baron, h., leonardo bruni _professional rhetorician_ or _civic humanist_#7ae9

7/27/2019 Baron, H., Leonardo Bruni _Professional Rhetorician_ or _Civic Humanist_#7AE9

1/18

The Past and Present Society

Leonardo Bruni: "Professional Rhetorician" or "Civic Humanist"?Author(s): Hans BaronSource: Past & Present, No. 36 (Apr., 1967), pp. 21-37Published 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 [email protected].

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
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ouphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=pasthttp://www.jstor.org/stable/649913?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ouphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ouphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/649913?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=pasthttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=oup


2/18

LEONARDOBRUNI: "PROFESSIONALRHETORICIAN"OR "CIVICHUMANIST"?IN A PAPER PUBLISHED IN THE JULY I966 ISSUE OF PAST AND PRESF,NIswith the acknowledgedhelp of some other scholars, Professor J. E.Seigel makes a startling claim. The chronology of Bruni's earlyworks that I proposed in I955,1 he thinks, is totally false: Bruni'swritings, contrary to what I said, preceded the decisive years of theFlorentine wars with Giangaleazzo Visconti and, therefore, cannotreflect the impact of Florence's struggle for existence. Yet soSeigel argues - demonstration hat the workswhich set forth Bruni'sideas for the first time originatedafter Florence's trial is a preconditionfor interpreting fifteenth-century Florentine humanism as an intel-lectual movement shapedby political conditiolls; we would, therefore,do well to drop the concept of Renaissance "Civic Humanism"altogether and to look rather upon Bruni and his contemporariesin the light of Paul 0. Kristeller's thesis that the Italian humanistswere essentially "professional rhetoricians".2This is cIearly a non sequitur, whatever the dates of Bruni's earlywritings may be. Florentine humanists during the early fifteenthcentury held very particularviews and convictions of their own, suchas are not found elsewhere or only at a much later time, on ethicalvalues, on the need for active participation in communal life, onrepublican liberty and "popular" government, on history and theequality of "modern" Florence with ancient Rome, and on thepotential of the Florentine vernacular. All this would not simplydisappear, even if it could be shown that Bruni composed the workswhich first expressed some of these ideas before the war withGiangaleazzoreached its climax in I402.The major provocation of Seigel's claims is, however, his assertionthat as far as the chronological criticism of Bruni's writings isconcerned the clock may simply be put back. In the ordinarycourseof things, a scholarlytheory, after it has withstood the first tests, may

1 In TheCrisisof theEarlyItalian Renaissance: ivicHumanism ndRepublicanLibertyn an Age of Classicism nd Tyranny, vols. (Princeton,N.J., I 955) (rev.edn., I vol., Princeton, N.J., I966), hereafterreferred to as Crisis, St edn. andrev. edn. and Humanistic nd Political Literature n Florenceand Venice at theBeginning f the QuattrocentoCambridge,Mass., I955).9J. E. Seigel, " 'Civic SIumanism' r CiceronianRhetoric? The CultureofPetrarch and Bruni", Past and Present, no. 34 (July, I966), pp. 3-48- esp.pp. g ff., 25 ff., 30, 43 f. (hereafterreferred o as "CiceronianRhetoric?").


3/18

22 PAST AND PRESENT NUMBER 36later prove to be in need of modification because of new evidence ornew criteria. Seigel does not produce any new evidence; neitherdoes he systematicallyreview the theory which he rejects. He simplyneeds 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 beenrequired. We need only move back into the one that had stood therefrom I899 to I955. A dramatic reversal, to be sure; but is itbelievable ?

My proposal in I955 tO change drastically the chronologicalsequence of Bruni's early works did not spring from a sudden whim.It was the outcome of a long-considered effort to escape from aquandary n which students had found themselves since the beginningof modern criticism: Bruni's LaudatioFlorentinaeUrbis,whichmentions the "occupation" of Bologna by Giangaleazzo Visconti(June I402) and presupposes that Giangaleazzono longer dominatesthe political scene (he died 2 September I402), iS analysed in detail inthe second of Bruni'sDialogi,a work which, according to indicationsin its Prooemiumnd in the first dialogue, was written shortly afterEaster I40I. In I899, driven to despair by this puzzle, a student ofItalian literature, F. P. Luiso, suggested a short-cut - one that heapparently later abandoned. Bruni's mention of Bologna, so heconjectured, does not refer to the actual occupation of the city byGiangaleazzo hat occurred in June I402, but to a rumour of the yearI399 when a false report circulated in Florence-not, indeed, thatBologna had been "occupied" by Milanese troops, but that Bolognahad 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 entirelyignores the context of the passage in the Laudatiowhich makes itcrystal clear that Bruni was talking of I402 and not of an earlier date.The passage reads: "In Tuscany, he [Giangaleazzo]held Pisa, Siena,Perugia, and Assisi in his grip, and eventually he had even occupiedBologna".3 This is a list of Giangaleazzo'sconquests that proceedschronologically, Pisa having fallen in early I399, Siena durirlg thatsummer, Perugia at the beginning of I400, Assisi in May. Assumingwith Luiso that the passage was written during the autumn-winter ofI400-I and that the "occupation" of Bologna meant an event of I399,Bruni would, necessarily, have mentioned it before Perugia. In this

3 ;


