatallowedmetodoresearchinrenownedInstitutions,inparticularthe WarburgInstituteandtheUniversityofWarwick,whereIfoundinvaluable interlocutors.IoweprofoundgratitudetoDavidLines,mymentorformy three-yearresearchprojectattheCentrefortheStudyoftheRenaissanceat WarwickfundedbyaLeverhulmeFellowship.Heisapricelessmentor,whohas encouragedmetoexpandmyresearchoutlookandfollowmypersonalinterestsin intellectualhistory,politics,andphilosophy,alwayssupportingmeinbothmy previousandnewresearch.
FromthebeginningofmyjourneyasayoungscholarIhavebeenveryluckyto havetheirreplaceableguidanceofGabriellaAlbanese,my maestra sincemy dissertationattheUniversityofPisa.Amongmanyotherthings,shetaughtme whatloveforphilologyisandwhatthisartreallymeansnotonlyinscholarship butinour ficklecontemporaryworld.IwouldalsoparticularlyliketothankPaolo Pontari,forhiscontinuousencouragementsincemy firststudies,andJillKraye, fortheinterestshehasalwaysshowninmyworkandforthestimulating conversationsIhavealwayshadwithherattheWarburgInstitute.Iamgrateful toallthegenerousinterlocutorsIhadthechancetomeetovertheseyearsand fromwhomIreceivedimportantadviceofvariouskinds,inparticular:Concetta Bianca,GuidoCappelli,IngridDeSmet,BrunoFigliuolo,SimonGilson,James Hankins,StephenHarrison,AntoniettaIacono,ElenaLombardi,andPaolaTomè,a dearfriendwhosadlyleftustooearly.
Iwanttoexpressmygratitudetotheanonymousreadersofthisbooksforthe OxfordUniversityPressandtoWesWilliams,theChairoftheModernLanguages MonographsCommittee,foralltheirvitalsuggestions.Iamalsogratefultothe
OxfordUniversityPressandallpeoplewhocollaboratedonthispublicationin variouswaysatallstages,inparticularEleanorCollins,theSeniorPublishing EditorinLiterature,andEllaCapel-Smith,theEditorialAssistantoftheAcademic Division.
ThestudypublishedinthisvolumewasmadepossiblethankstotheClarendon Fund(UniversityofOxford),fromwhichIreceivedaClarendonScholarshipthat fundedmyDPhil,andtheJustinGoslingAwardIwasgivenfromStEdmundHall (Oxford).ThisbookalsobenefitedfromthenewperspectivesofstudythatIwas abletodevelop(andincorporateinthiswork)thankstonewresearchprojects IcarriedoutfundedbyaFrancesA.YatesShort-TermFellowshipattheWarburg InstituteandaLeverhulmeEarlyCareerResearchFellowshipattheUniversityof Warwick(CentrefortheStudyoftheRenaissance).
Finally,mymostprofoundthanksareaddressedtomyfamily,mymother MargheritaandmysisterAlessandra,andtomyhusbandLeonardo,fortheirlove andunendingsupporteveryday.Thisbookisdedicatedtothememoryofmy fatherNedo,thebrightestlightinmylife.
TableofContents
ListofFigures xi
ListofAbbreviations xiii
Introduction1
I.1Fifteenth-centuryliteratureonconspiracies:athematic andpoliticalgenre1
I.2Theprinceinliteratureonplots:powerandresistanceinthe literaryrealm10
I.3Theclassicaltraditionandcrossoversbetweenhumanist historiographyandpoliticalliterature16
I.4Textsonpoliticalplots:amultifacetedcorpus21
1.OrazioRomano’ s Porcaria:HumanistEpicasaVehicle forPapal-PrincelyIdeology29
1.1OrazioRomanoandthecompositionofthepoem29
1.2StefanoPorcariandtheconspiracyagainstNicholasV37
1.3Poetryasliterarytranspositionofthetopicofconspiracy41
1.4ClassicallegacyandLatinsourcesinthe Porcaria 45
1.5The ‘papalprince’ andthepoliticalperspectiveinthepoem60
1.6Theeclecticuseoftheclassicallegacyandanewpolitical symbolism69
2.LeonBattistaAlberti’ s Porcariaconiuratio:TheEpistleas UnresolvedReflectiononthePoliticalPlot72
2.1Albertiandthe Porcariaconiuratio 72
2.2Theepistleashistoricalwriting:theconflationofliterarygenres77
2.3Classicaltheoreticalmodels:Alberti’sviewofhistory81
2.4Thematicandstylisticmodels:aSallustianconspiracy91
2.5 ‘Eclecticclassicism’ inAlberti’slanguage97
2.6Therhetoricalconstructionofanunsettledpoliticaldialogue100
2.7Thedisapprovalof resnovae andthe ‘iciarchical’ imageofpower105
3.GiovanniPontano’ s DebelloNeapolitano:The Historia ofthe ConspiracyinPoliticalTheory113
3.1Pontanothehistorian,theroyalsecretary,andthetheorist ofpoliticsandhistoriography113
