The Past and Present Society

Leonardo Bruni: "Professional Rhetorician" or "Civic Humanist"? Author(s): Hans Baron Source: Past & Present, No. 36 (Apr., 1967), pp. 21-37 Published by: Oxford University Press on behalf of The Past and Present Society Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/649913 . Accessed: 09/03/2011 03:23
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=oup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Oxford University Press and The Past and Present Society are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Past & Present.

http://www.jstor.org

LEONARDO BRUNI: "PROFESSIONAL RHETORICIAN" OR "CIVICHUMANIST"?

IN A PAPER PUBLISHEDIN THE JULY I966 ISSUE OF PAST
AND PRESF,NIs

with the acknowledgedhelp of some other scholars, Professor J. E. Seigel makes a startling claim. The chronology of Bruni's early works that I proposed in I955,1 he thinks, is totally false: Bruni's writings, contrary to what I said, preceded the decisive years of the Florentine wars with Giangaleazzo Visconti and, therefore, cannot reflect the impact of Florence's struggle for existence. Yet so Seigel argues - demonstrationthat the works which set forth Bruni's ideas for the first time originatedafter Florence's trial is a precondition for interpreting fifteenth-century Florentine humanism as an intellectual movement shaped by political conditiolls; we would, therefore, do well to drop the concept of Renaissance "Civic Humanism" altogether and to look rather upon Bruni and his contemporaries in the light of Paul 0. Kristeller's thesis that the Italian humanists were essentially "professionalrhetoricians".2 This is cIearly a non sequitur, whatever the dates of Bruni's early writings may be. Florentine humanists during the early fifteenth century held very particularviews and convictions of their own, such as are not found elsewhere or only at a much later time, on ethical values, on the need for active participation in communal life, on republican liberty and "popular" government, on history and the equality of "modern" Florence with ancient Rome, and on the potential of the Florentine vernacular. All this would not simply disappear, even if it could be shown that Bruni composed the works which first expressed some of these ideas before the war with Giangaleazzoreached its climax in I402. The major provocation of Seigel's claims is, however, his assertion that as far as the chronological criticism of Bruni's writings is concerned the clock may simply be put back. In the ordinarycourse of things, a scholarly theory, after it has withstood the first tests, may
1 In TheCrisisof theEarlyItalian Renaissance: CivicHumanism andRepublican Libertyin an Age of Classicism and Tyranny,2 vols. (Princeton,N.J., I 955) (rev. edn., I vol., Princeton, N.J., I966), hereafterreferred to as Crisis,ISt edn. and rev. edn. and Humanistic and PoliticalLiterature in Florenceand Veniceat the Beginning of the Quattrocento (Cambridge,Mass., I955). 9 J. E. Seigel, " 'Civic SIumanism' or CiceronianRhetoric? The Cultureof Petrarch and Bruni", Past and Present, no. 34 (July, I966), pp. 3-48- esp. pp. g ff., 25 ff., 30, 43 f. (hereafterreferredto as "CiceronianRhetoric?").

22

PAST AND PRESENT

NUMBER 36

later prove to be in need of modification because of new evidence or new criteria. Seigel does not produce any new evidence; neither does he systematicallyreview the theory which he rejects. He simply needs to rap at a few stones of the edifice, so he thinks: the stones fall, the walls crumble, and he decides that no new edifice had ever been required. We need only move back into the one that had stood there from I899 to I955. A dramatic reversal, to be sure; but is it believable? My proposal in I955 tO change drastically the chronological sequence of Bruni's early works did not spring from a sudden whim. It was the outcome of a long-considered effort to escape from a quandaryin which students had found themselves since the beginning of modern criticism: Bruni's LaudatioFlorentinaeUrbis, which mentions the "occupation" of Bologna by Giangaleazzo Visconti (June I402) and presupposes that Giangaleazzono longer dominates the political scene (he died 2 September I402), iS analysed in detail in the second of Bruni's Dialogi,a work which, according to indications in its Prooemium and in the first dialogue, was written shortly after Easter I40I. In I899, driven to despair by this puzzle, a student of Italian literature, F. P. Luiso, suggested a short-cut - one that he apparently later abandoned. Bruni's mention of Bologna, so he conjectured, does not refer to the actual occupation of the city by Giangaleazzothat occurred in June I402, but to a rumour of the year I399 when a false report circulated in Florence-not, indeed, that Bologna had been "occupied" by Milanese troops, but that Bologna had entered into a secret understandingwith Giangaleazzo. Quite apart from the sheer wilfulness of equating fact and rumour, "occupation" and the making of secret contacts, this theory entirely ignores the context of the passage in the Laudatio which makes it crystal clear that Bruni was talking of I402 and not of an earlierdate. The passage reads: "In Tuscany, he [Giangaleazzo]held Pisa, Siena, Perugia, and Assisi in his grip, and eventually he had even occupied Bologna".3 This is a list of Giangaleazzo'sconquests that proceeds chronologically, Pisa having fallen in early I399, Siena durirlg that summer, Perugia at the beginning of I400, Assisi in May. Assuming with Luiso that the passage was written during the autumn-winter of I400-I and that the "occupation" of Bologna meant an event of I399, Bruni would, necessarily, have mentioned it before Perugia. In this
3 ;<. . . in Etruria vero Pisas, Senas, Perusiam,Assisium tenebat,tandemetiam Bononiamoccuparat". Cf. Crisis, ISt edn., p. 524.