4/18

LEONARDOBRUNI 23case, he could not possibly have put it at the end of the list and statedthat it took place after the fall of Assisi; for this is what the words "andeventually he had even occupied Bologna (randemetiam Bononiamoccuparat)"expressly say.To any reader of the Laudatio this should be self-evident, and Iwould have wasted time and space if, in my studies of I955, I hadseriously discussed and quoted the sources concerning the I399 event.Mr. Seigel, however, thinks that if I had done so I would haverecognized Luiso's "excellent reasons for believing that Bruni'smention of Bologna in the Laudatioreferredto the rumours of I399".This, then, is the first crucial achievement of Seigel's reappraisal"crucial" because, since it is entirely chimerical and the Laadatioremains a work composed after the occupation of Bologna in JuneI402, all consequences drawn from the belief that the Laudalio isearlier, and virtually everything Seigel tells us about the failure of theyear I402 to influence Bruni's ideas, are likewise built on air.Since the one piece of evidence which we have discussed is byitself strong enough to prevent any removal of the Laudatio from theperiod after I402, I need not discuss here any further proof norconsider the implications,5 but may refer the reader to my otherpublications.

IIGiven the pOSt-I402 date of the Laudatio and the fact that theLaudatio is cited and discussed in DialogusII although, according tointernal 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 dialoguewas added to the first at a later time ?To begin with, we may and should dispense with any speculationsregarding the presumed "unity" of the two dialogues and theiraffinity in structure with Cicero's De Oratore. The meaning andpurpose of the two dialogues have been subject to endless controversy,as is well known, and many students will entirely disagree with whatSeigel contends are the important points. In my opinion, he also4 Seigel, "CiceronianRhetoric ?", p. 2I.5 For instance, that we can be sure the passagedealingwith Bologna s not aninsertion in the text.6 Those of I955 (Humanisticand Political Literature n Florenceand Veniceand volume ii of the first edition of The Crisisof the Early Italian Renaissance)as well as the chapter "Chronology and Historical Certainty: The Dates ofBruni's Laudatio and Dialogi" in my forthcoming From Petrarchto LeonardoBruni: Studies n Humanistic nd PoliticalLiteratre.


5/18

NUMBER 3 64 PAST AND PRESENTfails to focus on the relevant aspects of De Oratore. But even if itwere correct that Bruni made use of De Oratorenot only in manyformaldetails but also by imitatingthe underlying,generalpattern-an outline of rhetorical culture followed by a recantation whichvindicates something ignored in the first part-the question wouldbe to what extent and when. There is no reason why Bruni, whileintending to write onedialogueand finding the firstpart of De Oratorea suitable model, should not have used it in I40I, and then, havingdecided .s few years later that the latter half of the Ciceronianworkcould sezve as inspirationfor a sequel, have used it again. Thus, ifwe want results that can be tested and agreed upon, we cannotultimatelyrely on assertionsor doubts such as those of the "urlity"of Bruni's work which we cannot measure exactly. Instead wehave to listen to the author himself, who in his Prooemiumells usabout the natureof the reportedconversations n statementsthat canbe tested against the work itself.7In the firstplace, Bruni states in his Prooemiumhat the discussionswhich he describes took place apudColucium,hat is, "in ColuccioSalutati's house". Now this is true of the first dialogue only; thesecond is set in someone else's house.

Secondly, Bruni talks of one disputationd calls his work a liber(not libri n the plural). In the titles and prefaces of all his otherwritings he chooses the wording strictly according to whether he hasin hand a liber,commentarium,tc., meaning a work composed of oneunit, or else several libri, commentaria,tc., meaning a work composedof severalunits. (This is precisely the practiceof Cicerohimself, whowrote the Laelius sive de amicitioldialogus,but De oratorelibri tres,etc.) I know only one exception in Bruni'susage, and this exceptionfinallyproves the rule: in the case of Bruni'sannotatedtrarlslationofthe pseudo-AristotelianEconomics,hich is composed of two books,the dedication letter speaksof a libellus,ust as the dedication letter tothe Dialogi peaks of a liber. When I followed up this clue I foundthat, at the time of the dedication, in fact, only the first book of theEconomicshad been circulated; the second book was added later.8There is, then, good reasonto suppose that this is also whathappenedin 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 ProsatoriLatinidel Quartrocento,ed. E. Garin("LaLetteratura taliana. Storia e Testi", vol. xiii, Milan, I952),used in all following quotations. The LaudatioPlorentinaeUrbishas not yetbeen printed in extenso,but will be fully edited in my just cited FromPetrarchto LeonardoBruni.