3.2Pontano’smodelsandthedevelopmentofpoliticalhistoriography119
3.3Conspiracy,obedience,andkingshipinPontano’spoliticaltheory130
3.4Thebaronsandthecrimeofdisobedience132
3.5Theloyalnoblemenandtherepentanttraitors139
3.6The princeps andhispeople143
4.AngeloPoliziano’ s Coniurationiscommentarium: TheConspiracyNarrativeas ‘Official’ Historiography157
4.1Composition,publication,andcirculationofthe Coniurationis commentarium 157
4.2Classicalmodels: varietas inthehistoricalaccount166
4.3Thestylisticrevisionofthetext175
4.4The Commentarium inMediciculturalpolitics177
4.5Theevolutionofthepoliticalperspective:fromthe firstto thesecondversion184
5.TheConspiracyAgainstthePrince:PoliticalPerspectiveand LiteraryPatternsinTextsonPlots190
5.1Theclassicallegacy:genres,models,symbolism,and politicaltradition190
5.2Thecentralityofhistoryanditsliteraryforms196
5.3Politicalideologyandnarrativestrategies:thepracticalmodel foranidealstate198
5.4Movingtowardsthesixteenthcentury209
6. ‘Congiurecontroaunoprincipe’:Machiavelliand HumanistLiterature212
6.1The ‘conspiracy’ inMachiavelli’swork212
6.2Thephenomenonofplots,betweenpoliticaltheorization andhistoricalnarrative218
6.3Conspiracy,tyrannicide,and crimenlaesaemaiestatis 220
6.4TheprincelydimensionofMachiavelli’sthoughtonplots224
6.5Thecommonpeopleasdecisiveprotagonist230
6.6Motivesandoutcomesofplots:thebitteracknowledgement ofthe ‘certissimodanno’ 238
Introduction
I.1Fifteenth-centuryliteratureonconspiracies:athematic andpoliticalgenre
Conspiracyhasalwaysbeenarecurringpoliticalpracticeand,moregenerally,a frequentpoliticalphenomenoninhistory,relevanttoanyformofpowersince antiquity.Ithasbeenbroughttotheforegroundofthecontemporaryhistorical andpoliticalcontextespeciallysincethelastcentury,acquiringnewdistinctive shades,characteristicofthepost-modernera,butoneoftheagesinwhichthis meansofresistanceagainstpowerhaditsmajordiffusionistheRenaissance and inparticulartheItalianQuattrocento,whichcanbedeservedlyregardedasanage ofplots.Inthisperiod,conspiraciesbecamethemostfrequentpoliticalactions aimedatoverthrowinggovernments.Oneofthemostremarkableaspectsinthe early-modernItalianmilieuisthatthecentralityofthispoliticalissueisnot limitedtothehistoricaldynamics,butitismuchmoreall-encompassingasit alsoembracestheliterarydimensionofRenaissanceculture.Thisisprovedbythe considerableproductionoftextsspecificallyfocusedoncontemporaryconspiracieswritteninItalyinthesecondhalfoftheQuattrocento:anoutputthatreveals thepivotalsignificancethatthispoliticalmatteralsoacquiresasaliterarytheme.It isinlightoftheliteraryprominenceofthissubject,whichiscloselyinterlacedwith thehistoricalandculturalmomentousnessofplotsinthesameperiod,thatthis studyisdedicatedto fifteenth-centuryandearlysixteenth-centuryItalianliteratureonthisparticulartopic.Thefocusisplacedonthemostimportanthumanist textsthatprovideaccountsofconspiraciesandontheevolutionofthispolitical issueinMachiavelli’sworkintheearlyCinquecento.
Thisoutput,whichhasnotbeenpreviouslyidentifiedandsystematically analysed,consistsoftextsbelongingtodifferentliterarygenres.Itenjoyedconsiderablediffusioninthesecondhalfofthe fifteenthcentury,whenthedevelopmentofthisliterarytopicinasubstantialgroupofworksiscloselyconnectedwith boththeemergenceofacentralizedpoliticalideologyinmostItalianstatesand, fromaculturalpointofview,thegrowingcentralityofnarrativeofcontemporary historyasthelinchpinofpoliticalliterature.Oneofthemainthreadsthatbindsall theseworkstogetheristheirliterarynature,butthiscomponentisintertwined with,andatthesametimenurtures,thehistoriographicalfoundationsofthese texts,inasmuchastheydealwith,thoughindifferentforms,thehistorical representationofcontemporaryplots.Thefertileinterplaybetweenpurelyliterary
2
componentsandhistoriographicalelements,emergingespeciallyintheconcrete narrativestrategiesthatframethesedifferenttexts,iswhatproducesapolychrome butconsistentcorpusinformedbyaprominentpoliticalcharacter,whichisableto conveyacoherentideologicalmessage.