LEONARDOBRUNI

23

case, he could not possibly have put it at the end of the list and stated that it took place after the fall of Assisi; for this is what the words "and eventually he had even occupied Bologna (randemetiam Bononiam occuparat)"expressly say. To any reader of the Laudatio this should be self-evident, and I would have wasted time and space if, in my studies of I955, I had seriously discussed and quoted the sources concerning the I399 event. Mr. Seigel, however, thinks that if I had done so I would have recognized Luiso's "excellent reasons for believing that Bruni's mention of Bologna in the Laudatioreferredto the rumoursof I399". This, then, is the first crucial achievement of Seigel's reappraisal "crucial" because, since it is entirely chimerical and the Laadatio remains a work composed after the occupation of Bologna in June I402, all consequences drawn from the belief that the Laudalio is earlier, and virtually everything Seigel tells us about the failure of the year I402 to influence Bruni's ideas, are likewise built on air. Since the one piece of evidence which we have discussed is by itself strong enough to prevent any removal of the Laudatiofrom the period after I402, I need not discuss here any further proof nor consider the implications,5 but may refer the reader to my other publications.6 II Given the pOSt-I402 date of the Laudatio and the fact that the Laudatio is cited and discussed in Dialogus II although, according to internal evidence, the Prooemiumand Dialogus I were composed in I40I, we must acknowledge the existence of a chronological puzzle. Are we sure it can be solved by assuming that the second dialogue was added to the first at a later time ? To begin with, we may and should dispense with any speculations regarding the presumed "unity" of the two dialogues and their affinity in structure with Cicero's De Oratore. The meaning and purpose of the two dialogues have been subject to endless controversy, as is well known, and many students will entirely disagree with what Seigel contends are the important points. In my opinion, he also
4 Seigel, "CiceronianRhetoric?", p. 2I. 5 For instance,that we can be sure the passagedealingwith Bolognais not an insertion in the text. 6 Those of I955 (Humanistic and Political Literaturein Florenceand Venice and volume ii of the first edition of The Crisisof the Early Italian Renaissance) as well as the chapter "Chronology and Historical Certainty: The Dates of Bruni's Laudatioand Dialogi" in my forthcoming From Petrarchto Leonardo Bruni: Studiesin Humanistic and PoliticalLiteratre.

24

PAST AND PRESENT

NUMBER 3 6

fails to focus on the relevant aspects of De Oratore. But even if it were correct that Bruni made use of De Oratore not only in many formal details but also by imitating the underlying, general patternan outline of rhetorical culture followed by a recantation which vindicates something ignored in the first part-the question would be to what extent and when. There is no reason why Bruni, while intending to write onedialogue and finding the first part of De Oratore a suitable model, should not have used it in I40I, and then, having decided .s few years later that the latter half of the Ciceronian work could sezve as inspiration for a sequel, have used it again. Thus, if we want results that can be tested and agreed upon, we cannot ultimately rely on assertionsor doubts such as those of the "urlity" of Bruni's work which we cannot measure exactly. Instead we have to listen to the author himself, who in his Prooemium tells us about the nature of the reported conversationsin statements that can be tested against the work itself.7 In the first place, Bruni states in his Prooemium that the discussions which he describes took place apudColucium, that is, "in Coluccio Salutati's house". Now this is true of the first dialogue only; the second is set in someone else's house. Secondly, Bruni talks of one disputatio and calls his work a liber (not libriin the plural). In the titles and prefaces of all his other writings he chooses the wording strictly according to whether he has in hand a liber, commentarium, etc., meaning a work composed of one unit, or else several libri, commentaria, etc., meaning a work composed of several units. (This is precisely the practice of Cicerohimself, who wrote the Laelius sive de amicitioldialogus,but De oratore libri tres, etc.) I know only one exception in Bruni's usage, and this exception finally proves the rule: in the case of Bruni's annotated trarlslationof the pseudo-Aristotelian Economics, which is composed of two books, the dedication letter speaks of a libellus, just as the dedication letter to the Dialogispeaks of a liber. When I followed up this clue I found that, at the time of the dedication, in fact, only the first book of the Economicshad been circulated; the second book was added later.8 There is, then, good reason to suppose that this is also what happened in the case of the Dialogi. Thirdly, in accord with the conditions thus to be expected within
7 The best edition of the two Dialogi is in ProsatoriLatini del Quartrocento, ed. E. Garin ("La LetteraturaItaliana. Storia e Testi", vol. xiii, Milan, I952), used in all following quotations. The LaudatioPlorentinaeUrbishas not yet been printed in extenso,but will be fully edited in my just cited FromPetrarch to Leonardo Bruni. 8 Humanistic and PoliticalLiterature, pp. I66 ff.