8 Humanistic ndPoliticalLiterature, p. I66 ff.


6/18

LEONARDOBRUNI 2 5the context of the work, Bruni fails at the end of DialogusI to makeany provision for the participants in the discussion to meet for asecond round, even though Cicero in the models which Brllnifollowed alwaysprovided carefuladvance motivationfor a resumptionof the debate whenever a discussion extended over several dialoguesor books-either by making the participants stay overnight, or byhaving them receive a new invitation. Instead, the author ofDialogus I lets his figures separate without a hint that they will re-assemble on the following day.Finally, if the plural title Dialogi seems to argue against theassumption of an initial separate publication of only one dialogue,a nihil obstal s easily established. As I was able to show in I955, thetitle Dialogi was not coined until about the time of Bruni's death -some forty years after the work was written. It had previously nothad 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 termemployed was "dialogue", it was a Dialogus (divided into two libri),never Dislogi. Also, manuscriptswhich comprise the Prooemium ndDialogusI alone and have a title fitting only DialogusI De utilitatedisputationis,or similar - do exist. Though it is only tentativelypossible to trace this group back to the text of I40I, groups ofone-unit manuscriptsare not found for other works of Bruni's, exceptin the case of the Economics,where they are evidence of the initialseparate publication of the first book.When these four complementarylines of observation are followedup and compared,9I doubt that any reader could think of any otherpossible explanationthan the obvious one that DialogusII did not yetexist in I40I, but was composed and added to DialogusI a few yearslater - after the Laudatiohad appeared. Yet Seigel tells us that thisreasoning is a dismal failure, essentiallyon the following grounds:10Ad I-apud Colucium. Seigel objects that apud might simply mean"in Salutati's presence", and Salutati is present in both dialogues.Answer: Leavingaside the fact that this usage is not possible under theconditions presupposed in the Dialogi (I may refer to the citedchapter in FromPetrarch to LeonardoBruni), I need only point outthat Bruni, who was following the pattern of Cicero's dialogues,

8 There are otherapproacheswith consonant esults (for instance,observationsof the differentrolesof Niccoli in the two dialogues,a mattertotally misunder-stood by Seigel) for which I must referthe interestedreaderto my publicationsof I955 and to the quoted chapter of my forthcoming book) FromPetrarch oLeonardoBruni.10Seigel, "CiceronianRhetoric?",pp. 44 ff.


7/18

26 PAST AND PRESENT NUMBER 36imitatedat this pointDe naturadeorum,where, . Vi. I5, we read:". . . apudC. Cottam amiliaremmeum. . . disputatum st" duringa Romanholiday. Withthis phrasecompareBruni's snuper, umest apudColuciumdisputatum" uringan Easterholiday. Nobodyhasyet suggestedhatapudC. Cottam ouldmeananythingbut "inCotta'shouse". The meaningof Bruni'sapudColucium,herefore,is clear.Ad 2-liber, not libri. Seigel(whoremains ilentaboutthe factthatBruni'sEconomicsanserveasakindof testcaseforthevalidityof the theoryof successivecomposition) bjects:sinceBruni,whenmentioningPetrarch'sAfricaor the AristotelianMagnaMoralia,does not call them libribut liberalthough hey havenine andtwobooksrespectively,he apparent onsistency f his usage n his owntitlesandprefaces"can ellus nothing". No answers neededhere.Ad3 Bruni's ailure o arrangeora secondgathering t the endofthefirst. Seigelseems o think hatnocomments required. Yetthisstriking mission lone s enough o raisegravedoubtsagainstheassumptionhatBrunihadconceived seconddialoguewhen hefirstwaswritten.Ad 4 the title of the work. Seigelagainsaysnothingabouttheessentialpoints, namelythat the two dialoguesdid not have anauthor'sitle duringBruni's ifetimeandthatthe formDialogi s oflater rigin. His onlycomment oncerns matterwhich s notvitaltothe finalthesis;moreover,t is basedon a blunder. He assertsthatmy contention hat the title-formDe utilitatedisputationissindicativef one-dialoguemanuscriptscanberefutedbymanuscriptevidence".For, he thinks, an equivalentof this title Dedisputationis.. usu-is found in a fifteenth-centurymanuscript(Cod.Bibl. Laur.,LII 3) of the MediciLibrary hatcontainsbothdialogues.Answer:The allegedwordsarenot a partof the manu-script, hich s untitled. The titleto whichSeigelreferswasaddedfordentificationyA.M.Bandini,heeighteenth-centuryompiler fthe atalogue f the BibliotecaLaurenziana, hotookit, withslightchanges,romthe thenonlyextantprintededitionof Bruni'swork,publishedt Baselin I536 (or fromits exactreprint,Nuremberg,I734). Thatedition,whosefull titlebeginswith the wordLibellus(changedy Bandini o Dialogiduo),containsmerely he ProoemiumandDialogus . Since I was carefulto note all these facts inHumanisticndPoliticalLiteraturen I955, the confusionwroughtbySeigeln his unsuspectingeaderswastotallyunnecessary.Ad I-4. What, hen,remains f Seigel'sobjectionso mydemon-strationf the successivecomposition f the two dialogues Not


8/18

LEONARDO BRUNI 27a single fact, not a single modification; nothing but the creation ofmisleading errors in a field in which conclusive results had beenachieved.

IIIHow does Seigel make Bruni appear as a "professional andpractising rhetorician"? "It is curious", he says, "that . . . Baronhas readily seen the connection between the possibility of succeedingSalutatiand a writing of Vergerio [the humanist to whom Dialoguswasdedicated] about the Florentine republic . . ., but never makes similarobservationsabout the Laudatior the comments [on the merits of theLaudatio]n the Dialogi". In other words, since Vergerio composeda work on the Florentine republic in order to recommend himself forSalutati's office, why should it not be assumed that Bruni wrote hisLaudatiowith the same purpose? And then Seigel proposes hispicture of Bruni's professional motivation that is to replace theconception of Bruni the civic humanist and politically mindedFlorentine:

One purpose of the LaudatioFlorentinaeUrbismust have been to furtherhis candidacy or the post [of Floremine chancellor]....[Baron] gnores Bruni's obvious underlying hope that both the Laudatioand the Dialogiwould help to advancehis career n the Chancery.His career was that of a practising rhetorician, and his association withFlorence was formed in terms of it. There can be little doubt that he hopedto succeed Salutati as chancellor.... When he was passed over...Bruni's interest in Florence waned. He found a job (with Salutati'shelp) inthe papal curia, and quickly became absorbed in its concerns.Is it likely that an attachmentwhich faded out so easily had only a few yearsbefore been able to effect a total transformation f 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 beginwith an explanation of why I failed so "curiously" to draw a parallelbetween Vergerio's and Bruni's professional endeavours. The reasonis that, despite Seigel's contentions, neither Vergerio nor Brunicomposed the works in question at a time when they could be potentialcandidatesfor the Florentine chancellor'sposition. We do not reallyknow enough about Vergerio'sDe Republica lorentina, hich seemsnot to have been preserved, but he tells us clearly that the work wasnot newly written, but merely taken out of a drawer for polishing, atthe time when (as I suggested) he may have played for a moment withthe idea of applying for the Florentine chancellorship during its

11Seigel, "CiceronianRhetoric?", pp. 26 (n. 59), I6 (n. 33), and 25 f.


9/18

28PAST AND PRESENT NUMBER 36vacancy n December I406. 12 And it was only for a moment, becausein the end he did not applyat all and, probably,did not round out hisold draft. Presumably his drafthad been writtenbefore I40I, whenergerio was teaching and studying in Florence.l3 There was noacancyin the chancellor'spost before I406, nor could Vergerio asayoung, non-Tuscan strangerhave even dreamedthen of succeedingalutati. It would be equally fitting to argue that, since Vergerioalsowrote a DeRepublicaVenetornm,probablyduringthe same earlyyears,he must have done so in the hope of finding employment intheVenetianchancellery,althoughhe neverlived in Venice.he facts of Vergerio'slife, then, do not fit the claim of "profes-ional"motivationof his work on Florence. Do the facts of Bruni'slifeit the claimof his"professional"motivation? Seigel reproachesmeor ignoring those facts. To him, Bruni's conduct after writingtheLaudatiouggeststhat he must havebeen impelledby professionalonsiderations.For after the composition of the Laudatio,"whenhe as passed over" in his candidacy for the chancellery,l4 C'hefoundjob . . . in the papalcuria,and quicklybecameabsorbed n itsoncerns''.l5n other words, Seigel suggests a causal sequence:ritinghe Laudatio s a way of getting into ofiice, failing in thatttempt,nd becoming alienatedfrom Florence. But, again, reality

wasdifferent.Bruni'smove to the Curiadid not takeplace at the time demandedbySeigel'sheory. The relevant dates in Bruni's life are these: hewroteis Laudation I403/4 (in I400 accordingto Seigel); he leftlorenceor the Curia in March I405; and he was an unsuccessfulandidateor the Florentine chancellorship(after Salutati'sdeath) inMay406. Consequently, there was no sequence of events thatmighte used to bring the composition of the Laudatio nd theandidacyor the chancellor'soffice into a close relationship, or tomakeBruni's separation from Florence appear the result of arecedingailure in the plans of a "professionalrhetorician".ts also untrue that Bruni, after leaving Florence for the Curia,uicklyave up his concernfor Florence, thus revealingthe shallow-nessf is formerrelations.l6 Bruni'sapplicationfor the FlorentineNoturingthe vacancyafterSalutati'sdeath,as Seigel says(p. 26 n. 59).3 Cf.Humanistic ndPoliticalLiterature,p. I07 f. and II2 f.14 "Inavourof Pietrodi Ser Mino", says Seigel (p. 26), but this againis allmixedpbecause Pietro became chancellorin December I406, when Bruniwas otcandidate or the FlorentinepOSt.Seigel,"CiceronianRhetoric?",p. 26.6Cf.or whatfollows, Crisis,rev. edn., pp. 248-54; Humanistic ndPoliticalLiterature,p. I 59-6 I .


10/18

LEONARDOBRUNI 29position came fourteen months after his departureto the Curia. Allthat time his sense of identity with Florence had remained strong orhad even grown. When it began to fade, in the autumn of I406,the preceding failure of his friends in Florence to obtain the vacantpost for him played a minor rale, if any. The real cause was theattraction of an important new task the sudden sense of a mission.We know this definitely from Bruni's correspondence, which fromNovember I406 onward shows him passionately absorbed in changedinterests. Gregory XII, just elected, had sworn that he would doeverything to end the schism of the Church, if necessary at the priceof his own abdication, and Bruni was given the charge to phrase thedecisive diplomaticdocuments for this policy of union. In November,when the second vacancy n Florence occurred, he wrote home: "nowthat there is good hope that this baleful schism can be ended, I believeI should live here [at the Curia]".Before the emergence of this hope for service in an even greatercause, however, Bruni had borne the absence from Florence withanything but a light heart. Between August I405 and March I406,while the Curia stayed in the quiet country town of Viterbo, the pastFlorentine period of his life was, in fact, followed by a warm afterglow:his letters at that time are full of nostalgia for Florence and all thingsFlorentine; they continue to refer to Florentia nostra. Salutati in hisanswers called Bruni "more than half of my mind, my own selfthrough and through" and once even blamed Bruni for praisingFlorence too often in his letters. In an obituary on a Florentinepatrician written at Viterbo, Bruni still pictured the relationshipbetween the citizen and his patria in terms learned from Salutati:a man of noble and generous charactershould gratefully acknowledgethat he owes his best to his commonwealth, even more than to hisindividual talents.Since Dialogus II was written after I403-4, most probably duringBruni's stay in Viterbo (as shown in I955), it is againstthis backgroundof nostalgia and over-cultivation of the bonds with his Florentinefriends that the scene in Dialogus I in which the group around Salutatiis made to thank Bruni for his Laudatio becomes psychologicallyunderstandable. This does not mean that the idea that the Laudaliomight somehow help him to return to Florence could never havecrossed Bruni's mind, for human motivations are usually complex.But to ignore completely the fact that this extended sequel ofFlorentine sentiment occurred after Bruni's departure to the Curia,and to change the chronological order of the events in order todemonstrate that the disappointment of Bruni's professional hopes in