Oneofthedefiningaspectsofthisliteraryoutputisthepivotalroleplayedby theclassicallegacyinallthesetexts.Theemploymentofbothtraditionalrhetorical genresandspecificclassicalsourcesrevealsasophisticatedandcomplexprocedureofreworkingmanifoldliteraryelements.Thisaffectsmultipletextualaspects andinvolvesclassicalsymbols,narrativetechniques,stylistictools,andinterpretativecategoriesofpoliticalphenomena.Themultiformoperationofrecasting classical auctoritates,typicalofhumanistculture,inthisstrandofliterature matchesand,atthesametime,underpinsthepoliticalandideologicalprinciples that,eitherimplicitlyormoreopenly,underlieallthetexts.Becauseofthe heterogenousliterarycharacterofthisoutput,theinterchangebetweenpolitical andrhetoricalingredientstakesdifferentshapesaccordingtothespeci ficliterary formsusedand,fromapoliticalpointofview,turnsouttoreflectthehistorical backgroundandtheideologicalstandpointofeachwork.Themainclassical modelispredictablySallust’ s DeconiurationeCatilinae,whichhadalreadycirculatedwidelyandhadbeenextensivelyusedinthepreviouscenturiesespeciallyasa historicalsource.¹Nevertheless,nowtherevivaloftheclassicalworldinthese worksismuchmorewide-rangingandmultifacetedthanthemereadoptionof onechiefclassical auctoritas astheexclusiveprototype.Thiseclecticapproach appearsinboththemultifunctionalreworkingofSallust’swork(onastructural, thematic,stylistic,andconceptuallevel)andinthecombinationofthismain modelwithothermultiplesources.Thankstotheprocessofreappropriationof theclassicalworldthatwasenhancedinthe fifteenthcentury,newclassical authors,alsooftheGreektradition,startedtocirculateagainmorewidelyand tobetranslated,becomingnowanintegralpartintheconstructionofhumanist politicalliteratureandjoiningthealreadymoreinfluential auctoritates (suchas Sallusthimself).However,eventhemorecanonicalmodelsnowarereworked
¹OnthereceptionofSallustintheMiddleAgesandRenaissance:LaPenna,Antonio, ‘Brevinotesul temadellacongiuranellastoriografiamoderna’,inLaPenna,Antonio, Sallustioela ‘rivoluzione’ romana (Milan:Feltrinelli,1968),pp.432‒52;Skinner,Quentin, ‘TheVocabularyofRenaissance Republicanism:ACulturallonguedurée?’,in LanguageandImagesofRenaissanceItaly,editedby AlisonBrown(Oxford:Clarendon,1995),pp.87‒110;Osmond,PatriciaJ., ‘“PrincepsHistoriae Romanae”:SallustinRenaissancePoliticalThought’ , MemoirsoftheAmericanAcademyinRome 40 (1995),pp.101‒43;Osmond,PatriciaJ., ‘CatilineinFiesoleandFlorence:TheAfter-LifeofaRoman Conspirator’ , InternationalJournaloftheClassicalTradition 7,1(2000),pp.3‒38;Osmond,PatriciaJ., ‘CatilineinRenaissanceConspiracyHistories:HeroorVillain?ThecaseofStefanoPorcari’,in Congiureeconflitti.L’affermazionedellasignoriapontificiasuRomanelRinascimento:politica, economiaecultura. AttidelConvegnointernazionale,Roma,3‒5dicembre2013,editedbyMiriam Chiabò,MaurizioGargano,AnnaModigliani,andPatriciaJ.Osmond(Rome:RomanelRinascimento, 2014),pp.203‒15.
throughamoreeclecticandoriginalperspectiveofadaptationtothecontemporaryculturaldimension.Additionally,there-elaborationoftheclassicaltraditionis notonlycrucialfromapurelyliteraryperspective,concerningmainlyrhetorical, thematic,andnarrativeaspects,butalsofromthepointofviewofthefunctionof exemplarity,onamoreconceptuallevelthatdisplaysevenmoreexplicitpolitical implications.Inconsiderationofthecentralityoftheclassicallegacyinthese works,inthisvolumespecificattentionispaidtotheroleofthisdefining componentinthisliteraryoutput.
Theremarkableexpansionofthisliteratureonplotsafterthemiddleofthe fifteenthcenturyhastobecontextualizedinthehistoricalscenarioofthisperiod, whenmanyconspiraciestookplaceintheItalianstates,sothatthisepochcan berightlydefinedasthe ‘ageofconspiracies’.Thisperiodizationwascoinedby theeminenthistorianRiccardoFubinitolabeltheprecisetimespanbetweenthe 1460sand1470sanditisbasedonhistoricalevidence.²Nonetheless,more generally,thestrikingdiffusionofconspiraciesinthebroaderRenaissanceage, especiallyinItaly,hasbeennotedbyseveralscholars.Itwasalreadyimplicitly pointedoutbyJacobBurckhardtinthe firstpartofhisveryfamousandfoundationalwork TheCivilizationoftheRenaissance ,entitled TheStateasaWorkof Art,wheremanypoliticalplotsthatoccurredintheItalianstatesinthe fifteenth andthesixteenthcenturiesarementioned.³Also,thecontemporaryhistorian LauroMartinesunderlinedthelargenumberofconspiraciesintheItalianpeninsulabetweentheTrecentoandQuattrocento.⁴ Hebroughtbackwardstheexpansionofthisspecificpracticestothefourteenthcenturyandputitinrelationtothe consolidationofthepowersofthe signori ,whichinthe fifteenthcenturybecame evenmorecentralizedand,consequently,ledtothefailureofmostoftheattacks plottedinthislaterperiod,characterizedbythelackofsupportby ‘strategic sectorsofthecommunity’ (whilesomeofthepreviousenterpriseswerestill successful).However,thehistoricalcategorizationthatpinpointsan ‘ageof conspiracies’ intheRenaissance,especiallyFubini’speriodizationwhichismore specificallyfocusedonthe fifteenthcentury,canalsobeconsideredfromaliterary perspective.Indeed,itisinthesecondhalfoftheQuattrocentothatalarge numberofworksoncontemporaryconspiracieswerecomposed.Hence, Fubini’smorerestricted ‘historicalperiodization’,whichencompassestheyears
²Fubini,Riccardo, ‘L’Etàdellecongiure:irapportitraFirenzeeMilanodaltempodiPieroaquello diLorenzode’ Medici(1464‒1478)’,inFubini,Riccardo, Italiaquattrocentesca:politicaediplomazia nell’etàdiLorenzode’ Medici (Milan:FrancoAngeli,1994),pp.220‒52. ³Burckhardt,Jacob, TheCivilizationoftheRenaissanceinItaly,translatedbySamuelGeorge ChetwyndMiddlemore(Kitchener:Batoche,2001),pp.5‒105.