LEONARDOBRUNI

25

the context of the work, Bruni fails at the end of Dialogus I to make any provision for the participants in the discussion to meet for a second round, even though Cicero in the models which Brllni followed always provided careful advance motivation for a resumption of the debate whenever a discussion extended over several dialogues by making the participants stay overnight, or by or books-either having them receive a new invitation. Instead, the author of Dialogus I lets his figures separate without a hint that they will reassemble on the following day. Finally, if the plural title Dialogi seems to argue against the assumption of an initial separate publication of only one dialogue, a nihil obstalis easily established. As I was able to show in I955, the title Dialogi was not coined until about the time of Bruni's death some forty years after the work was written. It had previously not had an author's title and had been variously named by the scribes, who often did not use the term "dialogue" at all, but rather liber, collatio, or something similar, or even no title at all. If the term employed was "dialogue", it was a Dialogus (divided into two libri), and never Dislogi. Also, manuscriptswhich comprise the Prooemium De utilitate Dialogus I alone and have a title fitting only Dialogus I disputationis,or similar - do exist. Though it is only tentatively possible to trace this group back to the text of I40I, groups of one-unit manuscriptsare not found for other works of Bruni's, except in the case of the Economics,where they are evidence of the initial separate publication of the first book. When these four complementary lines of observation are followed up and compared,9I doubt that any reader could think of any other possible explanation than the obvious one that DialogusII did not yet exist in I40I, but was composed and added to Dialogus I a few years later - after the Laudatiohad appeared. Yet Seigel tells us that this reasoningis a dismal failure, essentially on the following grounds:10 Ad I-apud Colucium. Seigel objects that apudmight simply mean "in Salutati's presence", and Salutati is present in both dialogues. Answer: Leaving aside the fact that this usage is not possible under the conditions presupposed in the Dialogi (I may refer to the cited chapter in From Petrarch to LeonardoBruni), I need only point out that Bruni, who was following the pattern of Cicero's dialogues,
with consonantresults(forinstance,observations 8 There are otherapproaches of the differentroles of Niccoli in the two dialogues,a mattertotally misunderstood by Seigel) for which I must referthe interestedreaderto my publications of I955 and to the quoted chapter of my forthcoming book) FromPetrarchto Leonardo Bruni. 10Seigel, "CiceronianRhetoric?", pp. 44 ff.

26

PAST AND PRESENT

NUMBER 3 6

imitatedat this point De naturadeorum, where,I. Vi. I5, we read: ". . . apud C. Cottamfamiliarem meum. . . disputatum a Romanholiday. With this phrasecompareBruni's est" during 'snuper,cum est apudColucium disputatum" duringan Easterholiday. Nobody has yet suggestedthat apudC. Cottam could meananything Cotta'shouse". The meaningof Bruni'sapudColucium, but "in therefore, is clear. Ad 2-liber, not libri. Seigel (who remainssilent about the fact that Bruni'sEconomics canserveas a kind of test casefor the validity of the theoryof successivecomposition) objects:since Bruni, mentioningPetrarch'sAfrica or the AristotelianMagna when does not call them libribut liberalthoughthey have nine Moralia, and two booksrespectively, the apparent consistency of his usagein his own titlesandprefaces "cantell us nothing". No answeris neededhere. Ad 3 Bruni'sfailureto arrange for a secondgathering at the end of the first. Seigelseemsto thinkthatno comment is required. Yet thisstriking omission aloneis enoughto raisegravedoubtsagainst the assumption thatBrunihadconceived a seconddialogue whenthe first waswritten. Ad 4 the title of the work. Seigelagainsays nothing the essentialpoints, namely that the two dialoguesdid notabout have an author's title duringBruni'slifetimeand that the form Dialogiis of later origin. His only comment concerns a matterwhichis not vital tothe final thesis; moreover, it is based on a blunder. He asserts thatmy contentionthat the title-formDe utilitate disputationis is indicative of one-dialogue manuscripts "canbe refutedby manuscript evidence". For, he thinks, an equivalent of this title De disputationis. . . usu-is found in a fifteenth-century manuscript (Cod. Bibl. Laur., LII 3) of the Medici Librarythat contains dialogues.Answer:The allegedwordsare not a part of the both manuscript, whichis untitled. The title to whichSeigelreferswas added for identification by A. M. Bandini, the eighteenth-century compiler of the catalogue of the Biblioteca Laurenziana, who took it, with slight changes, from the then only extantprintededitionof Bruni'swork, published at Basel in I536 (or from its exact reprint,Nuremberg, I734). That edition,whose full title begins with the word Libellus (changed by Bandinito Dialogiduo),containsmerelythe Prooemium and DialogusI. Since I was careful to note all these facts in Humanistic andPolitical Literature in I955, the confusion wrought by Seigel on his unsuspecting readers was totallyunnecessary. Ad I-4. What,then, remains of Seigel'sobjections to my demonstration of the successivecomposition of the two dialogues ? Not

LEONARDO BRUNI

27

a single fact, not a single modification; nothing but the creation of misleading errors in a field in which conclusive results had been achieved. III How does Seigel make Bruni appear as a "professional and practising rhetorician"? "It is curious", he says, "that . . . Baron has readily seen the connection between the possibility of succeeding Salutatiand a writing of Vergerio [the humanistto whom Dialogus I was dedicated] about the Florentine republic . . ., but never makes similar observationsabout the Laudatio or the comments [on the merits of the Laudatio] in the Dialogi". In other words, since Vergerio composed a work on the Florentine republic in order to recommend himself for Salutati's office, why should it not be assumed that Bruni wrote his Laudatiowith the same purpose? And then Seigel proposes his picture of Bruni's professional motivation that is to replace the conception of Bruni the civic humanist and politically minded Florentine:
One purpose of the LaudatioFlorentinaeUrbismust have been to further his candidacyfor the post [of Floremine chancellor].... [Baron]ignores Bruni's obvious underlying hope that both the Laudatio and the Dialogiwould help to advancehis careerin the Chancery. His career was that of a practising rhetorician, and his association with Florencewas formedin terms of it. There can be little doubt that he hoped to succeed Salutati as chancellor.... When he was passed over... Bruni's interest in Florence waned. He found a job (with Salutati'shelp) in the papal curia, and quickly became absorbedin its concerns. Is it likely that an attachmentwhich faded out so easily had only a few years before been able to effect a total transformation of Bruni's outlook? Clearly he had not been deeply touched during the preceding period by "Florentine civic sentiment''.ll