11/18

NUMBER 3 63o PAST AND PRESENTFlorence oincidedwith a swiftbreakwith his Florentine ast,comesa little too near he waysof writersof historical iction.

IVIs it, however, orrectat all to contend hat Bruni'sattachmentoFlorence"fadedout" (as Seigelputs it)l7 duringhis curialyears?Here, I am afraid, must blamemyselffor havingcontributedothe misunderstandingsf those who seek to give a "rhetorical"interpretationo Bruni's life. In my Crisis of lhe Early ItalianRenaissance, approached he problemof Bruni's "alienation" ycomparing is reactions t the time of the Laudatio ndat the momentwhen, owing to the promiseof GregoryXII to bring unity to theChurch, e believedhe had ounda new meaning orhis life. 8 Thereis, indeed, a gulf betweenthese two moments:Bruni, who in theLaudatio adexpressedhehopeof becoming hehistorian f Florence,in late I406 tells his Florentine riends that one of their fellow-citizens ought to be commissioned o write a historicalwork onFlorence'srecent deeds. The trouble with such comparisons fspecificutterancess, however, hat it is difficult o decidewhen andfor how long they were indicativeof their author'spoint of view.WasBruni'sapparentorgetfulnessn I406 abouthis plans o becomethe historianof Florencemerelya reactionat a fleetingmomentofhigh hopes or the unionof the Church Mighthe not havereacteddifferently ad he written he lettera yearor two later,when he hadbecomedisappointed y the pope's ailure o live up to his promiseWe may form a truer pictureof the effectson citizensof Italiancity-republics f holdinga curialoice if we consider hat the Curia,afterall, wasfar frombeingthe courtly ircleof a Renaissanceyrant.When Bruni'snon-Tuscan riend, Vergerio,was forced n I400 toreturn o Padua, he seat of the Carrara, xld here became he tutorof a youngprince,he was, indeed, ncreasingly xposed o influencesantagonistic o the outlookon life and history characteristic f theFlorentines;his positionon the relativemeritsof a republican nda monarchicalegimechanged adically hereafter. But in the papalservice, vfn a Tuscanhumanistike Poggio,who,unlikeBruni,madehis homeat the Curia or manydecades,by no meansentirely ost histypicallyFlorentinepoliticalconvictions. In fact, when, during heI430S, civic humanistsand courtlyhumanists n Italy found them-selves bitterly disagreeingover Scipio, the hero of the Roman17 See p. 27 above.

18 Crisis, rev. edn., pp. 252 f. I had at that point to determine he date afterwhich Bruni's new commitment made composition of such an intenselyFlorentine-patrioticpiece of writing as Dialogus I impossible.


12/18

LEONARDQBRUNI 3IRepublic, ndCaesar,hefounder fimperialmonarchy, oggio, romhis home at the Curia,becamethe leader of the republic-mindedhumanistsand the ally of similar-thinkingurialhumanists romVenice. Oneof the latter,Pietrodel Monte,wroteto Poggioat thetime: "why,then, should it seem strange o anyone f I, who wasborn, nursed,and brought up in the strongest ortress of liberty[Venice], mphaticallyndfrankly xpressdetestationor Caesar, he. . . destroyerof Roman iberty" 19 This is the self-analysisof a"professionalhetorician" f Venetiandescentandattachmentn thepapalservice.ForBruni, he papalCurianeverbecamea secondhome, as it didforPoggioandPietrodelMonte. During he ten years romI405 toI4I5, whenBrunibelonged o the Curia,he was notreallyseparatedfromFlorencegeographicallyor anylength of time in anycase,not afterthe periodof his briefdreamof committmento Gregory'spolicyof union n I406-8.2? In I409 he gaveup a canonrywhichhehadheld since I407, thusfinallydecidingupona layman's uture orhimself. In I4I0 he obtained he marriage ermission equired oroccupantsof curial posts,2land in I4I2 he married. During thesameyearshe oftenvisitedFlorence. In I409, like allFlorentines tthe Curia,he wasrecalledby the Florentine overnment,which wasdissatisfiedwith Gregory'sprocrastinationn the matterof union.22In I4I0-II he servedas Florentine hancelloror threemonths,butpreferredo return o the Curia;by joining he Popeelectedby theCouncilof Pisa, he could work at the Curia n the veryinterestofFlorence. Even n I4I5, whenhis increasingwealthmade t possiblefor himto settle in Florenceas a citizen,Florenceandthe Curiadidnotbecome woentirely eparate pheres orhim. After he Councilof Constance,he Curiastayed n Florence or long periods,and inI4I9-20 Bruniagainworked or a while in the curialservice.23At