⁴ Martines,Lauro, ‘PoliticalConflictintheItalianCityStates’ , GovernmentandOpposition 3,1 (1968),pp.69‒91.SeealsoFubini,Riccardo, ‘CongiureestatonelsecoloXV’,in Irenudi:congiure, assassini,tracolliedaltriimprevistinellastoriadelpotere.AttidelconvegnodistudiodellaFondazione EzioFranceschini(CertosadelGalluzzo,19novembre1994),editedbyGlaucoMariaCantarellaand FrancescoSanti(Spoleto:Centroitalianodistudisull’altoMedioevo,1996),pp.143‒61.
4
between1464and1478,canbeextendedtotherealmofliteratureand,inthiscase, tothewholeofthesecondhalfofthecentury,startingfromtheearly1450s,soas toincorporatetheparallelwidespreadproductionofseveralliterarytextsonthis issue.Thisbroader ‘literaryperiodization ’,inparticular,accountsforthenumerousworksthatdealwithStefanoPorcari’splotagainstPopeNicholasVin1453, anhistoricalepisodethatattractedtheinterestofseveralintellectuals.
Thisstudyidentifiesthemostsignificantworksthatcanberegardedasmilestonesinthedevelopmentofthisparticularkindofliteratureduringthiscrucial period.ThefocusisplacedonfourQuattrocentotextswhichhavebeenexamined ascasestudies(andwhichallowustotracetheevolutionoftheissueofpolitical plotsacrossdifferentliteraryforms,politicalcentresandhistoricalphases)andon Machiavelli’smainworkswherethetopicofconspiracyturnsouttobeparticularlyimportant(Ilprincipe,the Discorsi andthe Istorie fiorentine ),markinga continuity,butalsoafundamentalturningpoint,withrespecttothepreceding authors.The firsttwotextsexaminedareOrazioRomano’sepicpoem Porcaria andLeonBattistaAlberti’sepistle Porcariaconiuratio,bothwrittenin1453and devotedtoStefanoPorcari’sconspiracyagainstPopeNicholasVofthesame year.ThethirdtextisGiovanniPontano’ s DebelloNeapolitano (1465‒1503), thehistoriographicalaccountontheso-called ‘firstconspiracyofthebarons’ (1459‒65)againstthekingofNaplesFerdinandoofAragon(nowdefinedin modernhistoriographyasa ‘warofsuccession ’):alengthywork,whichincludes thenarrativeofthemilitaryconflictthatfollowedthebarons’ rebellionandwas composedbythehumanistthroughalongprocessofrevision,from1465tohis death,in1503.Theprogressofthis fifteenth-centuryliteratureculminateswith AngeloPoliziano’ s Coniurationiscommentarium,thefamousliteraryaccountof thePazziconspiracywrittenimmediatelyaftertheattackagainstLorenzoand Giulianode’ Medici,in1478:arefinednarrationthatwasthecornerstoneofproMedicipropagandaandcanberegardedasaclimaxinthetrajectoryofhumanisticliteratureonplots.⁵
Thesetextsbelongtodifferentgenresandsubgenres(epicpoetry,epistolography,historiography,etc.)and,althoughallofthemretainahistoricalcore,canbe ascribedtovariousliterarydomains,alsorevealing,insomecases,thehybrid natureofmost fifteenth-centuryliteratureintermsoftherhetoricalcanon.Some ofthemainfeaturesthatcloselyconnectallthesedifferentworksallowusto classifythemasaconsistentliterarycategory.Thesetraitsaretheirliterarynature (althoughalltextsfocusonhistoricalfacts)andtheirmonographiccharacter;the keyandmultidimensionalroleplayedbythere-elaborationofclassicalliterature; thesecular,politicalapproachindealingwithhistoricalmattersandtheparallel ideologicalstandpointemerginginalltheseworks;and,mostofall,thestrong
⁵ Extensivebibliographyontheseworksisprovidedinthechaptersdevotedtothem.
thematicconnectionrepresentedbythesubject,thatis,thenarrativeofarecent conspiracy.Forthisreason,itispossibletocoherentlyde finethis fifteenth-century literaryoutputasa ‘thematic ’ genre:a ‘monographic’ literatureonaspecific theme,whichenjoyedremarkablefortuneinaprecisechronologicalperiodand isinformedbyamarkedpoliticalcharacterinthenarrationofcrucialattemptsat overthrowingsystemsofpower.Theidentificationofthisnew ‘thematic ’ genre establishesapreciseliterarycategorywithinRenaissanceliterature,inwhichthe complexinteractionbetweenhistoriographical,political,andliteraryfactors standsoutasadistinguishingtrait.Inthiscorpusofworks,inparticular,the narrativeofhistory,initsdifferentliteraryarrangementsandentwinedwiththe purelyliteraryconstituentsoftexts,becomesthecorearoundwhichanew politicalideologyrotates,aviewperfectlyconsistentwiththeburgeoningofthe newsystemofpoliticalpowers.