This is the text taken from Seigel's gospel of "rhetorical"humanism, but every single word of it distorts or contradictsplain fact. To begin with an explanation of why I failed so "curiously" to draw a parallel between Vergerio's and Bruni's professionalendeavours. The reason is that, despite Seigel's contentions, neither Vergerio nor Bruni composed the works in question at a time when they could be potential candidatesfor the Florentine chancellor'sposition. We do not really know enough about Vergerio's De Republica Florentina, which seems not to have been preserved, but he tells us clearly that the work was not newly written, but merely taken out of a drawer for polishing, at the time when (as I suggested) he may have played for a moment with the idea of applying for the Florentine chancellorship during its
11Seigel, "CiceronianRhetoric?", pp. 26 (n. 59), I6 (n. 33), and 25 f.

NUMBER 3 6 28 vacancy in December I406. 12 And it in the end he did not apply at all and, was only for a moment, because old draft. Presumablythis draft had probably, did not round out his been Vergerio was teaching and studying in written before I40I, when vacancy in the chancellor's post before Florence.l3 There was no a young, I406, nor could non-Tuscan strangerhave even dreamedthen of Vergerio as Salutati. It would be succeeding equally fitting to argue alsowrote a De that, since Vergerio Republica Venetornm, years,he must have probably during the same done so in the hope early theVenetian of finding chancellery,although he employment in never lived in Venice. The facts of Vergerio's life, then, do not fit the claim of sional" motivation of his work on life Florence. Do the facts of"profesfit the claim of his Bruni's me for ignoring those "professional"motivation ? Seigel facts. reproaches To him, Bruni's conduct the Laudatio suggests that he must have been impelled byafter writing considerations.For after the professional he composition of the Laudatio, was passed over" in his candidacy "when found for the a job . . . in the chancellery,l4 C'he papal curia, and quickly became absorbed concerns''.l5 In other words, in its Seigel suggests a writing the Laudatio causal sequence: as a way of getting into ofiice, attempt, and becoming failing in that alienated from Florence. was different. But, again, reality Bruni's move to the Curia did not by Seigel's theory. The relevant take place at the time demanded dates wrote his Laudatio in I403/4 (in I400 in Bruni's life are these: he Florence according to Seigel); he for the Curia in left March I405; and he candidate for the Florentine was an unsuccessful chancellorship May (after I406. Salutati's death) in Consequently, there was no might be used to bring sequence of events that the composition of candidacy the Laudatioand for the chancellor's the office into a close make Bruni's separation relationship, or to from Florence appear the preceding failure in the result It is also untrue that plans of a "professionalrhetorician". of a Bruni, after leaving Florence quickly gave up his concern for the Curia, for Florence, thus ness of his former revealing the shallowrelations.l6 Bruni's applicationfor the Florentine 2Not

PAST AND PRESENT

vacancyafter 3 Cf. Humanistic and Political Salutati'sdeath, as Seigel says (p. 26 14 favour "In of Pietro pp. I07 f. and di Ser Literature, II2

duringthe

n. 59). f. mixed Mino", says Seigel (p. upbecause Pietro 26), but became chancellorin was this again is all not a candidate for the Florentine December I406, when 5 Seigel, pOSt. Bruni "Ciceronian Rhetoric 16 Cf. for what follows, Crisis, ?", p. 26. rev. edn., pp. 248-54; Literature, pp. I 59-6 I . Humanistic and Political

LEONARDOBRUNI

29

position came fourteen months after his departureto the Curia. All that time his sense of identity with Florence had remained strong or had even grown. When it began to fade, in the autumn of I406, the preceding failure of his friends in Florence to obtain the vacant post for him played a minor rale, if any. The real cause was the attraction of an important new task the sudden sense of a mission. We know this definitely from Bruni's correspondence, which from November I406 onward shows him passionately absorbed in changed interests. Gregory XII, just elected, had sworn that he would do everything to end the schism of the Church, if necessary at the price of his own abdication, and Bruni was given the charge to phrase the decisive diplomaticdocumentsfor this policy of union. In November, when the second vacancyin Florence occurred, he wrote home: "now that there is good hope that this baleful schism can be ended, I believe I should live here [at the Curia]". Before the emergence of this hope for service in an even greater cause, however, Bruni had borne the absence from Florence with anything but a light heart. Between August I405 and March I406, while the Curia stayed in the quiet country town of Viterbo, the past Florentine period of his life was, in fact, followed by a warmafterglow: his letters at that time are full of nostalgia for Florence and all things Florentine; they continue to refer to Florentianostra. Salutati in his answers called Bruni "more than half of my mind, my own self through and through" and once even blamed Bruni for praising Florence too often in his letters. In an obituary on a Florentine patrician written at Viterbo, Bruni still pictured the relationship between the citizen and his patria in terms learned from Salutati: a man of noble and generous charactershould gratefully acknowledge that he owes his best to his commonwealth, even more than to his individual talents. Since Dialogus II was written after I403-4, most probably during Bruni's stay in Viterbo (as shown in I955), it is againstthis background of nostalgia and over-cultivation of the bonds with his Florentine friends that the scene in DialogusII in which the group around Salutati is made to thank Bruni for his Laudatio becomes psychologically understandable. This does not mean that the idea that the Laudalio might somehow help him to return to Florence could never have crossed Bruni's mind, for human motivations are usually complex. But to ignore completely the fact that this extended sequel of Florentine sentiment occurred after Bruni's departureto the Curia, and to change the chronological order of the events in order to demonstrate that the disappointment of Bruni's professionalhopes in