19Crisis,rev. edn., pp. 66-9.20 Cf. for what follows, Crisis,rev. edn., pp. 246 ff.21Cf. W. von Hofmann, Forschungell ur Geschichte er kurialenBehordenvol. ii (Rome, I9I4), p. I07.22 Cf. LeoszardiruniAretiniEpistolarum ibri VIII, ed. L. Mehus (Florence,

I 74 I ), Epist. li. I 0.3 The fact that Bruni resumed his curialoffice in I4I9-20, while the Curiawas staying in Florence, is not mentioned in the sketches in Crisis,rev. edn.

pp. 246 f. and 409 ff. It emerges romBruni'sEpist.xi. I2 (cf. LeonardoBruni.Humanistisch-Philosophischechriften, d. H. Baron[Leipzig, I928], pp. 224 f.),written in Florence I5 March I4I9, where the following passage is found:"Haec mihi quoquevidebantur, qui ex tot annis quibus iam in Curiaversornihil talememiniadpontificemdelatum. Itaque . . . remdeferreadpontificempraetermisi". F. P. Luiso, in his unfinishedStuds su l'Epistolariodi L. Bruni(see Crisis, ISt edn., p. 52I), concluded from the letter: "EvidentementeLeonardo, giunto a Firenze Martino V., riprende il suo posto nella curia", anlNfereIlCe WhlCh 1S the more reliablebecauseLuiso found two papaldocumentsof I420 signed by Bruni.


13/18

NUMBER 362 PAST AND PRESENTthe same time, his influence at the Curia was repeatedly used by theFlorentinegovernment.

In spite of his various shorter or longer stays at the Curia, Brunialwaysremainedby residence as well as by sentimenttied to Florence.During his transientchancellorship n I4IO-I I he wasnot lookeduponas a hired foreigner or curial humanist; he was ofEcially"MessereLeonardo di Ceccho d'Arezzo, del contado di Firenze".24 When heappliedfor, and was granted,citizenship in I4I6, he had to provethatfor the more than twenty past years he had been a Florentinein fact.Although born in FlorentineArezzo, he declared, after his childhoodhe had continuously lived with Florentine citizens, had neverrecognized any other patria, and had never established his familyresidence elsewhere.25 Naturally, Bruni tried to prove here that hehad met the legal requirement of maintaining a Florentine residencefor more than two decades; but this presupposes that throughoutthose yearshe had sufficientlyprovided for meeting that requirement.Besides, we should keep in mind that all this waspossiblefor him onlybecause he was a Tuscan from the Florentine territorial state andfrom the beginning had been considered a semi-Florentine.There is nothing, then, in Bruni's life after he first took a positionin the Curia that in any way justifies our consideringhim a typicalprofessional rhetorician, one whose loyalties change as he wandersfrom state to state. If he belongs in any categoryat all, it is ratherthe category of those residerltsof the territory subjectto Florencewhofor generationshad been attracted to the capital and who, thanks tothe opportunity afforded to rise there in the notariate and juridicalprofessions,were soon to providesome of the most brilliantrepresen-tatives of Florentine Renaissanceculture.When due attention is paid to the provincial origin of manyFlorentine humanists, one becomes aware of the fact that Florencewas not an isolated city-state but functioned as capitaland focal pointof the northern Tuscan region. Such immigrant intellectuals, asnewcomers and representatives of social mobility, at times met withresistancefromnativeelements. But the influx fromthe surroundingTuscan province had always been an operating force in Florentinelife, and at least for the professions (as well as for the artists) itcontinuedto play adecisiverole in the fabric of Renaissancecivilization.

24 Cf. D. Marzi,La Cancelleria ellaRepubblica iorentina RoccaS. Casciano,I9IO), p- IS926 See the summation of Bruni's application in the grant of Florentinecitizenship on 26 June I4I6, edited in E. Santini'sLeonardoBruniArelino ei Suoi "Historiarum Florentini Populi Libri XII" (Pisa, IgIo), p. I33.


14/18

LEONARDOBRUNI 33Psychologically and ideologically, the process of assimilationinvolved complex problems for the individuals concerned. Yet, notinfrequently, by being able to approach the Florentine traditionsfrom a certain distance and by elaborating them in thought andwriting, immigrants such as Bruni became the most originalrepresentativesof the ideas and ideals that distinguishedtheiradoptedcity. But however one wishes to appraise these subtle processes,nothing can be less suited to determine the characteristic raits of thismobility of Tuscan life than the model of the itinerant "professionalrhetorician" sophisticatedand often efficientin public service, butnowhere really at home, and not to be taken too seriously in his

expressionof political and ethical convictions an orator and writerwho offers his services to a multitude of lords. No doubt, there wasa place for this type of professionalhumanistin the life of RenaissanceItaly; but when it comes to understandingthe political humanismdeveloping in city-republics like Florence and Venice, nothing couldbe more confusing and farther from the truth than to maintain thatall humanistsshould be tarredwith the same brush.V

The contention that office in a chancellery was the inevitableprofessionalgoal of a humanistis also demonstrablywrong in Bruni'scase. Although he allowed his Florentine friends to place his nameon the list of candidates after Salutati'sdeath (in the spring of I406),he never again competed actively for the Florentine chancellorship.As we haveseen, thereis no evidencefor his allegedearlierprofessionalaspirationswhen writing the Laudatio. For his life after I406 it canbe positively shown that, if he thought of holding oice in Florenceat all, he did so with the strongest reservations. He was quitelukewarmin his acceptanceof the Florentine chancellorshipfor oneyear in I4I0, and after only three months he resigned. We hear oftwo 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 Thismust be weighed together with our other information. As early asthe time of the Laudatio, runi'sultimategoal had been to become thehistorian of Florence and Florence'shistoryhad neverbeen 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 acceptedit merelybecause refusalwould have causedhim even greater"incommoda"-Poggio, inhis obituaryoration in Mehus'edition of Bruni'sEpistolae, ol. i, p. cxxi),statesthat "majorisspes emolumenti"was anothermotive for Brunito return to theCuria.