Thedevelopmentofthisoutputinthesecondhalfofthe fifteenthcenturyis closelyassociatedwiththeemergenceofanewcentralizedpoliticalthought(or better,apartiallynewpoliticalthoughtthatwillalsoinfluencethegroundbreaking theoriesofstatecraftinthefollowingcentury).Thesenewpoliticalperspectives reflectthesimultaneousprocessofconsolidationofautocraticgovernments throughoutItaly.Albeitinafewcasestheseaccountsofplotscannotbedirectly tracedbacktothemereintentionofcelebratingandupholdingthecurrentrulers threatenedbytheconspiracy,inalltheseworksaprincelyideologyemergesasthe bedrockofthehumanists ’ politicalstandpoint.Thispoliticallydrivennarrative retainsandenhancestheclassicalinterpretationoftheideaof ‘conspiracy’ andof theworditself,which,startingfromCicero’sdenunciationofCatilineonwards, acquirestheunavoidablenegativeconnotationof seditio and insidia.Thissemanticevolutionof coniuratio showsanirrevocableshiftfromtheneutralmeaningof ‘anactoftakinganoath’ (especiallyasoldier’soathofallegiance)tothenegative significanceofpoliticalcrime,coincidingwithsubversionandtreachery. ⁶ Humanistliteratureintensifiesthisinterpretation:theimageofapoliticalregime jeopardizedbytheconspiratorsappearsasafairandjustpoliticalpower,theonly oneabletokeepthestateinconcordandprosperity.Buttheanalysisofthetexts showsthatthisoutlookassumesmorecomplexundertonesandresultsindifferent outcomesineachwork.
Fromahistoricalperspective,itisnocoincidencethatinthesecondhalfofthe Quattrocentotherehadbeenasubstantialconcentrationofpoliticalpowerin
⁶ Onthisevolutioninthemeaningoftheterm ‘conspiracy’,seePagan,VictoriaEmma, Conspiracy NarrativesinRomanHistory (Austin:UniversityofTexasPress,2004),p.7;forthesemanticand conceptualdefinitionoftheterm,withspecificfocusonthecommentarytothe DecretumGratiani by JuandeTorquemada,aprominent figureintheintellectual,political,andjuridicaldebateinthe Renaissance,seeQuaglioni,Diego, ‘Lacongiuradeicanonisti. Coniuratio e conspiratio nelcommento al Decretum diJuandeTorquemada(1457)’,in Congiureeconflitti,pp.21‒38.Forthedefinitionof ‘conspiracy’,seealsoSbriccoli,Mario, Crimenlaesaemaiestatis.Ilproblemadelreatopoliticoallesoglie dellascienzamoderna (Milan:Giuffre,1974),pp.71‒2,339‒42.
6
thehandsofnewlyestablishedleaders.Thisphenomenontookplacenotonlyin thekingdomofNapleswiththeAragonesemonarchy,butalsointhe signorie and aristocraticgovernmentsthroughoutItaly,andeveninFlorence,where,although therepublicanframeworkwasofficiallymaintained,theMedicigraduallybecame moreandmorepowerfulandweretheactualrulersofthestate.Thisgeneral historicaltransitionbroughtaboutakindofreductioninrepublicanideologies, whichhadbeenpredominant,atleastinFlorence,betweenthelate1300sand early1400s,althoughtheywerecharacterizedbyaprominentoligarchicessence andhadbeenadaptedtothecontemporaryhistoricalsituationofarepublican statecommittedtomilitaryexpansion.⁷ Also,inlightofthesetraitsofthe Florentinerepublic,asJamesHankinshaspointedout,thedistinctionbetween republicanandmonarchicgovernmentinthehumanistagedoesnothavetobe interpretedasstrictlyasitwasinpreviousyearsinrelationtoBaron ’stheorieson ‘civichumanism’ ⁸ Itistruethatacontrapositionbetweenthesetwopolitical formswasperceivedandoftenexpressedbyhumanists,especiallywithregardto theconflictbetweenFlorenceandMilanintheearlyQuattrocento,whichproducedverywell-knownpiecesofliterature,suchasthefamouscontroversy betweenPoggioBraccioliniandGuarinoVeronese(1435)justtomentionone ofthese.⁹ Neverthelesstheeulogyoftherepublicasthefairestformofgovernment
⁷ Hankins,James, ‘HumanismandtheOriginsofModernPoliticalThought’,in TheCambridge CompaniontoRenaissanceHumanism,editedbyJillKraye(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress, 1996),pp.118‒41,129.ForareassessmentoftheoligarchicandimperialisticcharacterofFlorentine politicsintheearlyQuattrocento,seeHankins,James, ‘The “BaronThesis” afterFortyYearsandSome RecentStudiesofLeonardoBruni’ , JournaloftheHistoryofIdeas 56,2(1995),pp.309‒38:316‒23. FlorentineRepublicanismhasbeenalsodefined ‘imperialRepublicanism’ inPedullà,Gabriele, Machiavelliintumulto:conquista,cittadinanzaeconflittonei ‘DiscorsisopralaprimadecadiTito Livio’ (Rome:Bulzoni,2011),p.400;moreover,foranilluminatingcriticismofthetraditionalconcept ofRepublicanismemployedtolabelFlorentinepoliticalthoughtinthisageseethereviewofPedullà’ s volumebyGuidoCappelli,in CuadernosdeFilologíaItaliana 20(2013),pp.354‒61:359‒60.Seealso Cappelli,Guido, ‘Conceptostransversales:RepúblicaymonarquíaenelHumanismopolítico’ , Res publica 21(2009),pp.51‒69.OntheevolutionofthegovernmentinFlorenceundertheMediciseethe classicvolumebyRubinstein,Nicolai, TheGovernmentofFlorenceUndertheMedici(1434to1494) (Oxford:ClarendonPress,1966;seconded.1997);Jones,PhilipJ., ‘CommunesandDespots:TheCityStateinLateMedievalItaly’ , TransactionsoftheRoyalHistoricalSociety 15(1965),pp.71‒96;andnow Black,RobertandLaw,JohnEaston,eds., TheMediciCitizensandMasters (Florence:VillaITatti,the HarvardUniversityCenterforItalianRenaissanceStudies,2015).