3o

PAST AND PRESENT

NUMBER 3 6

Florence coincided with a swiftbreakwithhis Florentine past,comes a little too nearthe waysof writersof historical fiction. IV Is it, however,correctat all to contendthat Bruni'sattachment to Florence"fadedout" (as Seigelputs it)l7 duringhis curialyears? Here, I am afraid,I must blamemyselffor havingcontributed to the misunderstandings of those who seek to give a "rhetorical" interpretation to Bruni's life. In my Crisis of lhe Early Italian Renaissance, I approached the problemof Bruni's"alienation" by comparing his reactions at the time of the Laudatio andat the moment when, owing to the promiseof GregoryXII to bring unity to the Church, he believed he hadfounda newmeaning forhis life. There is, indeed, a gulf betweenthese two moments:Bruni, who in the Laudatio hadexpressed thehopeof becoming thehistorian of Florence, in late I406 tells his Florentinefriends that one of their fellowcitizens ought to be commissioned to write a historicalwork on Florence'srecent deeds. The trouble with such comparisons of specificutterances is, however,that it is difficult to decidewhenand for how long they were indicativeof their author'spoint of view. WasBruni'sapparent forgetfulness in I406 abouthis plansto become the historianof Florencemerelya reactionat a fleetingmomentof highhopesfor the unionof the Church ? Mighthe not havereacted differently had he writtenthe lettera yearor two later,whenhe had becomedisappointed by the pope'sfailureto live up to his promise ? We may form a truerpictureof the effectson citizensof Italian city-republics of holdinga curialoice if we consider that the Curia, afterall, wasfarfrombeingthe courtlycircleof a Renaissance tyrant. When Bruni'snon-Tuscanfriend, Vergerio,was forcedin I400 to returnto Padua,the seat of the Carrara, axldtherebecamethe tutor of a youngprince,he was, indeed,increasingly exposedto influences antagonistic to the outlookon life and historycharacteristic of the Florentines; his positionon the relativemeritsof a republican and a monarchical regimechanged radically thereafter. But in the papal service, evfn a Tuscanhumanist likePoggio,who,unlikeBruni,made his homeat the Curiafor manydecades, by no meansentirelylost his typicallyFlorentine politicalconvictions. In fact, when, duringthe I430S, civic humanists and courtlyhumanists in Italy found themselves bitterly disagreeingover Scipio, the hero of the Roman
18

See p. 27 above. rev. edn., pp. 252 f. I had at that point to determinethe date after which Bruni's new commitment made composition of such an intensely Florentine-patrioticpiece of writing as DialogusII impossible.
17

18 Crisis,

LEONARDQBRUNI

3I

Republic, andCaesar, the founder of imperial monarchy, Poggio,from his home at the Curia,becamethe leader of the republic-minded humanistsand the ally of similar-thinking curial humanistsfrom Venice. One of the latter,Pietrodel Monte,wroteto Poggioat the time: "why, then, should it seem strangeto anyoneif I, who was born, nursed, and broughtup in the strongestfortressof liberty [Venice],emphatically and frankly express detestation for Caesar, the . . . destroyerof Romanliberty" ?19 This is the self-analysis of a "professional rhetorician" of Venetian descentand attachment in the papalservice. For Bruni,the papalCurianeverbecamea secondhome,as it did for PoggioandPietrodel Monte. Duringthe ten yearsfromI405 to I4I5, when Brunibelonged to the Curia,he was not reallyseparated from Florencegeographically for any length of time in any case, not afterthe periodof his briefdreamof committment to Gregory's policyof unionin I406-8.2? In I409 he gaveup a canonry whichhe had held since I407, thus finallydecidingupona layman's futurefor himself. In I4I0 he obtainedthe marriage permission requiredfor occupantsof curial posts,2l and in I4I2 he married. During the sameyearshe oftenvisitedFlorence. In I409, like all Florentines at the Curia,he was recalledby the Florentine government, whichwas dissatisfied with Gregory's procrastination in the matterof union.22 In I4I0-II he servedas Florentinechancellor for threemonths,but preferred to returnto the Curia;by joiningthe Pope electedby the Councilof Pisa, he could workat the Curiain the very interestof Florence. Evenin I4I5, whenhis increasing wealthmadeit possible for him to settle in Florenceas a citizen,Florenceand the Curiadid not becometwo entirelyseparate spheres for him. Afterthe Council of Constance, the Curiastayedin Florencefor long periods,and in I4I9-20 Bruniagainworkedfor a while in the curialservice.23 At
19Crisis,rev. edn., pp. 66-9. Cf. for what follows, Crisis,rev. edn., pp. 246 ff. 21Cf. W. von Hofmann, Forschungell zur Geschichte der kurialenBehorden vol. ii (Rome, I9I4), p. I07. 22 Cf. Leoszardi BruniAretiniEpistolarum Libri VIII, ed. L. Mehus (Florence, I 74 I ), Epist. lli. I 0. 3 The fact that Bruni resumed his curial office in I4I9-20, while the Curia was staying in Florence, is not mentioned in the sketches in Crisis,rev. edn. pp. 246 f. and 409 ff. It emergesfrom Bruni'sEpist. xi. I2 (cf. Leonardo Bruni. Humanistisch-Philosophische Schriften,ed. H. Baron [Leipzig, I928], pp. 224 f.), written in Florence I5 March I4I9, where the following passage is found: "Haec mihi quoque videbantur, qui ex tot annis quibus iam in Curia versor nihil tale memini ad pontificemdelatum. Itaque . . . rem deferread pontificem praetermisi". F. P. Luiso, in his unfinished Studssu l'Epistolario di L. Bruni (see Crisis, ISt edn., p. 52I), concluded from the letter: "Evidentemente Leonardo,giunto a Firenze Martino V., riprende il suo posto nella curia", an lNfereIlCe WhlCh 1S the more reliable because Luiso found two papal documents of I420 signed by Bruni.
20