15/18

NUMBER 3 634 PAST AND PRESENTby the chancellors of the Republic. It had been the work ofindependent, private citizens such as the various members of theVillani family. Now that the humanistic vision of the ancient citizenwas emerging, Bruni's guiding idea became to do for Florence whatLivy had done for Rome.27Another side-light on Bruni is provided by several of our sources.They describe him as a person somewhat more niggardly han behoveda humanistic man of letters.28 Shortly after giving up the chancellor'soice so easily in I4II he married a woman with an unusually richdowry. Moreover, in I4I5, as soon as the fortune acquired in hiscurial office permitted, and at the first legally possible moment, heapplied for Florentine citizenship and immediately started work on hisHistory, iving henceforth as a scholar and writer of private means.Evidently, the ideal which he pursued with an iron will was not theprofessionalcareer of the rhetoricianbut the status of an esteemed andwell-to-do citizen, writing the history of his city and living at thecentre of its cultural life - an existence much more in harmonywith a citizen's inclinations, and also much more in correspondencewith the image which men of the Quattrocento had formed of Livyand Tacitus.

It is true) of course, that Bruni did accept the chancellor'spositionin I427 and went on to become its greatest representative. But it isequally true that he had not striven for this office and that he acceptedit with reluctance when it came. In I426, due to the great respect inwhich he was held at the Curia, he was sent to the Pope as Florentineambassador,and his achievement on this occasion made him appearin the following year as the ideal person for the chancellor's position.To his friends he wrote, however, that the office "has fallen to my lot,contrary to all my wishes"; the "life of otium" led for so many years,27 This is the perspective from which Bruni himself and his contemporariessaw his life-work. When, in old age, Bruni once felt slandered by anothercitizen in a city council, his passionate answer, according to Vespasiano daBisticci, was that throughouthis life he had tried to honour his adopted city bywriting its history for lasting memory, "just as Rome has become celebratedthrough its illustrious writers [of history], especially Livy" (Vespasiano daBisticci, Vite di nomini llustri, ed. L. Frati, vol. ii [Bologna,I893], pp. 26 f.).After Bruni's death, an anonymous citizen in the chancellery, recalling whatBruni had meant to Florence, compared him with Livy, whom Spaniardsand Gauls had travelled all the way to Rome to see: just so, people from allover Europe had travelledto Florence to see Bruni. (Text in Santini, Op. Cit.,

p. I54)-28 Cf. Poggio's obituaryoration on Bruni, ed. Mehus, Op. Cit., vol. i, p. cxxiiand 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 buildup a family fortune, but praisedhim; see the anonymouscitizen, quoted in theprecedingnote, pp. I53 f.


16/18

LEONARDOBRUNI 35"dedicated to litteraestudiaque",had been morepleasant and tranquilthan this new "vita negociosa t civilis. But I had to obey the demandof the patria, which we must not obstinately withstand beyond acertain point, as Socrates in [Plato's] Critowisely teaches". In anycase, he said, he had accepted the office merely for a limited period;he had not given up his formerplans forever.29 It canbe arguedthatall this is mere rhetoric, by which we should not be deceived. ButBruni'scontemporaries udgeddifferently.Poggio wrote to Brunifromthe Curia that he had originally not liked the news that Bruni hadaccepted this kind of oice. "But I learned subsequently, and thishas given me the greatestdelight, that you not only did not seek thejob, but initially refused to accept it when it was offered, until youfinally relented, yielding to the entreaty of your friends". Poggiowas ready to send his congratulations,provided that Bruni would,indeed, try to regain his liberty: "after you have done your part forthe Republic", he said, "do not forsake the studialitterarum".30We can be positive, therefore, that neither in Bruni's eyes nor inthose of his friends did his attainment of the chancellor'soffice in I 427appear the crowning-point of a "rhetorician's"professional career.The real meaning and value of this office for him will be understoodwhen it is seen against the background of the uneven course of hisliterary activities after I4I5.31 For six years afterwards his workexhibited all the marks of what we have learned to regard as thepattern of civic humanism. He proceeded steadily with his Historyof theFlorentinePeople and with a number of politico-historicalworkswhich, continuing the approach of the Laudatio, set forth therepublicaninterpretation of Roman and Florentine history that wasto remain characteristicof the Florentine Renaissance. At the sametime, he developed a philosophy of the values inherent in the vitaactiva et politica. And there were contacts with the actual world ofpolitics: Bruni establishedrelationswith the ruling aristocraticcircle,as is indicated by a commission to revise the statute of the Parte

29 Bruni,Epist. . 8 (I428): "Vitatamenilla ociosa, itteris studiisqueintentajocundior erat michi atque tranquillior,quam haec negociosaet civilis. SedPatriae voluntati parendum fuit, cui neque repugnare ad extremum, nequerefragaricontumaciterdebemus, ut Socratesin Critone sapientissimedocet".Epist. x. 7 (I428): "Credoexiimaudivisse te literatoex ocio invitum repugnan-temqueme jussuCivitatis negociispublicisfuissepraefectum".30Poggio, Epist. iii. I6 (I427), ed. Tonelli, vol. i, pp. 2IS f.: "Audivipostea

quod mihi fuit summaevoluptati,te non solum non appetiisseid munus, sedoblatum primo recusasse: denique victum, coactumque, cessisse precibusamicorum". ". . . et cum reipublicae feceris satis, non omittas studia littera-rum".31 Cf. for whatfollows,Crisis, rev. edn., pp. 409-II.