⁸ SeeinparticularBaron,Hans, TheCrisisoftheEarlyItalianRenaissance:CivicHumanismand RepublicanLibertyinanAgeofClassicismandTyranny (Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,1955), andnowtheimportantstudiesbyHankins,James, ‘Rhetoric,HistoryandIdeology:TheCivic PanegyricsofLeonardoBruni’,in RenaissanceCivicHumanism:ReappraisalsandReflections,edited byJamesHankins(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2000),pp.143‒78(seealsothewhole collectionofessays);Hankins,James, ‘ExclusivistRepublicanismandtheNon-MonarchicalRepublic’ , PoliticalTheory 38,4(2010),pp.452‒82;Hankins,James, ‘Machiavelli,CivicHumanismandthe HumanistPoliticsofVirtue’ , ItalianCulture 32,2(2014),pp.98‒109;Hankins, ‘The “BaronThesis” ; Cappelli, ‘Conceptostransversales’,pp.51‒69;andGrafton,Anthony, ‘HumanismandPolitical Theory’,in TheCambridgeHistoryofPoliticalThought1450‒1700,editedbyJamesHenderson Burns(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1991),pp.7‒29.
⁹ Onpoliticalideologiesinthehumanistage:NicolaiRubinstein, ‘ItalianPoliticalThought, 1450‒1539’,in TheCambridgeHistory,pp.30‒65;Skinner,Quentin, TheFoundationsofModern PoliticalThought,vol.1(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1978);PastoreStocchi,Manlio, ‘Il
wasnotalwaysgroundedonaninstitutionalbasis,andconsequentlywas consideredneitherinrigidoppositiontomonarchicrulenorinrelationtothe disapprovalofitasillegitimate.Sincerepublicangovernmentswereessentially oligarchicandimperialistic,inthisscenariothemaindichotomybecamethat betweenarightfulandadespoticrule(althoughtheantithesisbetweenajust governmentandtyrannywasalsodestinedtoevolveintoamoreintricateand ambiguouscontrast).¹⁰ AsQuentinSkinneralsounderlined,humanistswerenot muchconcernedabout ‘constitutionalarrangements’,¹¹ratherthecentralpillars oftheirpoliticalthoughtbecamethehumanspheres,inparticularhumanvirtues, whichwereregardedasthemainattributesabletolegitimizepoliticalpower(even papalpower)andwereseenincloseconnectionwiththeancientphilosophical tradition.¹²
Thiscomplexandgradualprocessledtotheaffirmationofanewideaofsecular and ‘individualized’ authority,whichmainlycoincidedwiththe figureofthe prince,ormoreoftenwithhisequivalentandmorepristineimageofthe pater patriae.Thishighlyverticalizedsystemisrootedinapoliticalideologybasedon themanagementofconsensusand,mostofall,onthevirtuousnatureofthe leader.Thisevolutionwasinfluencedbythemoreextensiverecovery,circulation, andstudyofclassicalsourcesthatdealwithmonarchicaltheoryandingeneral monarchicalrule,inparticularGreek auctoritates suchasXenophon,¹³Isocrates,
pensieropoliticodegliumanisti’,inPastoreStocchi,Manlio, Paginedistoriadell’Umanesimoitaliano (Milan:FrancoAngeli,2014),pp.26‒84;JamesHankins, ‘Humanism’;andnowHankins,James, Virtue Politics.SoulcraftandStatecraftinRenaissanceItaly (Cambridge,Mass./London:TheBelknapPressof HarvardUniversityPress,2019).OnthefamouscontroversybetweenPoggioandGuarinoonScipio andCaesarseeinparticularCanfora,Davide, LacontroversiadiPoggioBracciolinieGuarinoVeronese (Florence:Olschki,2001).
¹⁰ OntheissueoftyrannyseeHankins, VirtuePolitics,pp.103‒52;Quaglioni,Diego, Politicae dirittonelTrecentoitaliano.Il ‘Detyranno’ diBartolodaSassoferrato(1314–1357) (Florence:Olschki, 1983);andSchadee,Hester, ‘“IDon’tKnowWhoYouCallTyrants”.DebatingEvilLordsin QuattrocentoHumanism’,in EvilLords:TheoriesandRepresentationsofTyrannyfromAntiquityto theRenaissance,editedbyNikosPanouandHesterSchadee(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2018), pp.172‒90.NowseealsoChapter5,section5.3(inparticularp.203).