32

PAST AND PRESENT

NUMBER 36

the same time, his influence at the Curia was repeatedly used by the Florentine government. In spite of his various shorter or longer stays at the Curia, Bruni alwaysremainedby residence as well as by sentiment tied to Florence. During his transientchancellorshipin I4IO-I I he was not looked upon as a hired foreigner or curial humanist; he was ofEcially "Messere Leonardo di Ceccho d'Arezzo, del contado di Firenze".24 When he applied for, and was granted, citizenship in I4I6, he had to prove that for the more than twenty past years he had been a Florentine in fact. Although born in Florentine Arezzo, he declared, after his childhood he had continuously lived with Florentine citizens, had never recognized any other patria, and had never established his family residence elsewhere.25 Naturally, Bruni tried to prove here that he had met the legal requirement of maintaining a Florentine residence for more than two decades; but this presupposes that throughout those years he had sufficientlyprovided for meeting that requirement. Besides, we should keep in mind that all this was possible for him only because he was a Tuscan from the Florentine territorial state and from the beginning had been considered a semi-Florentine. There is nothing, then, in Bruni's life after he first took a position in the Curia that in any way justifies our considering him a typical professional rhetorician, one whose loyalties change as he wanders from state to state. If he belongs in any category at all, it is rather the categoryof those residerltsof the territorysubject to Florence who for generations had been attracted to the capital and who, thanks to the opportunity afforded to rise there in the notariate and juridical professions, were soon to provide some of the most brilliant representatives of Florentine Renaissance culture. When due attention is paid to the provincial origin of many Florentine humanists, one becomes aware of the fact that Florence was not an isolated city-state but functioned as capital and focal point of the northern Tuscan region. Such immigrant intellectuals, as newcomers and representatives of social mobility, at times met with resistancefrom native elements. But the influx from the surrounding Tuscan province had always been an operating force in Florentine life, and at least for the professions (as well as for the artists) it continuedto play a decisive role in the fabricof Renaissancecivilization.
24 Cf. D. Marzi,La Cancelleria dellaRepubblica Fiorentina (RoccaS. Casciano, I9IO), p- IS9 26 See the summation of Bruni's application in the grant of Florentine citizenship on 26 June I4I6, edited in E. Santini's Leonardo Bruni Arelino e i Suoi "Historiarum Florentini Populi Libri XII" (Pisa, IgIo), p. I33.

LEONARDOBRUNI

33

Psychologically and ideologically, the process of assimilation involved complex problems for the individuals concerned. Yet, not infrequently, by being able to approach the Florentine traditions from a certain distance and by elaborating them in thought and writing, immigrants such as Bruni became the most original representativesof the ideas and ideals that distinguished their adopted city. But however one wishes to appraise these subtle processes, nothing can be less suited to determine the characteristictraits of this mobility of Tuscan life than the model of the itinerant "professional rhetorician" sophisticated and often efficient in public service, but nowhere really at home, and not to be taken too seriously in his expression of political and ethical convictions an orator and writer who offers his services to a multitude of lords. No doubt, there was a place for this type of professionalhumanist in the life of Renaissance Italy; but when it comes to understanding the political humanism developing in city-republics like Florence and Venice, nothing could be more confusing and farther from the truth than to maintain that all humanists should be tarred with the same brush.
V

The contention that office in a chancellery was the inevitable professional goal of a humanist is also demonstrablywrong in Bruni's case. Although he allowed his Florentine friends to place his name on the list of candidates after Salutati's death (in the spring of I406), he never again competed actively for the Florentine chancellorship. As we have seen, there is no evidence for his alleged earlierprofessional aspirations when writing the Laudatio. For his life after I406 it can be positively shown that, if he thought of holding oice in Florence at all, he did so with the strongest reservations. He was quite lukewarm in his acceptance of the Florentine chancellorship for one year in I4I0, and after only three months he resigned. We hear of two reasons: the office did not leave him enough time for his studies, and he found that he could earn more money at the Curia.26 This must be weighed together with our other information. As early as Bruni's ultimate goal had been to become the the time of the Laudatio, historian of Florence and Florence's history had never been written
26 Bruni's Epist. v. 3, written after he had been only one month in office, says that it did not allow him any leisure, and that he had accepted it merely because refusalwould have caused him even greater"incommoda"-Poggio, in vol. i, p. cxxi), states his obituaryoration(in Mehus' edition of Bruni's Epistolae, that "majorisspes emolumenti"was anothermotive for Bruni to return to the Curia.