17/18

36 PAST AND PRESENT NUMBER 3 6Guelfa in I4I9-20) and by the dedication f his De Militia o Rinaldodegli Albizzi(in I42I).

After 42I, however, he generaldirection f Bruni's aboursbegansubtly o change. Whereas he workon his Historyno longermovedforward,during he next five or six years I42I-6) he publishedmostof the writings on which his reputation ests as one of the greatphilological cholars nd educationalwritersof the fifteenth entury.There was no let-down n the vigourand attainment f his studies.But there was, it seems, a gradual weakeningof that politicalcomponentn his thought hat had madehis humanism esponsive othe worldaroundhim in the yearsbefore 406, whenhe had lived inSalutati's ircle,and again n the first yearsafter 4I5, when he hadsettleddownas a citizen-scholar. His personal ontactswith someofthe leadingcitizenscould n the long run not makeup for what wasmissing n his civic ife: a new citizenduring he Albizziperiodhadnoaccess o any of the higherelectiveoffices. Thus we find that evenwhen war with the Viscontiagainbrokeout about he middleof theI420S, the renewedpolitical hallenge ad little immediatempactonthe nature of Bruni's studies. Without the constant challengeexertedby an activecitizen's ife, mere scholarshipwould not allowcivic humanismo developbeyonda certainpoint.Only after his mission to Rome in I426 and his taking ofoffice n I427 did Bruni's ife and literaryactivitiescome finally otranslate nto reality he ideal he had affirmed rom his early years.The oEce in the chancellerybroughthim the politicalexperiencethat normal, ull-fledged itizens derivedfrom participationn theelective oEces. During the early Efteenth century, a time ofincreasing interaction among the Italian states, the chancellorgradually ecame he central upervisor f all contacts f the Republicwith other states due to the fact that he was the only permanentfunctionary, hile he electedofficeholders hangedn quickrotation.The chancellorwrote the correspondence ith foreign states afterattending he meetingsof the executiveofficials. He phrasedandtransmitted he instructions o all Florentineambassadors, orre-sponded with them, and receivedtheir written reports after theirreturn.32 Thus Bruniwas at the centreof events,as were few otherFlorentines,during the new phase of the struggleof the Republicwith the Visconti a strugglewhichhadnot yet endedwhenhe diedin I444

32 Cf. F. P. Luiso, Archivio StoricoItaliano, sth ser., xxi (I898), I32 ff., andMarzi, Cancelleria,p. 166, I94 f.


18/18

LEONARDOBRUNI 37While he was busy with diplomatic correspondence and the city'spropaganda, he older trends of his humanistic work grew to maturity.

In spite of the immense demand on his time made by his office, heresumed the Historyof the Florentine eople,which again took firstplace in his humanistic activities; the books that describe the powerstruggles of the recent past and of his own day were added at thattime. Since he wanted to write for ordinary citizens, and not merelyfor Latin-trained scholars, the vernacular found a place in hishumanism. He defended the Florentine Volgaren theory and put itto practicaluse in some of his writings, especially in the Vita of Dante,where he sees in Dante, during his younger years, the perfect union ofstudious pursuits and a citizen's involvement in his state - such asBruni himself had eventually achieved in his own life. Since theearly years of the Medici era, after I434) afforded certain of the newcitizens a chance to become participants in the highest electiveoffices, the last decade of Bruni's life saw the full, almost symbolicrealization of the idea that had long been at the heart of the civichumanism of Quattrocento Florence-the idea that only throughdirect contact with the actuality of society and the responsibility ofpolitical action can culture and thought be properly nourished andbrought to fruition.This, in quick outline, is the picture of Bruni's humanistic careerand work that emerges from the perspective of fifteenth-century"civic humanism". If we were to interpret humanism as a basicallyrhetorical movement, we would find, on the contrary, as Seigel says,that

it is wrong .. to see Brunias motivatedchieflyby political eeling .... Politicalcorlcerns did not shape his thought.... At every point in his careerBruni's entry into Florentine ife was made through his practice of the art ofrhetoric. Even in the years after I427 when Bruni was a distinguished igurein Florence, it is clear that his cultural activities derived from a concern fororatory first, and for civic participationonly secondarily. ... His concernfor civic life was the concernof a practisingorator.33To me it is impossible to believe that many historians will be readyto adopt this inherently negative, inadequate, and wholly artificialformula in exchange for so much of the historical reality of Florentineand humanistic life which, as we thought, had once again becomevisible.

Newberry ibrary nd University f Chicago HansBaron

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

baron, h., leonardo bruni _professional rhetorician_ or _civic humanist_#7ae9

Documents