¹¹Skinner,Quentin, VisionsofPolitics,vol.2, RenaissanceVirtues (Cambridge:Cambridge UniversityPress,2002),p.123;Hankins, VirtuePolitics,pp.36‒7.
¹²ForaspecificanalysisofthesystemofvirtuesinhumanistpoliticalthoughseeCappelli,Guido, ‘Introduzione’,inGiovanniPontano, Deprincipe,editedbyGuidoCappelli(Rome:SalernoEditrice, 2003),pp.XI‒CXXI.Fortheconceptof ‘morallegitimacy’ andthecentralityofthenotionof ‘virtue’ see Hankins, VirtuePolitics,pp.36‒45.
¹³TherecoveryofXenophonwasparticularlyfosteredintheculturalenvironmentofNeapolitan humanism:theLatintranslationofthe Cyropaedia producedbyPoggioBraccioliniin1446hadbeen championedbyAntonioPanormitaandwasofferedtoAlfonsoofAragon.SeeCappelli, ‘Introduzione’ , p.LII,andKristeller,PaulOscar,Cranz,FerdinandEdward,andBrown,Virginia,eds., Catalogus translationumetcommentariorum:MediaevalandRenaissanceLatinTranslationandCommentaries. AnnotatedListsandGiudes,vol.7(Washington:CatholicUniversityofAmericaPress,1960–), pp.116‒21.AlsoLorenzoVallatranslatedforAlfonsotheMagnanimousandtheyoungFerdinando the firstfourchaptersofthe Cyropaedia in1438,presentingCyrusasamodelofprincelyvirtues:see Marsh,David, ‘LorenzoVallaInNaples:TheTranslationFromXenophon’ s Cyropaedia’,Bibliothèque d’HumanismeetRenaissance 46,2(1984),pp.407‒20.
8
andPlutarch,¹⁴ butalsoLatinsourcesthatwererevivedandreworkedwithanew lifeforce,suchasSeneca’ s Declementia andothertexts.¹⁵ Itisalsothankstothese modelsthat fifteenth-centurypoliticalthoughtaccommodatedapragmaticview informedbyapersonalisticideaofpower.Someofthesesourcesenjoyedforthe firsttimeanewrevitalization,especiallyGreekmodelsthatwerenowtranslated, suchasIsocrates’sorations;ontheotherhand,other auctoritates thatalready circulatedinthepreviouscenturies,suchasSeneca’sworkorevenmorerecognizedpoeticmodels(e.g.Lucan),wereadoptedandrecastthroughafresh approachthatmadethemfunctionaltotheformulationofapoliticaltheory abletoadheretocontemporaryhistoricalneeds.¹⁶
Thesesourceswerethereforedeconstructedandreconstructedinaprocessof innovativere-elaboration,typicalofthehumanistattitudetowardstheclassical legacy.¹⁷ Thisapproachwasneverpassiveandone-dimensional,but,conversely, combinedthesemodelswiththemoretraditionalcentralpillarsofthespeculation onpoliticalthought Aristotle,Plato,and,amongtheLatinauthors,Cicero so astobuildanautonomousandoriginaltheoryofpower.AristotleandCicero,in particular,standoutaspredominantlyinfluentialinhumanistpoliticaltheorization,alsoinpoliticalliteratureorientedtowardsprincelyviewpointsand,more indirectly,intheideologicalperspectiveintextsonplots.Bothauthorswere landmarksforpoliticalprinciplesalreadyinthepreviouscenturies,butespecially AristotleenjoyedanovelcirculationandfreshinterpretationsintheQuattrocento withthenewLatintranslationsofthe Ethics byLeonardoBruni(1416)andby
¹⁴ Onthere-discoveryofIsocrates’sworkbyhumanists,seeGualdoRosa,Lucia, Lafedenella ‘Paideia’:aspettidellafortunaeuropeadiIsocrateneisecoliXVeXVI (Rome:IstitutoStoricoItaliano perilMedioEvo,1984),andnowAlbanese,Gabriella, ‘L’esordiodellatrattatistica “deprincipe” alla cortearagonese:l’inedito ‘SuperIsocrate’ diBartolomeoFacio’,in PrincipiprimadelPrincipe,editedby LorenzoGeri[Studi(eTesti)Italiani 29(2012)],pp.59‒115.OnPlutarch,seeResta,Gianvito, Le epitomidiPlutarconelQuattrocento (Padova:Antenore,1962),andPade,Marianne, TheReceptionof Plutarch’ s ‘Lives’ inFifteenth-centuryItaly,2vols.(Copenhagen:MuseumTusculanumPress,2007). ForthecontributionmadebyFrancescoFilelfotothetranslationandreceptionoftheseGreekauthors withinthegradualconsolidationofmonarchicalpoliticalthought,seeResta,Gianvito, ‘Francesco FilelfotraBisanzioeRoma’,in FrancescoFilelfonelquintocentenariodellamorte.AttidelXVII Convegnodistudimaceratesi(Tolentino,27‒30settembre1981) (Padova:Antenore,1986),pp.1‒60: 24‒5.
¹
⁵ ForthesourceofSeneca,seeStacey,Peter, ‘SenecanPoliticalThoughtfromtheMiddleAgesto EarlyModernity’,in TheCambridgeCompaniontoSeneca,editedbyShadiBartschandAlessandro Schiesaro(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2015),pp.289‒302,andStacey,Peter, Roman MonarchyandtheRenaissancePrince (Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2007).