PAST AND PRESENT

NUMBER 3 6

34

by the chancellors of the Republic. It had been the work of independent, private citizens such as the various members of the Villani family. Now that the humanistic vision of the ancient citizen was emerging, Bruni's guiding idea became to do for Florence what Livy had done for Rome.27 Another side-light on Bruni is provided by several of our sources. They describe him as a person somewhat more niggardlythan behoved a humanisticman of letters.28 Shortly after giving up the chancellor's oice so easily in I4II he married a woman with an unusually rich dowry. Moreover, in I4I5, as soon as the fortune acquired in his curial office permitted, and at the first legally possible moment, he applied for Florentine citizenship and immediatelystarted work on his History,living henceforth as a scholar and writer of private means. Evidently, the ideal which he pursued with an iron will was not the professionalcareer of the rhetoricianbut the status of an esteemed and well-to-do citizen, writing the history of his city and living at the centre of its cultural life - an existence much more in harmony with a citizen's inclinations, and also much more in correspondence with the image which men of the Quattrocento had formed of Livy and Tacitus. It is true) of course, that Bruni did accept the chancellor'sposition in I427 and went on to become its greatest representative. But it is equally true that he had not striven for this office and that he accepted it with reluctance when it came. In I426, due to the great respect in which he was held at the Curia, he was sent to the Pope as Florentine ambassador,and his achievement on this occasion made him appear in the following year as the ideal person for the chancellor'sposition. To his friends he wrote, however, that the office "has fallen to my lot, contraryto all my wishes"; the "life of otium" led for so many years,
27 This is the perspectivefrom which Bruni himself and his contemporaries saw his life-work. When, in old age, Bruni once felt slandered by another citizen in a city council, his passionate answer, according to Vespasiano da Bisticci, was that throughouthis life he had tried to honourhis adopted city by writing its history for lasting memory, "just as Rome has become celebrated through its illustrious writers [of history], especially Livy" (Vespasiano da Bisticci, Vite di nominiillustri, ed. L. Frati, vol. ii [Bologna, I893], pp. 26 f.). After Bruni's death, an anonymous citizen in the chancellery, recalling what Bruni had meant to Florence, compared him with Livy, whom Spaniards and Gauls had travelled all the way to Rome to see: just so, people from all over Europe had travelledto Florence to see Bruni. (Text in Santini, Op. Cit., 28 Cf. Poggio's obituaryoration on Bruni, ed. Mehus, Op. Cit., vol. i, p. cxxii and C. Monzani, Archivio Storico Italiano, new ser., v (I), (I857), pp. 58 f. Fellow-citizens, too, were awareof Bruni's thrift and successful effort to build up a family fortune, but praisedhim; see the anonymouscitizen, quoted in the precedingnote, pp. I53 f.

p. I54)-

LEONARDOBRUNI

35

"dedicated to litteraestudiaque", had been more pleasant and tranquil than this new "vita negociosa et civilis. But I had to obey the demand of the patria, which we must not obstinately withstand beyond a certain point, as Socrates in [Plato's] Crito wisely teaches". In any case, he said, he had accepted the office merely for a limited period; he had not given up his former plans forever.29 It can be arguedthat all this is mere rhetoric, by which we should not be deceived. But Bruni's contemporariesjudged differently. Poggio wrote to Bruni from the Curia that he had originally not liked the news that Bruni had accepted this kind of oice. "But I learned subsequently, and this has given me the greatest delight, that you not only did not seek the job, but initially refused to accept it when it was offered, until you finally relented, yielding to the entreaty of your friends". Poggio was ready to send his congratulations, provided that Bruni would, indeed, try to regain his liberty: "after you have done your part for the Republic", he said, "do not forsake the studia litterarum".30 We can be positive, therefore, that neither in Bruni's eyes nor in those of his friends did his attainmentof the chancellor'soffice in I 427 appear the crowning-point of a "rhetorician's" professional career. The real meaning and value of this office for him will be understood when it is seen against the background of the uneven course of his literary activities after I4I5.31 For six years afterwards his work exhibited all the marks of what we have learned to regard as the pattern of civic humanism. He proceeded steadily with his History of the FlorentinePeopleand with a number of politico-historicalworks which, continuing the approach of the Laudatio, set forth the republican interpretation of Roman and Florentine history that was to remain characteristicof the Florentine Renaissance. At the same time, he developed a philosophy of the values inherent in the vita activa et politica. And there were contacts with the actual world of politics: Bruni established relations with the ruling aristocraticcircle, as is indicated by a commission to revise the statute of the Parte
29 Bruni, Epist. v. 8 (I428): "Vita tamenilla ociosa,litteris studiisqueintenta jocundior erat michi atque tranquillior, quam haec negociosa et civilis. Sed Patriae voluntati parendum fuit, cui neque repugnare ad extremum, neque refragaricontumaciterdebemus, ut Socrates in Critone sapientissime docet". Epist. x. 7 (I428): "Credo exiimaudivisse te literato ex ocio invitum repugnantemque me jussu Civitatis negociis publicis fuisse praefectum". 30Poggio, Epist. iii. I6 (I427), ed. Tonelli, vol. i, pp. 2IS f.: "Audivipostea quod mihi fuit summae voluptati, te non solum non appetiisse id munus, sed oblatum primo recusasse: denique victum, coactumque, cessisse precibus amicorum". ". . . et cum reipublicaefeceris satis, non omittas studia litterarum". 31 Cf. for what follows, Crisis, rev. edn., pp. 409-II.