¹
⁶ ThefundamentalstudiesonthetraditionofclassicaltextsarestilltheclassicvolumesReynolds, LeightonDurham,Marshall,PeterK.,andMynors,RogerAubreyBaskerville, TextsandTransmission: ASurveyoftheLatinClassics (Oxford:ClarendonPress,1983)(inparticular,onSeneca’ s Declementia, pp.363–5);andReynolds,LeightonDurhamandWilson,NigelGuy, ScribesandScholars:AGuideto theTransmissionofGreekandLatinLiterature,4thed.(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2013).
¹⁷ Fortheoriginalityofhumanistpoliticalthoughtanditsdeconstructiveandreconstructive approachtowardstheclassicaltradition,seeCappelli,Rev.Pedullà, Machiavelli,p.360.Moregenerally, ontherecoveryoftheclassicaltraditionanditsroleinthedevelopmentofHumanismseethe importantvolumebyWitt,RonaldG., ‘IntheFootstepsoftheAncients’:TheOriginsofHumanism fromLovatotoBruni (Leiden:Brill,2000).
JohannesArgyropoulos(1464)andofthe Politics againbyBruni(1438),which hadremarkablediffusionintheRenaissance,whennewcommentariesand vernaculartranslationswerealsoproduced.¹⁸ Additionally,alsocanonicalsources conventionallyemployedprincipallyinrelationwithrepublicanideologies,such asSallust,thepivotalmodelinthisliteratureonplots,¹⁹ werenowrevisitedina newamalgamationwithothertextsbroughttonewlifeandreinterpretedand readaptedinaccordancewithanevolvingideaofacentralizedstate.Thisnew personalisticconceptofauthoritythatemergesinthisdevelopingtheoryappears, forexample,intheevolutioninthedistinctionbetweenmonarchandtyrant.This distinctionisnolongerfoundedonjuridicalcriteria(ornotjustonthem),but ontheexerciseanddisplayofpersonalvirtuesbytheruler,² ⁰ inanethical perspectivethat,insomecases,endsupbecomingessentiallypolitical,reflecting theunspokentranslationofpoliticalconsiderationsintomoralterms.Inthisview, theideaoftyrannysomehowlostitsauthenticsignificanceandremainedrelevant onlyinrelationtodenunciationofattacksagainstestablishedrulers.
So,althoughearly fifteenth-centuryrepublicanideologieswerealreadymarked byanambiguouscharacter,itisaroundthemiddleoftheQuattrocentothat centralizedgovernmentsconsolidatedtheirauthoritystillmoreand,consequently,hadtofacenewproblemsoflegitimacyandneededtochangetheir culturalpoliticsinordertomaintaintheirpowerandstability.Inthescenarioof politicalequilibrium(thoughalwaysunstable)broughtaboutbythepeaceofLodi in1453,²¹Italianstateshadtofocusmoreoninternalthreats,ratherthanon externalconflicts,and,indoingso,theyalsoaimedtospreadtheirpowerfulimage totheoutside.Asinthe firsthalfofthecentury(butnowwithdifferentpurposes andoutcomes),thehumanists’ literaryactivitycontributedtocreatingand strengtheningaculturalideologyinsupportofpoliticalrulers,inaccordance withthenewpoliticalsituationand,consequently,payingmoreattentiontothe issuesrelatedtomaintainingpowerratherthanconqueringit.Thisfruitful
¹⁸ Lines,David, Aristotle’ s ‘Ethics’ intheItalianRenaissance(ca.1300–1650):TheUniversitiesand theProblemofMoralEducation (Leiden:Brill,2002);Lines,David, ‘Aristotle’ s Ethics inthe Renaissance’,in TheReceptionofAristotle’ s ‘Ethics’,editedbyJonMiller(Cambridge:Cambridge UniversityPress,2012),pp.171–93;Kraye,Jill, ‘RenaissanceCommentariesonthe Nicomachean Ethics’,in TheVocabularyofTeachingandResearchbetweenMiddleAgesandRenaissance, ProceedingsoftheColloquium:London,WarburgInstitute,11–12March1994,editedbyOlga Weijers(Turnhout:Brepols,1995),pp.96–117;Kraye,Jill, ‘ThePrintingHistoryofAristotleinthe FifteenthCentury:ABibliographicalApproachtoRenaissancePhilosophy’ , RenaissanceStudies 9 (1995),pp.189–211.OnBruni’stranslationofthe Politics anditswidediffusionseeinparticular Hankins, ‘ExclusivistRepublicanism’;Hankins,JamesandPalmer,Ada, ‘TheRecoveryofAncient PhilosophyintheRenaissance:ABriefGuide’ (Florence:Olschki,2008),p.21.SeealsoLines,David andRefini,Eugenio,eds., ‘Aristotelefattovolgare’.Tradizionearistotelicaeculturavolgarenel Rinascimento (Pisa:ETS,2014[but2015]).
¹⁹ OnthereceptionofSallust,seen.1.²⁰ Hankins, ‘Humanism’,p.128.
²¹FortheimpactofthepeaceofLodiasaturningpointinthepoliticalscenarioandafactorthatled tothedevelopmentofanewpoliticalideology,seeinparticularRubinstein, ‘ItalianPoliticalThought’ , p.30;Cappelli, ‘Introduzione’,pp.XXXV‒XXXVII.