36

PAST AND PRESENT

NUMBER 3 6

Guelfa(in I4I9-20) and by the dedication of his De Militiato Rinaldo degli Albizzi(in I42I). AfterI42I, however, the general direction of Bruni's labours began subtlyto change. Whereas the workon his History no longermoved forward, duringthe next five or six years(I42I-6) he published most of the writingson which his reputationrests as one of the great philological scholars and educational writersof the fifteenthcentury. There was no let-downin the vigourand attainment of his studies. But there was, it seems, a gradual weakeningof that political component in his thoughtthathadmadehis humanism responsive to the worldaroundhim in the yearsbeforeI406, whenhe hadlived in Salutati's circle,and againin the firstyearsafterI4I5, when he had settleddownas a citizen-scholar. His personal contacts withsomeof the leadingcitizenscouldin the long run not makeup for whatwas missingin his civiclife: a newcitizenduringthe Albizziperiodhadno accessto any of the higherelectiveoffices. Thus we find that even whenwarwith the Viscontiagainbrokeout aboutthe middleof the I420S, the renewed politicalchallenge hadlittle immediate impacton the nature of Bruni's studies. Without the constant challenge exertedby an activecitizen'slife, merescholarship wouldnot allow civic humanism to developbeyonda certain point. Only after his mission to Rome in I426 and his taking of officein I427 did Bruni'slife and literaryactivitiescome finallyto translate into realitythe ideal he had affirmed from his earlyyears. The oEce in the chancellery broughthim the politicalexperience that normal,full-fledgedcitizens derivedfrom participation in the elective oEces. During the early Efteenth century, a time of increasing interaction among the Italian states, the chancellor gradually became the central supervisor of all contacts of the Republic with other states due to the fact that he was the only permanent functionary, whilethe electedofficeholderschanged in quickrotation. The chancellor wrote the correspondence with foreignstates after attendingthe meetingsof the executiveofficials. He phrasedand transmitted the instructionsto all Florentineambassadors, correspondedwith them, and receivedtheir written reportsafter their return.32 Thus Bruniwas at the centreof events,as werefew other Florentines,duringthe new phase of the struggleof the Republic withthe Visconti a struggle whichhadnot yet endedwhenhe died in I444
32 Cf. F. P. Luiso, ArchivioStoricoItaliano, sth ser., xxi (I898), Marzi, Cancelleria, pp. 166, I94 f.

I32

ff., and

LEONARDOBRUNI

37

While he was busy with diplomatic correspondence and the city's propaganda,the older trends of his humanistic work grew to maturity. In spite of the immense demand on his time made by his office, he resumed the Historyof the Florentine People,which again took first place in his humanistic activities; the books that describe the power struggles of the recent past and of his own day were added at that time. Since he wanted to write for ordinarycitizens, and not merely for Latin-trained scholars, the vernacular found a place in his humanism. He defended the Florentine Volgare in theory and put it to practicaluse in some of his writings, especially in the Vita of Dante, where he sees in Dante, during his younger years, the perfect union of studious pursuits and a citizen's involvement in his state - such as Bruni himself had eventually achieved in his own life. Since the early years of the Medici era, after I434) afforded certain of the new citizens a chance to become participants in the highest elective offices, the last decade of Bruni's life saw the full, almost symbolic realization of the idea that had long been at the heart of the civic humanism of Quattrocento Florence-the idea that only through direct contact with the actuality of society and the responsibility of political action can culture and thought be properly nourished and brought to fruition. This, in quick outline, is the picture of Bruni's humanistic career and work that emerges from the perspective of fifteenth-century "civic humanism". If we were to interpret humanism as a basically rhetorical movement, we would find, on the contrary, as Seigel says, that
it is wrong ... to see Brunias motivatedchieflyby politicalfeeling .... Political corlcerns did not shape his thought.... At every point in his career Bruni's entry into Florentinelife was made through his practiceof the art of rhetoric. Even in the years after I427 when Bruni was a distinguishedfigure in Florence, it is clear that his cultural activities derived from a concern for oratory first, and for civic participationonly secondarily. ... His concern for civic life was the concernof a practisingorator.33

To me it is impossible to believe that many historians will be ready to adopt this inherently negative, inadequate, and wholly artificial formula in exchange for so much of the historicalreality of Florentine and humanistic life which, as we thought, had once again become visible.

Newberry Library and University of Chicago

HansBaron

33

Seigel, "CiceronianRhetoric?", pp. 25-7.